nach oben

The Review of International Organizations

Erschienen in:

01.09.2015

Measuring attitudes toward regional organizations outside Europe

verfasst von: Bernd Schlipphak

Erschienen in: The Review of International Organizations | Ausgabe 3/2015

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

What shapes public attitudes toward regional organizations (ROs)? Although a number of articles have focused on the causes, design, and effectiveness of ROs in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America, research so far has neglected to study the factors influencing public opinion regarding these bodies. This exploratory article argues that public attitudes toward organizations in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America are shaped by citizens’ fundamental economic and ideational perceptions and by their trust in domestic actors. These hypotheses are tested by employing data from the Afrobarometer and Latinobarometro surveys. The findings lend more credibility to the assumption that citizens outside Europe use heuristics instead of utilitarian cost-benefit analyses when asked for their attitudes toward regional integration and its organizations.

Vorheriger Artikel Do human rights violations hinder counterterrorism cooperation? Evidence from the FBI’s deployment abroad

Nächster Artikel Balancing design objectives: Analyzing new data on voting rules in intergovernmental organizations

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Although higher education has so far been demonstrated to be nearly always positively connected to more favorable attitudes toward free trade, the picture is more complicated when it concerns regional integration attitudes. For example, Brinegar and Jolly (2005) show that higher education is actually negatively correlated to citizens’ support for deepening regional integration and that the strength of the negative effect significantly varies over the type of welfare regime where citizens are living. However, Gabel and Palmer (1995) and Gabel (1998) demonstrate that higher education caused people to perceive the EU more positively in the 1990s. For the most recent data, Harteveld et al. (2013) and Hakhverdian et al. (2013) controlled for divergent hierarchical levels by applying multilevel methods as well as models with country-fixed effects to demonstrate that citizens’ trust in the EU is significantly and positively affected by their level of education.

Gabel (1998), for example, reports the findings of previous studies demonstrating that several indicators expected from a utilitarian perspective — such as higher levels of education, income, occupational skills and a closer proximity of a citizen’s residence to border regions — positively influenced citizens’ attitudes toward regional integration (337). However, Gabel then questions the theoretical validity of these indicators, mentioning that “education, income, and occupational skills are positively correlated with cognitive skills” that might make “the evidence supporting the utilitarian theory […] merely capture the influence of cognitive mobilization on support” (337 f.).

This is not to say that domestic elites in both regions do not potentially see regional cooperation or the rhetorical emphasis of its necessity as merely an instrument by which to remain in power (see, e.g., Mosinger 2012). However, I would emphasize that the idea of “African unity” is much more common in the discourse of sub-Saharan African elites than Latin or South American unity among the elites of Latin America (see, again, Makinda and Okumu 2008; Söderbaum 2007).

All data and models used in the article are available to the general public on the author’s and the journal’s website. The author wants to thank the Latinobarometro Corporation and the Afrobarometer for providing the original data (Latinobarometro 2014; Afrobarometer 2014).

The Latin American countries included are the following: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Chile, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela. The sub-Saharan African countries included are the following: Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. Spain, which is also covered by the Latinobarometro, is excluded from further analysis for obvious reasons. Additionally, because several Latin American countries are not members of any of the ROs where citizens’ attitudes were surveyed, the number of countries (and individuals) is lower for most of the calculations in the remainder of the paper.

Only analyzing the attitudes of citizens from countries that are Unasur members obviously limits the number of countries and citizens included in the Latin American model. Only nine countries (out of the 18 Latin American countries surveyed by the Latinobarometro) are part of the Unasur. The number of respondents living in these countries—and therefore included in the analysis—is 10,804.

Although Kwon (2010) discusses this problem, he nevertheless still does not offer findings for models that exclude these problematic respondents.

