Winners and losers of globalization in
Europe: attitudes and ideologies
C É L I N E T E N E Y
1
*, O N A W A P R O M I S E L A C E W E L L
2
A N D
P I E T E R D E W I L D E
3
1
Department of Migration, Integration and Transnationalization, Social Sciences Research Centre Berlin (WZB),
Reichpietschufer, Berlin, Germany
2
Department of Democracy and Democratization, Social Sciences Research Centre Berlin (WZB), Reichpietschufer,
Berlin, Germany
3
Department of Global Governance, Social Sciences Research Centre Berlin (WZB), Reichpietschufer, Berlin, Germany
Globalization pressures result in a new ideological conflict among Europeans. We use
detailed items from the Eurobarometer survey on issues of immigration and European
integration that measure the ideological perspective underpinning positions toward the
EU. This provides a fine-grained analysis of the ideologies underlying the poles of the new
globalization-centered conflict line, which we define as cosmopolitan and communitarian.
Our results show that, next to socio-demographic characteristics, subjective measurements
have a considerable additional power in explaining the divide among Europeans along the
communitarian–cosmopolitan dimension. Subjective deprivation, evaluation of globalization
as a threat, and (sub)national and supranational identities play an important role in dividing
Europeans into groups of winners and losers of globalization in both Western and Central
and Eastern European countries. At the country level, the national degree of globalization is
associated positively with the communitarian pole and negatively with the cosmopolitan
pole in all EU countries.
Keywords: globalization; societal conflict; cosmopolitanism; communitarianism; EU;
immigration
Introduction
The ideological space in Western Europe is shifting as a consequence of globalization
(e.g., Kriesi et al., 2008, 2012; Bornschier, 2010; Azmanova, 2011). Globalization
polarizes the population into groups of winners and losers that do not necessarily
follow classical cleavage divisions, such as the class or confessional divides identified
by Lipset and Rokkan (1967). In a nutshell, losers of globalization are citizens
who see their life chances reduced by the effects of globalization while winners are
those who consider themselves to have benefitted from globalization. Coherent
ideological and attitudinal positions underlie the poles of this new conflict: each of
these groups tends to support antagonistic positions regarding ‘denationalization’
(Zürn, 1998), which refers to the opening-up of national borders for a range of
international exchange and interaction. In the following, we demonstrate that the
* E-mail: celine.teney@wzb.eu
European Political Science Review (2014), 6:4, 575–595 © European Consortium for Political Research
doi:10.1017/S1755773913000246
First published online 26 November 2013
575
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773913000246
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiteitsbibliotheek Utrecht, on 31 Dec 2017 at 15:27:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
operationalization of winners and losers of globalization should encompass both
objective socio-demographic characteristics and subjective measurements such as
subjective deprivation, the perception of globalization as a threat and collective
identities. Moreover, we show that this new globalization-driven conflict encompasses
more than attitudes toward the opening or closing of borders and is underpinned,
additionally, by cosmopolitan and communitarian ideological dispositions. This
complexity brings the conflict closer in line with what we would expect of a new
cleavage (cf. Bartolini and Mair, 1990) rather than simply a new socio-political divide.
Thus far, most of the empirical literature on this new conflict focuses on political
parties, leaving the attitudes of the population relatively understudied (with some
exceptions, see for instance Van der Brug and van Spanje, 2009; Ecker-Ehrhardt,
2011). In this article, we further investigate this new conflict among European
citizens. We use the terminology of ‘social conflict’ rather than cleavage, since we
only assess this divide from the side of citizens in this article, leaving aside the
positions of political parties (cf. Bartolini and Mair, 1990). We use detailed survey
items on issues of immigration and European integration that measure not only
citizen positions toward the EU but also the ideologies underpinning the positions
toward the EU. This enables us to provide a fine-grained analysis of the cosmopolitan
and communitarian ideological poles of the new conflict line. Specifically, our
analysis addresses four key questions. First, to what extent can we find a divide
among Europeans in attitudes toward denationalization? Second, how much
do objective and subjective factors influence citizens’ positions along this divide?
Third, does this divide reveal itself in similar patterns in Central and Eastern
European countries (CEEC)? Finally, is there evidence that globalization causes
such a divide in both Western Europe and CEEC?
Our findings extend current research by further clarifying the ideological profiles of
citizens on both sides of the new conflict line and show the importance of cosmopolitan
and communitarian ideological viewpoints in structuring these profiles.
Moreover, we draw on studies on cosmopolitan dispositions to refine the previous
findings that comparative politics scholars have provided thus far: we show that the
operationalization of winners and losers of globalization should encompass both
objective socio-demographic characteristics and subjective measurements such as
perception of globalization as a threat or opportunity. Furthermore, we include
both Western European countries and CEEC in the analysis, which provides a
clear extension to the existing literature that has hitherto focused predominantly on
Western Europe only. The results show similar patterns in both Western Europe
and Central and Eastern Europe – supporting the theory that it is indeed globalization,
rather than something specific to Western Europe, that generates this divide.
Additionally, we show that those citizens from countries with higher degrees of
globalization are less likely to have a cosmopolitan perspective of the EU and more
likely to consider the EU in communitarian terms.
The article proceeds as follows: first, we briefly summarize the arguments on the
rise of a new conflict. Second, we discuss characteristics of citizens and countries
576 C É L I N E T E N E Y , O N A W A P R O M I S E L A C E W E L L , P I E T E R D E W I L D E
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773913000246
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiteitsbibliotheek Utrecht, on 31 Dec 2017 at 15:27:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
that should be taken into account when investigating the salience of a new divide
among Europeans. Third, we define the two poles of the new conflict line in more
detail. This theoretical section develops clear hypotheses, which are then tested using
survey data in a fourth step. For this test, we use the 2009 wave of the Eurobarometer
survey (71.3), which provides detailed items relevant for our purpose.
The rise of a new societal conflict caused by globalization
Hanspeter Kriesi et al. (2008) claim that globalization leads to new societal conflicts
that result in the rise of a new cleavage. Globalization, according to their theory, is
manifested in an increase in economic competition, (e.g., competition in the global
economy, international pressure toward deregulation) that is exacerbated by
increasing cultural competition. This cultural competition is due to the growing
cultural diversity caused by immigration in West European countries. Such diversity
leads to a perception of ethnic competition for scarce resources (such as jobs) and of
threat to the collective identity and lifestyle of the native population (Kriesi et al.,
2008). The increasing authority of international and supranational institutions,
above all the EU, provides a further bone of contention (Hooghe and Marks, 2009;
De Wilde and Zürn, 2012; Zürn et al., 2012). Taken together, we witness a process
of ‘politicization’ in which globalization-related issues become more salient, an
increasing number of citizens become aware of the issues at stake, and opinion
becomes more polarized as both opponents and proponents become better organized,
clearly identifiable, and more vocal (cf. De Wilde, 2011). In support of this
expectation, Kriesi et al. (2008) argue that these new forms of competition lead to
the polarization of citizens into groups of winners and losers of globalization who
support antagonist positions toward the opening up of borders: losers tend to
support demarcationist positions toward denationalization while winners tend to
endorse integrationist positions. Losers of globalization are citizens who consider
their social status and security protected by the nation state, who strongly identify
with the national community, and who are attached to its exclusionary norms and
political institutions. They perceive the opening of national borders as a threat to
their life chances. By contrast, winners of globalization have universal norms and
see opportunities in the opening of borders (Kriesi et al., 2008, 2012; Bornschier,
2010; Azmanova, 2011). Identity and interests thus stand at the core of this conflict.
