Attitudes Towards the European Union in Turkey: The Role of Perceived Threats and Benefits

Abstract

Public opinion towards the European Union in Turkey is a relatively understudied area. Although previous studies have identified some important factors that influence individual support for the European Union, such as material expectations and democratic attitudes, the role of other factors, such as the perceived political benefits and threats, have not been addressed. The purpose of this paper is to test group-centricism arguments, which suggest that identity, group-based interests, and perceived threats are important determinants of attitudes. An analysis of data from the latest available Eurobarometer Survey shows that symbolic politics and perceived benefits play an important role in shaping individual attitudes towards the EU in Turkey. While subjective material and political expectations increase pro-EU attitudes, the strength of national identity and perceived material and cultural threats to the nation are crucial in decreasing support for the EU

Keywords

• Attitudes towards the European Union, Euroscepticism, perceived threat, utilitarianism, national identity, social identity theory, symbolic politics.

References

1. Lauren McLaren, “Public Support for the European Union: Cost/ Benefit Analysis or Perceived Cultural Threat?”, Journal of Politics, Vol. 64, No. 2 (May 2002), pp. 551- 566; Lauren M. McLaren, Identity, Interests and Attitudes to European Integration, Hampshire and New York, Palgrave MacMillan, 2006, pp. 38-41.
2. Ebru Canan-Sokullu, “Turcoscepticism and Threat Perception: European Public and Elite Opinion on Turkey’s Protracted EU Membership”, South European Society and Politics, Vol. 16, No. 3 (September 2011), pp. 483-497.
3. Donald Kinder, “Opinion and Action in the Realm of Politics”, in Daniel T. Gilbert, Susan T. Fiske, and Gardner Lindzey (eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th Edition, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1998, pp. 778-867.
4. Kinder, “Opinion and Action in the Realm of Politics”, p. 800. 7 Ibid., p. 801.
5. Sears and Funk, “The Role of Self-Interest in Social and Political Attitudes”, p. 18.
6. Western Balkans Security Observer, Vol. 17 (April-June 2010), pp. 77-87. Also see Şenyuva
7. “Türkiye-Avrupa Birliği İlişkileri ve Kamuoyu”.
8. Ruairi Patterson, “Rising Nationalism and the EU Accession Process”, Turkish Policy Quarterly, Vol. 7, No.1 (Spring 2008), pp. 131-138; Ziya Öniş and Şuhnaz Yılmaz, “Between Europeanization and Euro-Asianism: Foreign Policy Activism in Turkey during the AKP Era”, Turkish Studies, Vol. 10, No. 1 (March 2009), pp. 7-24.

9. In fact, the effect of self-interest variables is usually context-dependent. Sears and Funk, “The Role of Self-Interest in Social and Political Attitudes”.
10. Leonie Huddy, “Group Identity and Social Cohesion”, in David O. Sears, Leonie Huddy, and Robert Jervis (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2003, pp. 511-558.
11. Lawrence Bobo, “Whites’ Opposition to Busing: Symbolic Racism or Realistic Group Conflict?”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 45, No. 6 (December 1983), pp. 1196-1210; Robert Alan LeVine and Donald Thomas Campbell, Ethnocentrism: Theories of Conflict, Ethnic Attitudes, and Group Behavior, New York, Wiley, 1972.
12. Morris P. Fiorina, Retrospective Voting in American National Elections, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1981; Donald R. Kinder, “Presidents, Prosperity, and Public Opinion”, Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 45, No. 1 (Spring 1981), pp. 1-21; Michael Lewis-Beck, Economics and Elections: The Major Western Democracies, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 1988.
13. Jack Citrin, Donald P. Green, Christopher Muste, and Cara Wong, “Public Opinion Toward Immigration Reform: The Role of Economic Motivations”, Journal of Politics, Vol. 59, No. 3 (August 1997), pp. 858-881.
14. Gabel and Whitten, “Economic Conditions, Economic Perceptions”. Kentmen, “Determinants of Support for EU Membership in Turkey”.
15. In fact, democratic attitudes are positively related to support for EU membership. Çarkoğlu, “Who Wants Full Membership?”.
16. Henri Tajfel, Human Groups and Social Categories, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1981; Henry Tajfel and John Turner, “An Integretive Theory of Intergroup Conflict”, in William G. Austin and Stephen Worchel (eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Monterey, CA, Brooks Cole, 1979, pp. 33- 48.
17. Of course, just being a member of a group- such as being female or a citizen of a certain country- is not enough for social identity to have an effect on political attitudes. It is rather the subjective identification with one’s group(s) or one’s sense of belonging that is critical to understanding the political ramifications of group membership since not all group members feel a sense of attachment to their in-group. Leonie Huddy, “ From Social to Political Identity: A Critical Examination of Social Identity Theory”, Political Psychology, Vol. 22, No. 1 (March 2001), pp. 127-156.
18. Ziya Öniş, “Conservative Globalists versus Defensive Nationalists: Political Parties and Paradoxes of Europeanisation in Turkey”, in Susannah Verney and Kostas Ifantis (eds.), Turkey’s Road to European Union Membership: National Identity and Political Change, London and New York, Routledge, 2009, pp. 35- 48.
19. Gabel, “Public Support for European Integration”; Hooghe and Marks, “Does Identity or Economic Rationality Drive Public Opinion?”; Ehin, “Determinants of Public Support for EU Membership”.
20. Patterson, “Rising Nationalism and the EU Accession Process”, p. 136.
21. Işıl Cerem Cenker, “Turkey’s Changing Perceptions of the EU: From Partnership to Patronship”, in Meltem Müftüler-Baç and Yannis A. Stivachtis (eds.), Turkey – European Union Relations: Dilemmas, Opportunities, and Constraints, Lanham, MD, Lexington Books, 2008.