Future research should also go more deeply into discussing what actually makes some citizens knowledgeable regarding international organizations. Citizens’ increasing awareness regarding who decides what—and with what consequences—for the international and domestic level is not only normatively desirable; it might also have an impact on the context in which national domestic elites are able to act. The ability of government actors to shift responsibility to the international level—for example, blaming the IMF for the effects of a financial crisis—as well as to gain support for international policies—for example, sending troops on AU-led missions—should be strongly influenced by the level of knowledge that citizens have regarding the international actor and policy in question. Therefore, identifying the factors making citizens more likely to share this knowledge is of high analytical value and should be confronted in future research endeavours.

Note that these three variables might already be strongly correlated. We could assume that there is an educational gap between men and women because some cultures are more likely to allow higher education to be available only to men. In addition, we might assume that this gender gap in educational status is stronger among the older generations than among younger generations.

In all the robustness check models, citizens not answering or answering ‘Don’t Know’ on the question regarding RO evaluation were excluded from the analysis. Similar to Luskin and Bullock (2011: 547), I am convinced that “‘Don’t Know’ means ‘Don’t Know’”. That is, citizens choosing this answer option should never be treated as giving actually (negative) evaluative answers.

I must thank one of the reviewers for directing me to this possibility of testing for the robustness of the empirical findings. Because employing the adapted Heckoprobit model by each country resulted in the non-convergence of models, I used single-level ordered logit models with robust standard errors. For every country model, I checked for violations of the assumption of the homoscedasticity of error variances. If violations appeared, I recalculated an adapted oglm model. However, in the appendix, I only report the results of the last calculations if they significantly deviate from the findings from the ordered logit model.

Acharya, A. (2011). Norm subsidiarity and regional orders: sovereignty, regionalism and rule-making in the third world. International Studies Quarterly, 55(1), 95–123.CrossRef

Afrobarometer (2014). Afrobarometer Data: Wave 4. Available at: http://www.afrobarometer.org/data/data-rounds-merged (Accessed 15 September 2014).

Anderson, C. J. (1998). When in doubt, use proxies. Attitudes toward domestic politics and support for European integration. Comparative Political Studies, 31(5), 569–601.CrossRef

Armingeon, K., & Ceka, B. (2014). The loss of trust in the European union during the great recession since 2007: the role of heuristics from the national political system. European Union Politics, 15(1), 82–107.CrossRef

Baker, A. (2003). Why is trade reform so popular in Latin America? A consumption-based theory of trade policy preferences. World Politics, 55(3), 423–455.CrossRef

Berinsky, A. (2004). Silent voices. Public opinion and political participation in America. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.

Boomgarden, H. G., Schuck, A. R. T., Elenbaas, M., & De Vreese, C. H. (2011). Mapping EU attitudes, conceptual and empirical dimensions of euroscepticism and EU support. European Union Politics, 12(2), 241–266.CrossRef

Brewer, P. R., Gross, K., Aday, S., & Willnat, L. (2004). International trust and public opinion about world affairs. American Journal of Political Science, 48(1), 93–109.CrossRef

Brinegar, A. P., & Jolly, S. K. (2005). Location, location, location. National contextual factors and public support for European integration. European Union Politics, 6(2), 155–180.CrossRef

Cameron, C. A., & Trivedi, P. K. (2010). Microeconometrics using Stata. College Station: Stata Press.

Carey, S. (2002). Undivided loyalties. Is national identity an obstacle to European integration? European Union Politics, 3(4), 387–413.CrossRef

Carranza, M. E. (2003). Can mercosur survive? Domestic and international constraints on mercosur. Latin American Politics and Society, 45(2), 67–103.CrossRef

Clark, N., & Hellwig, T. (2011). Information effects and mass support for EU policy control. European Union Politics, 13(4), 535–557.CrossRef

Davis, C. L. (1998). Mass support for economic integration. The case of NAFTA and the Mexican public. Mexican Studies, 14(1), 105–130.CrossRef

Davis, C. L., & Bartilow, H. A. (2007). Cognitive images and support for international economic agreements with the United States among Mexican citizens. Latin American Politics and Society, 49(2), 123–147.CrossRef