Most commonly, winners and losers of globalization are identified based on
socio-demographic characteristics. For instance, Kriesi et al. (2008, 2012) and
Bornschier (2010) use education and employment status as main explanatory
characteristics for their empirical analyses. Education is hypothesized to provide
citizens with the necessary specialized skills to benefit from the opening up of
borders. Employment status determines whether the sector or position is at risk
from the pressures of globalization (Walter, 2010). Nevertheless, and as mentioned
previously, such scholars agree that the subjective perception of threat due to
globalization also matters in polarizing citizens along the new societal conflict.
Winners and losers of globalization in Europe 577
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773913000246
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiteitsbibliotheek Utrecht, on 31 Dec 2017 at 15:27:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
For instance, Mau (2005) showed that the self-characterization of personally losing
or winning through European integration is significantly associated with attitudes
toward the EU to a greater extent than are socio-demographic characteristics.
In addition to objective demographics and subjective threat perceptions, subjective
collective identities are associated with both structural factors and positions toward
opening and closing of borders. For instance, Diez Medrano (2010) and Fligstein
(2008) show that citizens with a European identity will support European integration
to a greater extent than those citizens holding exclusively national identities. Furthermore,
supranational identification is positively associated with tolerance toward
immigrants (Phillips, 2002; Pichler, 2009b, 2012). Without the presence of group
consciousness, a divide among citizens along structural factors cannot lead to the
necessary potential for political mobilization and, thus, for a true conflict.
Drawing on these previous studies, in addition to the findings of the comparative
politics literature, enables us to refine the operationalization of winners and losers
of globalization in several ways. First, the objective attributes of winners and losers
of globalization should include age, immigrant origin, place of residence and
internet use besides education and employment status. Indeed, Pichler (2009a, b)
showed that young age, urban living conditions, immigrant background, high
education, and white collar jobs make citizens have more integrationist attitudes.
Additionally, the frequent use of the internet increases contact with, and consumption
of, foreign cultures and is therefore likely to increase integrationist
positions such as support of ethnic diversity (Phillips and Smith, 2008; Kendall
et al., 2009). By accounting for these control variables, we investigate the power of
subjective perception of threat in polarizing the population in attitudes toward
immigration and European integration. Specifically, we include two measurements
of threat in the analysis: we use an item referring to the evaluation of the financial
situation of the household (subjective deprivation) and items in which respondents
evaluate globalization as a threat or as an opportunity. We expect citizens who
feel deprived to hold more demarcationist positions (H1). For the perception of
globalization as a threat or opportunity, we expect the subjective evaluation of
globalization as an opportunity to be significantly associated with positive attitudes
toward immigration and European integration (H2). Finally, we assess the association
of local, national, European, and world collective identities with attitudes
toward immigration and European integration. We expect sub- and national identifications
to be positively related to demarcationist positions and supranational
identification to be positively related to integrationist positions (H3). The empirical
debate surrounding this globalization-centered conflict line focuses predominantly
on Western European democracies (but see for instance Herzog and Tucker, 2010
about European integration in CEEC). This narrow focus is arbitrary, as we would
expect similar globalization pressures in CEEC. Azmanova (2009) argues that
attitudes toward regained political sovereignty and national identity in CEEC are
indeed structured along a cosmopolitan–sovereigntist dimension that comprises
immigrants, minorities, and EU issues. She claims that a division of the population
578 C É L I N E T E N E Y , O N A W A P R O M I S E L A C E W E L L , P I E T E R D E W I L D E
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773913000246
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiteitsbibliotheek Utrecht, on 31 Dec 2017 at 15:27:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
in groups of winners and losers of globalization is at work in both the old and new
democracies of Europe (Azmanova, 2009: 1032). Accordingly, we expect the
aforementioned subjective measurements (i.e., subjective deprivation, perception
of globalization as a threat, (sub)national and supranational identities) to be
associated with demarcationist and integrationist positions in a similar way in both
CEEC and Western European countries (H4).
Even if we expect a similar divide in CEEC and Western European countries, this
does not mean that the extent to which Europeans endorse integrationist or
demarcationist positions is constant across all EU countries. Indeed, we know from
previous studies that support for EU and tolerance toward immigrants do
vary across EU countries (Lubbers and Scheepers, 2010; Schlueter et al., 2013).
Such varying degrees of globalization could explain these country differences: if
globalization leads to a growing divide between winners and losers, a country’s
degree of exposure to its pressures is likely to affect the constellation of integrationist
and demarcationist attitudes among citizens in different countries differently.
We see globalization as a meta issue, which affects more than just Western Europe
and advanced democracies. More specifically, we expect the importance of the
divide to increase with the national degree of globalization with citizens’ attitudes
becoming more consolidated around both extremes in highly globalized countries
(H5). In other words, the conflict between winners and losers of globalization will
be more intense in highly globalized countries: the polarization of citizens along
the globalization-centered dimension is expected to be positively associated with
the country’s degree of globalization (see Kriesi et al., 2012: 57 for a similar
conceptualization of polarization among political parties).
The cosmopolitan and communitarian underpinning of the new societal conflict
While Kriesi et al. (2008) use the terms integration and demarcation to define the
poles of the new social conflict for the cultural dimension, Azmanova (2011) speaks
of cosmopolitanism and sovereigntism in reference to the same divide. She claims
that, because of globalization, an ‘opportunity-risks cleavage’ is emerging within the
population. This cleavage crosscuts the traditional left–right axis and encompasses,
on one side, cosmopolitan and open economic positions and, on the other, sovereigntist
and closed economic positions. Similarly to Kriesi et al. (2008, 2012),
Azmanova (2011) interprets immigration and European integration as key issues
fueling this opportunity-risks cleavage. Kriesi et al.’s terminology refers solely to
preferences regarding the opening and closing of national borders, while the terminology
used by Azmanova goes a step further by assuming an ideology to underlie
these preferences. Such more or less coherent value sets function as rallying points for
coalition partners and as cognitive short-cuts to arrange diverse political issues into a
single political cleavage. For these reasons, the presence of ideological underpinnings
is a core component of a cleavage (cf. Bartolini and Mair, 1990). This, naturally,
raises the conceptual question of which two ideologies best fulfill this function.
Winners and losers of globalization in Europe 579
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773913000246
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiteitsbibliotheek Utrecht, on 31 Dec 2017 at 15:27:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
For reasons discussed below, we follow other recent scholarship and conceptualize the
two underlying ideologies of the conflict as communitarianism and cosmopolitanism
(cf. Zürn, 2012, De Wilde and Zürn, 2013; Lacewell and Merkel, 2013).
Pogge (1992) identifies a combination of individualism and universalism as the
basis of a cosmopolitan disposition, which then comes in two different strands.
First, legal cosmopolitanism refers to the commitment to an institutionalized global
order of rule of law and justice. Second, moral cosmopolitanism requires the respect
of every human being’s status as ultimate units of moral concern (Pogge, 1992).
