1 / 22

CANS AN INITIAL OVERVIEW

CANS AN INITIAL OVERVIEW. CHARLIE JEFFERY University of Edinburgh. Regionalisation of Politics. How far do citizens understand/practice a regionalised politics? Instead of nationalisation? As well as (interdependent with; autonomous of nationalised politics)?

buck
Download Presentation

CANS AN INITIAL OVERVIEW

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CANSAN INITIAL OVERVIEW CHARLIE JEFFERY University of Edinburgh

  2. Regionalisation of Politics • How far do citizens understand/practice a regionalised politics? • Instead of nationalisation? • As well as (interdependent with; autonomous of nationalised politics)? • Standard questionnaire → data on 3 regions Austria, France, Germany, Spain, 2 regions UK • Regions chosen for variation on identity, powers, economy • Robustness of indicators across regional/national contexts?

  3. Variables • Dependent • How far is political participation understood/practiced at regional scales? • How far is social solidarity understood/practiced at regional scales? • Independent • Territorial identity (within CANS) • Powers of regional govt (Marks et al?) • Regional economic disparities (?)

  4. Identity: Attachment to Region % ‘very’ attached to region/state

  5. Identity: Moreno Scale

  6. Participation: Measures • Relative importance of regional vs. statewide electoral process • Voting; decisions of regional vs. state parliaments • Standard political efficacy measures • (UK) which does/which should have most influence? • (Germany) which more in touch with everyday concerns?

  7. Participation: Voting • How important to vote in regional/state elections

  8. Participation: Efficacy % agree/agree strongly ‘regional/state govt doesn’t care about what people like me think’

  9. Participation: Does/Should Which level of govt does/which should have most influence? Here: % regional govt should/does

  10. Participation: ‘Concerned’ • % think regional/state govt is more concerned about ‘worries and needs’ of the people

  11. Participation: Constitution

  12. Participation: In Sum • Clearly a multi-level political citizenship, both-and • Voting at state level generally more important (except Scotland, Catalonia) • Scotland and Catalonia keenest on regional-scale participation • CLM, Lower Saxony, Vienna least keen • ALL except CLM think regional govt should have ‘most influence’, more in touch, more influenceable • Weight of opinion clearly to the ‘more powers’ side of status quo • Endorsement of more ‘proximate’ govt • Not much obvious variation by identity, powers, disparities • Often clearly national patterns

  13. Solidarity: Measures • Definition of ‘solidarity community’ – with whom do we most closely share interests, regional vs statewide community? • Openness to territorial policy variation – more open, then less concerned about statewide equity? • Measures of statewide/interregional solidarity

  14. Solidarity Community • How close to people in region/state as a whole?

  15. Solidarity: Policy Variation #1 Which level of govt should be responsible for the environment?

  16. Solidarity: Policy Variation #1 • Which level of govt should be responsible for fighting unemployment?

  17. Solidarity: Policy Variation #1 • Which level of govt should be responsible for education?

  18. Solidarity: Policy Variation #2 • Uniformity vs. matter for region to decide • Unemployment benefits, student fees, old age care, juvenile offenders • Generally (large) majorities for uniformity • Catalonia the exception – except juvenile offenders majority for Catalan decision • Scotland>Wales>Galicia>Bavaria substantial minorities for regional decision • Austria uniform, very high preference for uniformity (Germany except Bavaria, France not far behind)

  19. Solidarity: Disparities • Central govt to intervene to even out regional economic disparities? • All majority agree; here % disagree

  20. Solidarity: Interregional • Rich regions transfer to poor to ensure uniformity • % disagree

  21. Solidarity: In Sum • Scotland, Wales, Catalonia, Galicia (Bavaria): outliers on solidarity community, policy variation • But otherwise (and general) preference for state-level competence and uniform provision • Rich-poor differentiation on disparities and equalisation • But: general preference for measures to ensure equity • Social citizenship still, but significantly less multi-levelled

  22. In Sum • General preference for more political participation at regional scale • General preference for social solidarity at statewide scale • But with some indications that identity differentiates solidarity community, as does relative economic performance • Main differentiation by state, national patterns • Some evidence that identity works cross-nationally to regionalise (public attitudes towards) politics (UK, Spain) • Preferences in contradiction! • Different scales of political action allow expression of different aspects of citizenship

More Related