De Vries, C., & Edwards, E. E. (2009). Taking Europe to its extremes. Extremist parties and public euroscepticism. Party Politics, 15(1), 5–28.CrossRef

Doctor, M. (2013). Prospects for deepening mercosur integration: economic asymmetry and institutional deficits. Review of International Political Economy, 20(3), 515–540.CrossRef

Duch, R., & Taylor, M. (1997). Economics and the vulnerability of the pan-european institutions. Political Behavior, 19(1), 65–80.CrossRef

Ecker-Ehrhardt, M. (2012). Cosmopolitan politicization? Relating public perceptions of interdependence and expectations in internationalized governance. European Journal of International Relations, 18(3), 481–508.CrossRef

Edwards, M. S. (2009). Public support for the international economic organizations: evidence from developing countries. Review of International Organizations, 4(2), 185–209.CrossRef

Ehrlich, S., & Maestas, C. (2010). Risk orientation, risk exposure and policy opinions: the case of free trade. Political Psychology, 31(5), 657–684.CrossRef

Estrades, C. (2006). Opinion publica y mercosur. Conocimiento y apoyo de los uruguayos al proceso de integracion regional. Revista Uruguaya de Ciencia Politica, 15, 107–127.

Fordham, B. O. (2008). Economic interests and public support for American global activism. International Organization, 62(1), 163–182.CrossRef

Gabel, M. J. (1998). Public support for European integration: an empirical test of five theories. The Journal of Politics, 60(2), 333–354.CrossRef

Gabel, M., & Palmer, H. (1995). Understanding variation in public support for European integration. European Journal of Political Research, 27(1), 3–19.CrossRef

Gabel, M. J., & Scheve, K. (2007). Mixed messages. Party dissent and mass opinion on European integration. European Union Politics, 8(1), 37–59.CrossRef

Genna, G. M. (2009). Positive country images, trust and public support for European integration. Comparative European Politics, 7(2), 213–232.CrossRef

Gomez-Mera, L. (2009). Domestic constraints on regional cooperation: explaining trade conflict in mercosur. Review of International Political Economy, 16(5), 746–777.CrossRef

Hainmueller, J., & Hiscox, M. (2006). Learning to love globalization: education and attitudes toward international trade. International Organization, 60(2), 469–498.CrossRef

Hainmueller, J., & Hiscox, M. (2007). Educated preferences: explaining attitudes toward immigration in Europe. International Organization, 61(2), 399–442.CrossRef

Hakhverdian, A., van Elsas, E., van der Brug, W., & Kuhn, T. (2013). Euroscepticism and education: a longitudinal study of 12 EU member states, 1973-2010. European Union Politics, 14(4), 522–541.CrossRef

Harteveld, E., van der Meer, T., & De Vries, C. E. (2013). In Europe we trust? Exploring three logics of trust in the european union. European Union Politics, 14(4), 542–565.CrossRef

Herzog, A., & Tucker, J. A. (2010). The dynamics of support. The winners-losers gap in attitudes toward EU membership in post-communist countries. European Political Science Review, 2(2), 235–267.CrossRef

Hobolt, S. B. (2007). Taking cues on Europe? Voter competence and party endorsement in referendums on European integration. European Journal of Political Research, 36(1), 151–182.CrossRef

Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2005). Calculation, community and cues: public opinion on European integration. European Union Politics, 6(4), 419–443.CrossRef

Inglehart, R. (1970). Cognitive mobilization and European identity. Comparative Politics, 3(1), 45–70.CrossRef

Inglehart, R. (1971). Public opinion and European integration. In L. N. Lindberg & S. A. Scheingold (Eds.), European integration (pp. 160–191). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Jhee, B.-K. (2009). Public support for regional integration in Northeast Asia: an empirical test of affective and utilitarian models. International Political Science Review, 30(1), 49–65.CrossRef

Johnson, T. (2011). Guilt by association: the link between States’ influence and the legitimacy of intergovernmental organizations. Review of International Organizations, 6(1), 57–84.CrossRef

Johnson Sirleaf, E. (2013). Liberia: Opening Remarks by H.E. President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf At the African Union High-Level Committee Meeting on the Post-2015 Agenda. http://allafrica.com/stories/201309241581.html?viewall=1. Accessed 26 November 2013.