Following this definition, moral cosmopolitanism can be considered a prime candidate
for the normative foundation of tolerance toward immigrants, while legal
cosmopolitanism underpins support for the EU as a regional vanguard of global
political order (Eriksen, 2009). Hence, the cosmopolitan perspective is linked
directly to both tolerance toward immigrants and support for European integration.
Similar to Bornschier (2010), we consider communitarianism as the ideology
underlying the other pole of this new social conflict. In our understanding, communitarianism
refers to the support of closing borders in order to favor and protect
constitutive communities. These are ‘constitutive’ communities in the sense that
membership in them is non-voluntary, cannot be easily renounced, and forms a
corner-stone of identity (Bell, 1993). Communitarians believe that justice is socially
bound and, as such, can be realized only within the confines of such constitutive
communities (Sandel, 1998: 11f). The communitarian ideology thus represents a
counter-pole to the individualistic and universalist conception of community
(Bornschier, 2010: 23) that we defined as cosmopolitanism. The communitarian
perspective leads to a rejection of both immigration and European integration
since both processes dilute the community’s potential to realize, collectively, its
particular understanding of justice. In that sense, communitarianism implies a
broader value-base and set of concerns than the more narrow concerns with
sovereignty that Azmanova assumes under sovereigntism.
Data and methods
We use the data from the Eurobarometer wave 71.3 administered in summer 2009
for all 27 EU countries. This wave of the Eurobarometer is the only one that
includes the necessary items to test our hypotheses, namely questions regarding
respondents’ attitudes toward immigrants, ideological perspective on the EU,
subjective evaluations of globalization, and identifications (from local to global).
The sample is composed of 26,830 respondents. We use a multilevel linear regression
analysis in order to account for the hierarchical structure of the sample and to
assess the hypotheses at both the individual and country levels.
Independent variables
Subjective deprivation is measured with the item ‘How would you judge the current
financial situation of your household’ (from very bad (1) to very good (4); mean: 2.66;
580 C É L I N E T E N E Y , O N A W A P R O M I S E L A C E W E L L , P I E T E R D E W I L D E
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773913000246
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiteitsbibliotheek Utrecht, on 31 Dec 2017 at 15:27:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
std. dev.: 0.76). The evaluation of globalization is measured with an additive scale
(mean: 3.41; std. dev.: 1.57) ranging from 0 (globalization as a threat) to
7 (globalization as an opportunity) summarizing the following items: ‘Globalization
is an opportunity for economic growth’ (totally disagree (0) to totally agree (3));
‘Globalization increases social inequalities’ (totally agree (0) to totally disagree (3))
and ‘Globalization represents a threat to employment and companies in [country]
(0) vs. Globalization represents a good opportunity for national companies thanks
to the opening-up of markets (1)’.
For the identification measurements, respondents selected, on a four-point Likert
scale, the extent to which they personally felt inhabitants of their region, nationals,
Europeans, and citizens of the world. A factor analysis resulted in a two-factor
solution with the local and national identification items loading on one factor and
the European and global identification loading on the second factor. Therefore, we
built one additive scale for subnational and national identification (mean: 5.42; std.
dev.: 0.98) and one additive scale for European and global identification (mean:
3.87; std. dev.: 1.59). These two scales range from 0 to 7, where a high value means
high identification. The (sub)national and supranational identification scales
correlate by 0.16. Thus, one can simultaneously hold strong national and supranational
identities.1
The four subjective measurements are not independent from socio-demographic
characteristics. For instance, previous studies have shown that citizens with a
strong supranational identity are more likely to be young, highly educated and to
live in urban areas (e.g., Pichler, 2009a; Hanquinet and Savage, 2013). Therefore,
and in order to assess the additional power of these subjective measurements
in explaining Europeans’ cosmopolitan and communitarian positions, we also
account for the structural characteristics that have been shown to be associated with
the dependent variables. Controlling for these structural variables will enable us
to avoid overestimating the power of the subjective measurements in explaining
cosmopolitan and communitarian positions. We test our hypotheses by controlling
for the following socio-demographic characteristics: gender, age, age at which
respondents stopped full-time education, a dummy for internet use, size of place of
residence, immigrant origin, and socio-economic status. The immigrant background
is measured with three categories: nationals (born in country of residence
and both parents born in country of residence); EU migrant (born in an EU country
or at least one parent born in another EU country); non-EU migrant (born in a nonEU
country or at least one parent born in a non-EU country). The socio-economic
status is measured with the following categories: unemployed, students, unskilled
manual workers, skilled manual workers, office workers, professional workers,
1
This low correlation is in line with previous findings that European and national identities can be
compatible and are not mutually exclusive (Jiménez et al., 2004; Pichler, 2009a; Hanquinet and Savage,
2012). Indeed, Jiménez et al. (2004) find that European and national identities are conceptually different
and involve different notions of loyalty.
Winners and losers of globalization in Europe 581
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773913000246
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiteitsbibliotheek Utrecht, on 31 Dec 2017 at 15:27:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
self-employed, owner of a company, middle-range manager and top manager.
Table A in the online appendix presents summary statistics of these control variables
and their associations with the four subjective measurements. As can be seen, the four
subjective measurements significantly differ across the socio-demographic characteristics.
It is therefore necessary to control for the effect of these socio-demographic
characteristics when assessing the additional power of the subjective measurements
in explaining differences in cosmopolitan and communitarian positions among
Europeans.
At the country level, we differentiate CEEC from other EU countries. Moreover,
we use the (centered) KOF index of globalization for 2008 (std. dev.: 6.02;
ranges from −12.84 to 9.44) which measures the economic, social, and political
dimensions of globalization (Dreher et al., 2008). While it would be theoretically
more interesting to include each dimension of the KOF index (economic, political,
and social) separately in the models, the high correlation between the three does not
allow for this. Since the KOF-index does not take into account country size, we also
control for the (centered) size of country’s population.2
Dependent variables
We investigate the profiles of winners and losers of globalization along the two key
issues that are thought to divide citizens along the new societal conflict: immigration
and European integration.
Attitudes toward immigrants. The Eurobarometer 71.3 wave is composed of six
items measuring respondents’ positions toward immigrants. These items were
answered with a three-point-Likert scale (tend to agree, it depends, tend to disagree).
These items are: (1) ‘People from other ethnic groups enrich the cultural
life of [country]’; (2) ‘The presence of people from other ethnic groups is a cause of
insecurity’ (reverse coded); (3) ‘The presence of people from other ethnic groups
increases unemployment’ (reverse coded); (4) ‘We need immigrants to work in
certain sectors of our economy’; (5) ‘The arrival of immigrants in Europe can be
effective in solving the problem of Europe’s ageing population’; and (6) ‘Immigrants
can play an important role in developing greater understanding and tolerance with
the rest of the world’. A factor analysis resulted in a one-factor solution with an
eigenvalue of 1.70 and Cronbach’s α is 0.70. A single additive scale can summarize
these items. This scale ranges from 0 to 10, where a high value means tolerance
toward immigrants and ethnic groups (mean: 4.89; std. dev.: 2.95).
