@article{JankinMarsh, author = {Jankin, Slava and Marsh, Michael}, title = {Policy Performance and Support for European Integration}, series = {The Legitimacy of the European Union After Enlargement}, journal = {The Legitimacy of the European Union After Enlargement}, editor = {Thomassen, Jacques}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, address = {Oxford}, isbn = {9780199548996}, pages = {164}, abstract = {Following Easton's conceptual framework discussed in the introductory chapter, a hierarchical relationship exists between three objects of support: output support, support for institutions, and support for the community. The latter two objects of support are examined in turn in two subsequent chapters on trust in European political institutions and the relationship between citizenship and identity in the European Community. This chapter focuses on the first object of support - support derived from the accrued material benefits of EU membership.}, language = {en} } @article{MarshJankin, author = {Marsh, Michael and Jankin, Slava}, title = {European Parliament elections and EU governance}, series = {Living Reviews in European Governance}, volume = {5}, journal = {Living Reviews in European Governance}, number = {4}, issn = {1813-856X}, doi = {10.12942/lreg-2010-4}, abstract = {The decision to establish direct elections to the European Parliament was intended by many to establish a direct link between the individual citizen and decision making at the European level. Elections were meant to help to establish a common identity among the peoples of Europe, to legitimise policy through the normal electoral processes and provide a public space within which Europeans could exert a more direct control over their collective future. Critics disagreed, arguing that direct elections to the European Parliament would further undermine the sovereignty of member states, and may not deliver on the promise that so many were making on behalf of that process. In particular, some wondered whether elections alone could mobilise European publics to take a much greater interest in European matters, with the possibility of European elections being contested simply on national matters. Evaluating these divergent views, the subject of this article is to review the literature on direct elections to the European Parliament in the context of the role these elections play in governance of the European Union. The seminal work by Reif and Schmitt serves as the starting point of our review. These authors were the first to discuss elections to the European Parliament as second-order national elections. Results of second-order elections are influenced not only by second-order factors, but also by the situation in the first-order arena at the time of the second-order election. In the 30 years and six more sets of European Parliament elections since the publication of their work, the concept has become the dominant one in any academic discussion of European elections. In this article we review that work in order to assess the continuing value of the second-order national election concept today, and to consider some of the more fruitful areas for research which might build on the advance made by Reif and Schmitt. While the concept has proven useful in studies of a range of elections beyond just those for the European Parliament, including those for regional and local assemblies as well as referendums, this review will concentrate solely on EP elections. Concluding that Reif and Schmitt's characterisation remains broadly valid today, the article allows that while this does not mean there is necessarily a democratic deficit within the EU, there may be changes that could be made to encourage a more effective electoral process.}, language = {en} } @article{MarshJankin, author = {Marsh, Michael and Jankin, Slava}, title = {Economic voting in a crisis: the Irish election of 2011}, series = {Electoral Studies}, volume = {31}, journal = {Electoral Studies}, number = {3}, doi = {10.1016/j.electstud.2012.02.010}, pages = {478 -- 484}, abstract = {The paper explores a question raised by the 2011 Irish election, which saw an almost unprecedented decline in support for a major governing party after an economic collapse that necessitated an ECB/IMF 'bailout'. This seems a classic case of 'economic voting' in which a government is punished for incompetent performance. How did the government lose this support: gradually, as successive economic indicators appeared negative, or dramatically, following major shocks? The evidence points to losses at two critical junctures. This is consistent with an interpretation of the link between economics and politics that allows for qualitative judgements by voters in assigning credit and blame for economic performance.}, language = {en} } @article{MarshJankin, author = {Marsh, Michael and Jankin, Slava}, title = {A Conservative Revolution: The electoral response to economic crisis in Ireland}, series = {Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties}, volume = {24}, journal = {Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties}, number = {2}, issn = {1745-7289}, doi = {10.1080/17457289.2014.887719}, pages = {160 -- 179}, abstract = {The 2011 election in Ireland was one of the most dramatic elections in European post-war history in terms of net electoral volatility. In some respects the election overturned the traditional party system. Yet it was a conservative revolution, one in which the main players remained the same, and the switch in the major government party was merely one in which one centre right party replaced another. Comparing voting behaviour over the last three elections we show that the 2011 election looks much like that of 2002 and 2007. The crisis did not result in the redefinition of the electoral landscape. While we find clear evidence of economic voting at the 2011 election, issue voting remained week. We believe that this is due to the fact that parties have not offered clear policy alternatives to the electorate in the recent past and did not do so in 2011.}, language = {en} } @article{JankinMarsh, author = {Jankin, Slava and Marsh, Michael}, title = {Reading The Tea Leaves: Medvedev's Presidency Through Political Rhetoric Of Federal And Sub-National Actors}, series = {Europe-Asia Studies}, volume = {66}, journal = {Europe-Asia Studies}, number = {6}, issn = {0966-8136}, doi = {10.1080/09668136.2014.926716}, pages = {969 -- 992}, abstract = {In the absence of public information on the inner workings of the Russian political regime, especially during Medvedev's presidency, outside observers often have to rely on politicians' unguarded comments or subjective analysis. Instead, we turn to quantitative text analysis of political rhetoric. Treating governors as a quasi-expert panel, we argue that policy positions revealed in regional legislative addresses explain how elites perceived the distribution of power between Putin and Medvedev. We find that governors moved from a neutral position in 2009 to a clearly pro-Putin position in 2011, and that policy initiatives advocated by Medvedev all but evaporated from the rhetoric of governors in 2012.}, language = {en} }