Kaltenthaler, K. C., & Miller, W. J. (2013). Social psychology and public support for trade liberalization. International Studies Quarterly, 57(4), 784–790.CrossRef

Kaltenthaler, K. C., Gelleny, R. D., & Ceccoli, S. J. (2004). Explaining citizen support for trade liberalization. International Studies Quarterly, 48(4), 829–851.CrossRef

Kim, S., & Shin, E.-H. (2001). A longitudinal analysis of globalization and regionalization in international trade: a social network approach. Social Forces, 81(2), 445–468.CrossRef

Kwon, H. Y. (2010). Globalization, cultural openness, and public preferences for East Asian economic integration in South Korea. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 23(1), 2–23.CrossRef

Latinobarometro (2014). Data Bank: Latinobarometro 2009. Available at: http://www.latinobarometro.org/latContents.jsp (Accessed 15 September 2014).

Lubbers, M., & Jaspers, E. (2011). A longitudinal study of euroscepticism in the Netherlands: 2008 versus 1990. European Union Politics, 12(1), 21–40.CrossRef

Lubbers, M., & Scheepers, P. (2010). Divergent trends of euroscepticism in countries and regions of the EU. European Journal of Political Research, 49(6), 787–817.CrossRef

Luskin, R. G., & Bullock, J. G. (2011). ’Don’t know’ means ‘Don’t Know’. DK responses and the public’s level of political knowledge. The Journal of Politics, 73(2), 547–557.CrossRef

Machida, S. (2009). Globalization and the legitimacy of intergovernmental organizations. International Studies, 46(4), 371–400.CrossRef

Magaloni, B., & Romero, V. (2008). Partisan cleaves, state retrenchement, and free trade. Latin America in the 1990s. Latin America Research Review, 43(2), 107–135.CrossRef

Makinda, S., & Okumu, F. W. (2008). The African union. London: Routledge.

Mansfield, E. D., & Mutz, D. C. (2009). Support for free trade: self-interest, sociotropic politics and out-group anxiety. International Organization, 63(3), 425–457.CrossRef

Margalit, Y. (2012). Lost in globalization: international economic integration and the sources of popular discontent. International Studies Quarterly, 56(3), 484–500.CrossRef

Mayda, A. M., & Rodrik, D. (2005). Why are some people (and countries) more protectionist than others? European Economic Review, 49(6), 1393–1430.CrossRef

Mays, T.M. (2003). African Solutions for African Problems: The Changing Face of African-Mandated Peace Operations. Journal of Conflict Studies, 23 (1), http://journals.hil. unb.ca/index.php/JCS/article/viewArticle/353/552. Accessed 26 November 2013.

McLaren, L. (2002). Public support for the European union: cost/benefit analysis or perceived cultural threat? The Journal of Politics, 64(2), 551–566.CrossRef

McLaren, L. (2007). Explaining mass level euroscepticism: identity, interests, and institutional distrust. Acta Politica, 42(2), 233–251.CrossRef

McPherson, A. (Ed.). (2006). Anti-Americanism in Latin America and the Caribbean. Oxford: Berghan Books.

Milner, H. V., & Tingley, D. (2011). Who supports global economic engagement? The sources of preferences in American foreign economic policy. International Organization, 65(1), 37–68.CrossRef

Mosinger, E. (2012). Crafted by crises: Regional integration and democracy in South America. In L. Fioramonti (Ed.), Regions and crises (pp. 163–179). Houndsmill: Palgrave.

Norris, P. (2000). Global governance and cosmopolitan citizens. In J. S. Nye & J. D. Donahue (Eds.), Governance in a globalizing world (pp. 155–177). Washington: Brookings.