Meanings of the EU. The Eurobarometer data provides items that measure not
only the positive or negative position toward the EU but also the meanings
respondents give to the EU. The use of this detailed set of items rather than items
2
We refrain from controlling for GDP per capita in order to avoid multicollinearity problems, since
GDP per capita is strongly correlated with the KOF index of globalization (0.56).
582 C É L I N E T E N E Y , O N A W A P R O M I S E L A C E W E L L , P I E T E R D E W I L D E
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773913000246
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiteitsbibliotheek Utrecht, on 31 Dec 2017 at 15:27:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
measuring simple support for the EU enables us to assess the social divide on
cosmopolitan and communitarian dispositions underlying support and opposition
toward the EU. We will therefore use the multiple answer question ‘What does the
European Union mean to you personally?’ for the measurement of the meaning
respondents ascribe to the EU. The percent of respondents mentioning each category
is given in Table 1. The coefficient of association of these 14 answer categories
can be found in Table B in the online Appendix.3
We ran a categorical principal
component analysis (CatPCA) on this set of items in order to summarize the
13 categories of EU meanings into a few dimensions. Similar to a factor analysis,
CatPCA aims at identifying the underlying components of a set of variables while
maximizing the amount of variance accounted for by the components in those
variables. The CatPCA results in a solution of four dimensions with an eigenvalue
higher than 1.0 explaining 45% of the total variance of the 13 items. Table 1 presents
the loadings of each item on the four dimensions. Items with similar values on
one dimension are highly related to each other. Moreover, the larger the loading of
an item, the larger its contribution to the dimension. An inspection of these loadings
on the four dimensions enables the clustering of the items according to their similarities.
Graphs A–C in the online Appendix plot the items according to their
loadings along the four dimensions.
Dimensions 1 and 2 cluster the items into two groups (see Graph A in the online
Appendix): one group is composed of the items with a positive connotation and the
Table 1. Component loadings of CatPCA
Dimensions% Respondents
mentioning 1 2 3 4
Peace 25.86 − 0.298 0.448 − 0.048 0.360
Economic prosperity 18.13 − 0.390 0.248 − 0.429 0.037
Democracy 22.35 − 0.395 0.415 − 0.135 0.177
Social protection 11.94 − 0.302 0.363 − 0.499 − 0.007
Freedom to travel 47.67 − 0.301 0.321 0.540 − 0.341
Cultural diversity 18.29 − 0.280 0.487 0.313 − 0.101
Stronger say in the world 22.81 − 0.351 0.390 0.173 − 0.071
Unemployment 13.97 0.477 0.251 − 0.309 − 0.072
Bureaucracy 18.82 0.391 0.331 0.328 0.525
Waste of money 19.10 0.579 0.223 0.078 0.415
Loss of cultural identity 10.37 0.441 0.233 − 0.080 − 0.241
More crime 14.61 0.503 0.448 − 0.104 − 0.246
Not enough control at external borders 13.47 0.425 0.394 − 0.029 − 0.346
In bold are the items that relate strongly to each other for each dimension.
3
The item ‘Euro’ shows only low associations with the 13 other items. This item is therefore kept out of
the subsequent analysis.
Winners and losers of globalization in Europe 583
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773913000246
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiteitsbibliotheek Utrecht, on 31 Dec 2017 at 15:27:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
other one contains the items with a negative meaning. According to the third
dimension, the positive items need to be further differentiated into two clusters: the
two items referring to material advantages (i.e., social protection and economic
prosperity) have similar high loadings and are opposite to the other positive items.
We label this dimension ‘utilitarian’ due to the prominence of consequentialist
reasoning. The second set of positive items is composed of democracy, peace,
strength in the world, cultural diversity, and freedom to travel and relates to (legal)
‘cosmopolitanism’. The last dimension helps further differentiate the negative items.
Bureaucracy and wastes of money have very high and similar loadings in contrast to
the other negative items. Therefore, one can regroup the negative items into two
clusters. The first group is composed of the items bureaucracy and wastes of money
and is interpreted as ‘libertarian’. The second group contains the items unemployment,
crime, loss of cultural identity and not enough control at external borders.
This group of items relates to negative consequences of the EU for the constitutive
community and is collectively labeled ‘communitarian’.
To summarize, the results of the CatPCA show that the meaning of the EU falls
into four different perspectives among Europeans. Indeed, the 13 items on the
meaning of the EU compose four distinct clusters of EU perspectives: ‘utilitarian’,
‘cosmopolitan’, ‘libertarian’, and ‘communitarian’. Table 2 provides detailed
information on the association between the two positive and two negative clusters
of EU meaning.
As can be seen in the first part of Table 2, citizens who have a strong cosmopolitan
perspective on the EU are also likely to consider the EU in utilitarian terms. The
second part of Table 2 shows that those who have a strong communitarian perspective
on the EU also consider it as bureaucratic and a waste of money (i.e., the
two libertarian categories). By contrast, citizens who mentioned the two libertarian
categories are unlikely to hold a communitarian perspective.
We built a scale ranging from 0 to 1 for each of these four clusters that is then
used for the analysis of the perspectives on the EU. For each of the clusters, the scale
is composed of the sum of the mentioned items belonging to the specific cluster
divided by the total number of items mentioned by the respondent. These four scales
measure the relative frequency with which the respondent associates each ideological
frame to the EU. In other words, these scales measure the salience of each
ideological frame (see the definition of salience provided by Kriesi et al., 2012: 55).
The analysis of these four scales enables us to assess the extent to which the
cosmopolitan and communitarian perspectives differ from the utilitarian and
libertarian ones with regard to their associations with the independent variables.
Table 3 presents the overall means and the mean differences of the four perspectives
across two items measuring support for one’s country’s EU membership.
As Table 3 shows, the most salient perspective among Europeans is a cosmopolitan
one, followed by the communitarian, libertarian, and finally utilitarian
perspectives. Furthermore, citizens who support their country’s EU membership
have cosmopolitan and utilitarian perspectives to a significantly larger extent than
584 C É L I N E T E N E Y , O N A W A P R O M I S E L A C E W E L L , P I E T E R D E W I L D E
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773913000246
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiteitsbibliotheek Utrecht, on 31 Dec 2017 at 15:27:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
Table 2. Distribution of the number of mentioned cosmopolitan EU meaning categories by the number of mentioned utilitarian
categories and of the number of mentioned communitarian EU meaning categories by the number of mentioned libertarian categories
Mentioned cosmopolitan EU meaning categories
Utilitarian categories 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total (N: 26,830)
0 Row % 30.66 34.00 22.51 8.82 3.20 0.81 100
Column % 83.79 74.90 74.64 67.12 55.47 25.96 74.53
1 Row % 18.15 36.19 23.66 12.52 6.27 3.21 100
Column % 13.88 22.32 21.97 26.67 30.47 28.85 20.87
2 Row % 13.78 20.42 16.61 13.21 13.13 22.85 100
Column % 2.32 2.78 3.40 6.20 14.06 45.19 4.60
Total (N: 26,830) Row % 27.28 33.83 22.48 9.80 4.29 2.33 100
Column % 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Mentioned communitarian EU meaning categories
Libertarian categories 0 1 2 3 4 Total (N: 26,830)
0 Row % 73.53 18.34 6.33 1.54 0.26 100
Column % 78.52 59.68 51.12 36.02 15.84 70.10
1 Row % 50.17 30.57 13.27 4.82 1.18 100
Column % 16.73 31.05 33.46 35.16 22.77 21.89
2 Row % 38.96 24.92 16.69 10.79 8.65 100
Column % 4.76 9.27 15.42 28.82 61.39 8.02
Total (N: 26,830) Row % 65.65 21.55 8.68 3.00 1.13 100
Column % 100 100 100 100 100 100
WinnersandlosersofglobalizationinEurope585
availableathttps://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773913000246
Downloadedfromhttps://www.cambridge.org/core.UniversiteitsbibliotheekUtrecht,on31Dec2017at15:27:09,subjecttotheCambridgeCoretermsofuse,
citizens who oppose it. By contrast, opponents to their country’s EU membership
have libertarian or communitarian perspectives to a significantly larger extent than
supporters. Thus, cosmopolitan and utilitarian viewpoints underpin EU support,
while opposition to the EU is grounded in communitarian and libertarian viewpoints.
Moreover, the strong negative correlation between the cosmopolitan and
communitarian perspectives (−0.54) shows evidence that these two meanings
underpin the two poles of a single underlying dimension – confirming our theoretical
assumptions. In addition, the scale measuring tolerance toward immigrants
correlates highly with both the communitarian (−0.23) and cosmopolitan (0.21)
perspective. Thus, respondents who base their evaluation of the EU in a cosmopolitan
perspective tend to be tolerant toward immigrants and ethnic minority groups
as well as support European integration and EU membership while Europeans who
consider the EU in a communitarian light are likely to reject immigrants and ethnic
minorities as well as the EU. These correlations demonstrate that European integration
and immigration are closely linked issues. Moreover, these results are in line
with our theoretical assumption: cosmopolitanism and communitarianism are the
two most salient ideologies underpinning integration and demarcation positions
toward the EU.
Results
In a first step, the four perspectives on the EU and the anti-immigrant attitudinal
scale are regressed on the socio-demographic characteristics by taking country
disparities into account (see Table C in online appendix). Taken individually, results
for the control variables (socio-economic status, education, age, gender, immigrant
origin, internet use, and size of area of residence) are as we would expect given the
findings of previous scholars such as Kriesi et al. (2008) or Pichler (2009a, b).
Table 3. Means of the cosmopolitan, utilitarian, libertarian and communitarian EU
meanings by support for and opposition to country’s EU membership
Cosmopolitan Utilitarian Libertarian Communitarian
Overall mean 0.478 0.104 0.132 0.167
(Country’s) EU membership is a good thing
Agree 0.578 0.136 0.069 0.091
Disagree/neither nor 0.358 0.064 0.210 0.260
T-statistic 52.28*** 27.95*** − 48.34*** − 53.02***
(Country) has benefitted from EU membership
Agree 0.564 0.129 0.079 0.104
Disagree 0.304 0.054 0.243 0.296
T-statistic 57.02*** 26.11*** − 51.88*** − 55.39***
***p < 0.001.
586 C É L I N E T E N E Y , O N A W A P R O M I S E L A C E W E L L , P I E T E R D E W I L D E
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773913000246
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiteitsbibliotheek Utrecht, on 31 Dec 2017 at 15:27:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
Overall, the socio-demographic characteristics have a moderate impact on the four
perspectives and the anti-immigrant attitudinal scale: they explain solely between
0.44% and 7.77% of the total variance of the three key dependent variables.
In a further step, we introduce the subjective measurements and country variables
by controlling for the socio-demographic characteristics of Table C. This enables us
to investigate the power of the subjective measurements in explaining the four
EU perspectives and the anti-immigrant attitudinal scale in addition to the control
variables. Moreover, in order to assess potential differences between citizens in
CEEC and in Western European countries, we include cross-level interactions
between the CEEC dummy and the subjective measurements. Table 4 presents
the results of a multilevel regression in which the two threat measurements (i.e.,
subjective deprivation and the evaluation of globalization as an opportunity), the
(sub)national and supranational identification variables, and the country-level
variables are added to the model containing the socio-demographic characteristics
presented in Table C.
To begin, Table 4 shows that respondents who feel less deprived and who
perceive globalization as an opportunity are significantly more likely to hold a
cosmopolitan understanding of the EU. The associations between these two threat
measurements and the cosmopolitan perspective on the EU hold in both Western
European countries and CEEC. In addition, the stronger the supranational identification,
the more salient the cosmopolitan perspective on the EU. This positive
association between supranational identity and the cosmopolitan understanding
of the EU is significant in all EU countries, but of lower magnitude in CEEC. By
contrast, the extent to which citizens identify with their region and country is not
significantly associated with a cosmopolitan view on the EU in Western European
countries. However, we find in CEEC a significant positive association between
(sub)national identification and the cosmopolitan EU perspective. Thus, in CEEC
the cosmopolitan understanding of the EU is more salient among citizens who
identify strongly with both the (sub)national and supranational communities.
Compared with the cosmopolitan perspective, the coefficients of these subjective
measurements go in the opposite direction for the communitarian pole of the new
societal divide for the EU issue: respondents who feel personally deprived, who
perceive globalization as a threat and who identify weakly with supranational
communities are significantly more likely to have a communitarian view on the EU.
In addition, the stronger the national identification, the stronger the adherence to
the communitarian perspective. All four subjective measurements exert a similar
effect for citizens of both Western European countries and CEEC. Thus, for both
poles of the conflict dimension with regard to the EU issue, supranational identity
matters. By contrast, (sub)national identification is only associated with the communitarian
pole in Western European countries, but is positively associated with
both the communitarian and cosmopolitan EU understandings in CEEC. Moreover,
subjective threat measurements are significantly associated with the cosmopolitan
and communitarian perceptions of the EU similarly in all EU countries.
Winners and losers of globalization in Europe 587
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773913000246
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiteitsbibliotheek Utrecht, on 31 Dec 2017 at 15:27:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
Table 4. The four EU-meaning dimensions (cosmopolitanism, utilitarian, libertarian, communitarianism) and attitudes toward
immigrants regressed on perception of threat, identification and national level of globalization (controlling for socio-demographic
characteristics and country size)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Cosmopolitan
EU meaning
Utilitarian
EU meaning
Libertarian
EU meaning
Communitarian
EU meaning
Tolerance toward
immigrants
Subjective measurements
Subjective deprivation 0.035*** 0.004 − 0.013*** − 0.026*** 0.228***
(9.77) (1.82) ( − 4.20) ( − 9.68) (7.54)
Subjective deprivation × CEEC − 0.00986*
( − 2.01)
Globalization as opportunity 0.033*** 0.015*** − 0.024*** − 0.028*** 0.255***
(20.83) (15.74) ( − 21.75) ( − 23.57) (18.66)
Globalization as opportunity × CEEC
(sub)national identification − 0.006 − 0.008*** 0.002 0.006** − 0.204***
( − 1.28) ( − 4.79) (0.88) (2.93) ( − 9.45)
(sub)national identification × CEEC 0.0218*
(2.54)
Supranational identification 0.035*** 0.009*** − 0.016*** − 0.021*** 0.347***
(10.56) (9.09) ( − 13.94) ( − 16.58) (10.71)
Supranational identification × CEEC − 0.015** − 0.109*
( − 2.88) ( − 2.08)
Country level variables
CEEC 0.014 − 0.006 0.029 − 0.040* 0.425
(0.30) ( − 0.31) (0.97) ( − 1.99) (1.00)
KOF Globalization index − 0.004** − 0.003* 0.003 0.003* 0.059
( − 2.62) ( − 2.18) (1.48) (2.01) (1.80)
KOF index² 0.001
(0.27)
_cons 0.130*** 0.055*** 0.311*** 0.410*** 2.846***
(4.68) (3.63) (16.03) (23.61) (9.14)
ICC 0.048 0.036 0.053 0.026 0.092
R² 0.171 0.087 0.108 0.164 0.181
Table reports multilevel regression maximum likelihood estimates. T-statistics in parentheses; R² values were calculated following the formula proposed by Snijders and Bosker (1999: 102). Due to
computational issues, the table shows solely cross-level interactions that are significant.