PEW. 2013. Despite Challenges, Africans are Optimistic about the Future. PEW Global Attitudes Survey Report. http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/11/08/despite-challenges-africans-are-optimistic-about-the-future/ Accessed 26 November 2013.

Ray, L. (2007). Public opinion, socialization, and political communication. In K. Jörgensen, M. Pollack, & B. Rosamond (Eds.), Handbook of European union politics (pp. 263–281). London: Sage.

Sartori, A. (2003). An estimator for some binary-outcome selection models without exclusion restrictions. Political Analysis, 11(1), 111–138.CrossRef

Sattler, T., & Urpelainen, J. (2012). Explaining public support for international integration: how do national conditions and treaty characteristics interact with individual beliefs? Journal of Politics, 74(4), 1108–1124.CrossRef

Scheve, K., & Slaughter, M. J. (2001). What determines individual trade-policy preferences? Journal of International Economics, 54(2), 267–292.CrossRef

Schoen, H. (2008). Identity, instrumental self-interest and institutional evaluations: explaining public opinion on common European policies in foreign affairs and defence. European Union Politics, 9(1), 5–29.CrossRef

Seligson, M. A. (1999). Popular support for regional economic integration in Latin America. Journal of Latin American Studies, 31(1), 129–150.CrossRef

Söderbaum, F. (2007). African regionalism and EU-African interregionalism. In M. Telo (Ed.), European union and new regionalism (pp. 185–221). Cornwall: Ashgate.

Solingen, E. (2008). The genesis, design and effects of regional institutions: lessons from East Asia and the middle East. International Studies Quarterly, 52(2), 261–294.CrossRef

Solis, M. (2011). Global economic crisis: boom or bust for East Asian trade integration? The Pacific Review, 24(3), 311–336.CrossRef

Steenbergen, M. R., Edwards, E. E., & De Vries, C. E. (2007). Who’s cueing whom? Mass-elite linkages and the future of European integration. European Union Politics, 8(1), 13–35.CrossRef

Tavares, R. (2011). The participation of SADC and ECOWAS in military operations: the weight of national interests in decision-making. African Studies Review, 54(2), 145–176.CrossRef

Tucker, J. A., Pacek, A. C., & Berinsky, A. J. (2002). Transitional winners and losers: attitudes toward EU membership in post-communist countries. American Journal of Political Science, 46(3), 557–571.CrossRef

Vasconcelos, A. (2007). European union and MERCOSUR. In M. Telo (Ed.), European union and new regionalism (pp. 165–183). Cornwall: Ashgate.

Vigevani, T., & Ramanzini, H., Jr. (2011). The impact of domestic politics and international changes on the Brazilian perception of regional integration. Latin American Politics and Society, 53(1), 125–155.CrossRef

Walraven, K. V. (2010). Heritage and transformation: From the organization of African unity to the African union. In U. Engel & J. Gomes Porto (Eds.), Africa’s new peace and security architecture (pp. 31–56). Ashgate: Farnham/Burlington.

Williams, R. (2010). Fitting heterogeneous choice models with oglm. The Stata Journal, 10(4), 540–567.

Titel: Measuring attitudes toward regional organizations outside Europe
verfasst von: Bernd Schlipphak
Publikationsdatum: 01.09.2015
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: The Review of International Organizations / Ausgabe 3/2015
Print ISSN: 1559-7431
Elektronische ISSN: 1559-744X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-014-9205-5

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2015

Balancing design objectives: Analyzing new data on voting rules in intergovernmental organizations

Heidi Hardt. 2014. Time to react: The efficiency of international organizations in crisis response. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Delegation and pooling in international organizations

Do human rights violations hinder counterterrorism cooperation? Evidence from the FBI’s deployment abroad

Leonardo Baccini and Johannes Urpelainen. 2014. Cutting the Gordian Knot of Economic Reform. When and How International Institutions Help (New York: Oxford University Press)