*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.
588CÉLINETENEY,ONAWAPROMISELACEWELL,PIETERDEWILDE
availableathttps://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773913000246
Downloadedfromhttps://www.cambridge.org/core.UniversiteitsbibliotheekUtrecht,on31Dec2017at15:27:09,subjecttotheCambridgeCoretermsofuse,
If we now look at the other key issue for the new conflict, all four subjective measurements
have a significant coefficient on tolerance toward immigrants: respondents
who feel less deprived and perceive globalization as an opportunity are more likely to
show tolerance toward immigrants. Moreover, the weaker the identification with the
(sub)national community and the stronger the identification with the supranational
level, the more tolerant the attitudes toward immigrants. These results hold for citizens
of both Western European countries and CEEC. However, and similar to the findings
on the cosmopolitan understanding of the EU, the magnitude of the supranational
identification coefficient on tolerance toward immigrants is somewhat lower among
citizens of CEEC. Taken together, the results for the two key issues of the new societal
conflict confirm H1 and H2 and partly confirm H3 and H4. Indeed, being subjectively
deprived and perceiving globalization as a threat are significantly associated with the
three key variables in the expected directions (H1 and H2). For the two identification
measurements, supranational identification is significantly associated with the three
key variables in the expected direction in all EU countries, while (sub)national identification
has only a significant coefficient in the expected direction on the attitudes
toward immigrants and the communitarian EU meaning. This partially confirms our
third hypothesis: collective identification does matter in the positions of respondents
on the globalization conflict, but supranational identification plays a more important
role than (sub)national identity in that matter.
Finally, we expected in our last hypothesis that, at the individual level, the
four subjective measurements would be associated with the three key dependent
variables similarly in both CEEC and Western European countries. Our findings
partly confirm this fourth hypothesis: the coefficients of subjective deprivation and
the perception of globalization as a threat on the three key dependent variables in
both Western European countries and CEEC are similar. However, the associations
of (sub)national and supranational identifications with the three dependent
variables differ slightly in CEEC. The effect of supranational identification on
tolerance toward immigrants as well as on the cosmopolitan and communitarian
EU perspectives is significant and in the same direction in both Western Europe and
CEECs. However, the magnitude of the coefficients is slightly lower for the cosmopolitan
EU meaning and tolerance toward immigrants in CEEC compared to
Western European countries. Moreover, in CEEC, a strong (sub)national identity is
significantly related to a more salient cosmopolitan EU meaning, while it remains
non-significant in Western European countries. The interaction term between
CEEC and (sub)national identification is significant only for the cosmopolitan EU
meaning and remains non-significant for the two other key dependent variables.
Thus, supranational identification seems to contribute to a lesser extent to the new
social divide among citizens of CEEC. Moreover, (sub)national identification is
related to a greater salience of the cosmopolitan EU meaning among citizens of
CEEC. A previous study on the significant components of a European identity
among citizens across European countries can shed light on these striking findings.
Jiménez et al. (2004) showed that national and European identities are compatible and
Winners and losers of globalization in Europe 589
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773913000246
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiteitsbibliotheek Utrecht, on 31 Dec 2017 at 15:27:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
not exclusive among both citizens from CEEC and Western European countries.
However, the elements considered as significant in building a European identity
differ between Western European citizens and citizens in CEEC: Western Europeans
mainly define European identity in instrumental terms (e.g., freedom of movement and
residence), while citizens from CEEC base their European identity on ethno-cultural
elements such as a common ancestry and history or a common civilization. The ethnocultural
component of the European identity among Central and Eastern Europeans
could explain why the significant positive association between supranational identification
and cosmopolitan EU meaning and tolerance toward immigrants is weaker
among citizens in CEEC. Moreover, it could also shed light on the fact that both (sub)
national and supranational identifications are positively related to the cosmopolitan
EU perspective among citizens of CEEC.
The introduction of these four subjective measurements into the model more than
doubles the amount of explained variance of the model containing solely the sociodemographic
characteristics for the three key variables (Model of Table C): R² values
range now from 16.40% to 18.09% for these dependent variables, while they range
between 2.91% and 7.77% for the model containing only the socio-demographic
control variables. Thus, the stratification of the European population into groups of
winners and losers of globalization includes an objective component as well as an
important subjective component composed of collective identities and the perception
of threat that cannot be reduced to mere socio-demographic disparities.
Turning now to the country level, citizens in CEEC do not differ greatly from other
European citizens in their cosmopolitan and communitarian positions: the proportion
of citizens in CEEC holding a cosmopolitan understanding of the EU is significantly
lower than in other EU countries, but the proportion of citizens in CEEC endorsing a
communitarian perspective on the EU and holding tolerant attitudes toward immigrant
and ethnic minorities is the same as in other EU countries. Lastly, our H5 has to
be rejected. Indeed, we expected the polarization on the cosmopolitan and communitarian
divide to increase as a function of the national degree of globalization. That
is, we expected a stronger presence of both cosmopolitanism and communitarianism
the more globalized a country is. For this H5 to be confirmed, the findings should
point to a positive coefficient for the KOF globalization index on both the cosmopolitan
and the communitarian EU meanings and a significant coefficient for the
squared effect of the KOF globalization index on tolerance toward immigrants.
The results for the anti-immigrant attitudinal scale show that neither the main
effect for the KOF globalization index, nor its square, is significant. With regard to
the EU issue, the coefficients of the KOF globalization index are significant
and negative for the cosmopolitan perspective and significant and positive for the
communitarian one. In other words, the higher the degree of globalization, the
larger the proportion of citizens considering the EU in communitarian terms and
the lower the proportion of citizens holding the cosmopolitan EU perspective.
Thus, contrary to our expectations, the relationship of the degree of globalization
and the new conflict is a linear one and does not follow a U curve. In other words,
590 C É L I N E T E N E Y , O N A W A P R O M I S E L A C E W E L L , P I E T E R D E W I L D E
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773913000246
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiteitsbibliotheek Utrecht, on 31 Dec 2017 at 15:27:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
a higher degree of globalization is not associated with a stronger polarization of
winners and losers of globalization, but rather with a more crystalized presence of
communitarian opposition.
Conclusion
In this article, we investigated the new societal conflict that pits winners of globalization
against losers in Europe. Citizens at the two poles of this conflict are said to
hold antagonist positions toward the opening-up of national borders. We focused
the analysis on the two key issues that are theorized to foster the new conflict line:
immigration and European integration (Kriesi et al., 2008; Van der Brug and van
Spanje, 2009; Azmanova, 2011). Based on a very detailed set of items on the
meaning of the EU, we analyzed not only the positions toward the opening-up of
national borders, but also the ideologies underlying the poles of the new conflict
among Europeans. Indeed, the endorsement of positive or negative positions
toward the EU can be associated with different types of values. Our analysis
showed the relevance of cosmopolitanism and communitarianism in structuring
the positions of citizens along the two poles of the new conflict. The meanings
Europeans attribute to the EU constitute distinct dimensions, two positive and
two negative: the first one refers to the idea of the EU as a supranational political
institution with an overarching principle of rule of law and justice, which we
named cosmopolitanism. The second dimension – utilitarianism – relates to
material advantages associated with the EU. The third dimension deals with the
negative perception of the institutional structure of the EU (libertarian). The last
‘communitarian’ dimension refers to the negative consequences of the EU for
the constitutive community. Additionally, we show that the cosmopolitan and
communitarian ideologies are the most salient perspectives of the EU among
Europeans. A scale introduced to measure tolerance toward immigrants and
ethnic groups correlates strongly with both the communitarian (−0.23) and the
cosmopolitan (0.21) perspectives. Moreover, the cosmopolitan and communitarian
understanding of the EU and the scale measuring tolerance toward immigrants are,
by and large, similarly affected by socio-demographic characteristics, by subjective
deprivation, by the perception of globalization as a threat, and by supranational
identification. This provides evidence that cosmopolitan and communitarian
understandings of the EU and attitudes toward immigrants tap into the same
underlying dimension, which refers to broader ideological positions toward the
opening-up of national borders. Therefore, our findings point to cosmopolitanism
and communitarianism as the two ideologies underpinning the two poles of the new
conflict. However, due to data limitations, we could only assess the normative
ideologies underlying support and opposition to EU, leaving aside the normative
elements underpinning the positions toward immigrants. Future research could test
whether antagonist positions toward immigrants are also grounded in cosmopolitanism
and communitarianism.
Winners and losers of globalization in Europe 591
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773913000246
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiteitsbibliotheek Utrecht, on 31 Dec 2017 at 15:27:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
For this research, we operationalized winners and losers of globalization not only
in structural terms (socio-demographic characteristics), but also by considering
subjective threat perception and collective identities. This comprehensive operationalization
of winners and losers of globalization helps to refine previous studies
(e.g., Kriesi et al., 2008, 2012; Van der Brug and van Spanje, 2009). Indeed, the
perception of threat and collective identities explain a large amount of variance
in cosmopolitan and communitarian positions, even by controlling for various
socio-demographic characteristics: the divide on the cosmopolitan–communitarian
dimension cannot be reduced to mere socio-demographic differences. Indeed, threat
perceptions and (sub)national identity are significantly and positively associated with
communitarian positions, while supranational identity is significantly and positively
related to cosmopolitan positions, even when the various socio-demographic characteristics
are taken into account. We can also sketch out, more comprehensively, the
profiles of those who are against the opening-up of borders. That is, those considering
the EU a threat to the constitutive community and who reject immigrants and ethnic
minorities. Opponents of globalization are more likely to be unemployed, less
educated, and to hold weak supranational identity and strong (sub)national identities.
In addition, they are more likely to perceive globalization as a threat and to feel
subjectively deprived. By contrast, citizens who conceive the EU as a supranational
political institution with an overarching principle of rule of law and justice and
who accept immigrants and ethnic groups show an opposite profile: citizens with
cosmopolitan dispositions are more likely to be students, highly educated, to identify
strongly with supranational communities and weakly with their region and country.
Moreover, they consider themselves as well off and perceive globalization as an
opportunity. The inclusion of objective and subjective measurements in the operationalization
of winners and losers of globalization enabled us to explain between
16% and 18% of the variance of the positions on the cosmopolitan–communitarian
conflict. Such a large amount of explained variance leads us to the conclusion that
the stratification of Europeans into groups of winners and losers of globalization
underpinned by cosmopolitan and communitarian perspectives is highly salient.
Moreover, we showed that group consciousness is an important explanatory factor in
the division of Europeans along the cosmopolitan–communitarian dimension in
addition to socio-demographic characteristics. Thus, our results suggest that the
necessary potential for political mobilization along the new conflict line is present
among Europeans. We can therefore confirm with confidence the presence of the new
conflict pitting cosmopolitans against communitarians in Europe.
Nevertheless, we showed that the distribution of losers and winners within a
population varies across national contexts. The communitarian frame of the EU is
less salient among citizens of CEEC. Moreover, citizens from countries with higher
levels of globalization hold a stronger communitarian understanding of the EU and a
weaker cosmopolitan understanding. In contrast to the cosmopolitan and communitarian
EU meanings, tolerance toward immigrants was not significantly affected by
the country’s level of globalization. Still, this significant association between national
592 C É L I N E T E N E Y , O N A W A P R O M I S E L A C E W E L L , P I E T E R D E W I L D E
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773913000246
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiteitsbibliotheek Utrecht, on 31 Dec 2017 at 15:27:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
degree of globalization and meanings of the EU points to the role of globalization in
shaping this new societal conflict across EU countries. So far, empirical studies on the
rise of a new cleavage focused mainly on Western European countries. Our results
show that the profile of winners and losers of globalization is similar in both Western
European countries and CEEC: relative deprivation, the perception of globalization as
a threat, (sub)national and supranational identifications are similarly related to cosmopolitan
and communitarian positions. With the exception of a significant positive
association between (sub)national identity and the cosmopolitan EU perspective in
CEEC, all other subjective measurements are similarly associated with tolerance
toward immigrants, the cosmopolitan and communitarian EU perspectives in both
Western European countries and CEEC. Thus, our results confirm the theoretical
argument of Azmanova (2009): CEEC are facing a polarization of their populations
due to globalization pressures in similar ways to what has been observed in Western
European countries. Future studies should therefore include a broader geographical
focus, since this new societal conflict is not a mere Western European phenomenon.
In contrast to the polarization of political parties, which has received the bulk of
scholarly attention, this article provides one of the first attempts to investigate
thoroughly the divide among citizens along the new conflict line dealing with
permeability of borders. In order to be able to speak of a new cleavage caused by
globalization, more research about the divide within the population concerning
the opening-up of national borders is needed. For instance, while we focused our
analysis on citizen and country disparities, the investigation of factors leading to
regional differences in the distribution of losers and winners of globalization within
Europe could push forward the debate on the rise of a new globalization divide
(for a first attempt in this direction see work by Lubbers and Scheepers (2010) for
the European integration issue and Teney (2012) for the immigration issue).
Acknowledgments
This article is part of a research project called ‘The political Sociology of Cosmopolitanism
and Communitarianism’ funded by the WZB and directed by Prof
Dr Ruud Koopmans, Prof Dr Wolfgang Merkel, PD Dr Bernhard Weßels and Prof
Dr Michael Zürn. We would like to thank Juan Diez Medrano, Ruud Koopmans,
Michael Zürn and the participants of the MIT Colloquium at the WZB for their
insightful comments on a previous version of the manuscript. Furthermore, we
would like to thank two anonymous reviewers of EPSR for their constructive
comments.
Supplementary material
To view supplementary materials for this article, please visit http://dx.doi.org/
10.1017/S1755773913000246.
Winners and losers of globalization in Europe 593
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773913000246
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiteitsbibliotheek Utrecht, on 31 Dec 2017 at 15:27:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
References
Azmanova, A. (2009), ‘1989 and the European social model: transition without emancipation?’,
Philosophy & Social Criticism 35(9): 1019–1037.
Azmanova, A. (2011), ‘After the left–right (dis)continuum: globalization and the remaking of Europe’s
ideological geography’, International Political Sociology 5(4): 384–407.
Bartolini, S. and P. Mair (1990), Identity, Competition and Electoral Availability: The Stabilisation of
European Electorates, 1885–1985, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bell, D. (1993), Communitarianism and its Critics, Oxford: Claredon Press.
Bornschier, S. (2010), Cleavage Politics and the Populist Right. The New Cultural Conflict in Western
Europe, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
De Wilde, P. (2011), ‘No polity for old politics? A framework for analyzing politicization of European
integration’, Journal of European Integration 33(5): 559–575.
De Wilde, P. and M. Zürn (2012), ‘Can the politicization of European integration be reversed?’, Journal of
Common Market Studies 50(1): 137–153.
De Wilde, P. and M. Zürn (2013), ‘Debating Globalization: Cosmopolitanism and Communitarianism as
Political Ideologies’, unpublished manuscript, WZB.
Diez Medrano, J. (2010), ‘A new society in the making. European integration and European social groups’,
KFG Working Paper 12: 1–31.
Dreher, A., N. Gaston and P. Martens (2008), Measuring Globalization – Gauging its Consequence,
New York: Springer.
Ecker-Ehrhardt, M. (2011), ‘Cosmopolitan politicization: how perceptions of interdependence foster
citizens' expectations in international institutions’, European Journal of International Relations 18
(3): 481–508.
Eriksen, E.O. (2009), ‘The EU: a cosmopolitan vanguard?’, Global Jurist 9(1): 1–23.
Fligstein, N. (2008), Euro-clash. The EU, European Identity, and the Future of Europe, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Hanquinet, L. and M. Savage (2012), ‘The Europeanisation of everyday life: cross-border practices and
transnational identifications among EU and third-country citizens. Operationalisation of European
identity, cosmopolitanism and cross-border practices’, EUCROSS Working Paper (2), 1–53.
Hanquinet, L. and M. Savage (2013), ‘The Europeanisation of everyday life: cross-border practices
and transnational identifications among EU and third-country citizens. Europeanization and
globalisation’, EUCROSS Working Paper (6), 1–20.
Herzog, A. and J.A. Tucker(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.
Hooghe, L. and G. Marks (2009), ‘A postfunctionalist theory of European integration: from permissive
consensus to constraining dissensus’, British Journal of Political Science 39(1): 1–23.
Jiménez, A.M.R., J.J. Górniak, A. Kosic, P. Kiss and M. Kandulla (2004), ‘European and national identities
in EU’s old and new member states: ethnic, civic, instrumental and symbolic components’, European
Integration Online Papers 8(11): 1–37.
Kendall, G., Z. Skrbis and I. Woodward (2009), The Sociology of Cosmopolitanism, London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Kriesi, H., E. Grande, R. Lachat, M. Dolezal, S. Bornschier and T. Frey (2008), West European Politics in
the Age of Globalization, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kriesi, H., E. Grande, M. Dolezal, M. Helbling, D. Hoeglinger and S. Hutter (2012), Political Conflict in
Western Europe, Cambridge; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Lacewell, O.P. and W.M. Merkel (2013), ‘Value Shifts in European Societies: Clashes between Cosmopolitanism
and Communitarianism’, in O. Cramme, P. Diamond and M. McTernan (eds), Progressive
Politics After The Clash: Governing From the Left, London/New York: I.B. Tauris, 77–95.
Lipset, S.M. and S. Rokkan (1967), Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives.
New York: Free Press.
Lubbers, M. and P. Scheepers (2010), ‘Divergent trends of euroscepticism in countries and regions of the
European Union’, European Journal of Political Research 49(6): 787–817.
594 C É L I N E T E N E Y , O N A W A P R O M I S E L A C E W E L L , P I E T E R D E W I L D E
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773913000246
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiteitsbibliotheek Utrecht, on 31 Dec 2017 at 15:27:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
Mau, S. (2005), ‘Europe from the bottom: assessing personal gains and losses and its effects on EU support’,
Journal of Public Policy 25(3): 289–311.
Phillips, T. (2002), ‘Imagined communities and self-identity: an exploratory quantitative analysis’,
Sociology-The Journal Of The British Sociological Association 36(3): 597–617.
Phillips, T. and P. Smith (2008), ‘Cosmopolitan beliefs and cosmopolitan practices’, Journal of Sociology 44
(4): 391–399.
Pichler, F. (2009a), ‘Cosmopolitan Europe’, European Societies 11: 3–24.
Pichler, F. (2009b), ‘Down-to-Earth’ cosmopolitanism subjective and objective measurements of cosmopolitanism
in survey research’, Current Sociology 57(5): 704–732.
Pichler, F. (2012), ‘Cosmopolitanism in a global perspective: an international comparison of open-minded
orientations and identity in relation to globalization’, International Sociology 27(1): 21–50.
Pogge, T.W. (1992), ‘Cosmopolitanism and sovereignty’, Ethics 103(1): 48–75.
Sandel, M. (1998), Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schlueter, E., B. Meuleman and E. Davidov (2013), ‘Immigrant integration policies and perceived group
threat: a multilevel study of 27 Western and Eastern European Countries’, Social Science Research
42: 670–682.
Snijders, T.A.B. and R.J. Bosker (1999), Multilevel Analysis. An Introduction to Basic and Advanced
Multilevel Modeling, London: Sage.
Teney, C. (2012), ‘Space matters. the group threat hypothesis revisited with geographically weighted
regression. The case of the NPD 2009 electoral success’, Zeitschrift für Soziologie 41(3): 207–226.
Van der Brug, W. and J. van Spanje (2009), ‘Immigration, Europe and the ‘new’ cultural dimension’,
European Journal of Political Research 48(3): 309–334.
Walter, S. (2010), ‘Globalization and the welfare state: testing the microfoundations of the compensation
hypothesis’, International Studies Quarterly 54: 403–426.
Zürn, M. (1998), Regieren jenseits des Nationalstaates, Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.
Zürn, M. (2012), ‘The politicization of world politics and its effects: eight propositions’, European Political
Sience Review, 1–25.
Zürn, M., M. Binder and M. Ecker-Ehrhardt (2012), ‘International authority and its politicization’, International
Theory 4(1): 69–106.
Winners and losers of globalization in Europe 595
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773913000246
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiteitsbibliotheek Utrecht, on 31 Dec 2017 at 15:27:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,