The eu’s Legitimacy in the Eye of the Beholders

Chapter 9 – From Numbers to Narratives

Isn’t it striking that we are all aware of the cultural diversity of Europe, yet political Europe we perceive as a larger version of our home country?

Frans Timmermans ⁹¹
In this chapter, the findings of the empirical research are discussed. The first part – the numbers – is a comparison of the statistics from the previous three chapters. It will follow roughly the same structure as those chapters. The second and third part – the narratives – are a ‘translation’ of the quantitative data back to qualitative data. In part two, the similarities are placed in context followed by the national differences in part three. In the final part, we will return to the hypotheses formulated in chapter five. On the basis of the discussion of the findings we will be able to test the hypotheses to see whether or not they are correct.

9.1 – Numbers

The quantitative analysis is a means to come to grips with a large amount of data. In what follows the aim is to paint a comprehensible picture of the main similarities and differences between the discourses. Therefore minor discrepancies are beyond the scope of this discussion, as are the exact percentages. First, the empirical findings are compared and then they are ‘grouped’ into similarities and differences.

9.1.1 – General Findings

The rate of publication is stable in both the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, but the former published more than the latter. France shows a clear increase: In period one, less is published than in the United Kingdom, but in the second period, more than in the Netherlands.

The overall judgements in the articles and observations show the same pattern in all three discourses. They are supportive of the European project, but negative in their assessment of the EU’s legitimacy.

9.1.2 – Facets and Judgements of Legitimacy

We start with the similarities between the discourses before turning to the national differences. In all three discourses, the same categories within the facets are the most common and they are more often negative in their evaluation of the EU’s legitimacy than their national average. The categories are a universalist conceptualisation, a focus on input legitimacy and a focus on direct legitimacy. Both a universalist conceptualisation and a focus on direct legitimacy lead the most often to a negative evaluation compared to the other categories within the facet. A focus on input legitimacy though is always outflanked by a focus on throughput legitimacy, but not by much.

A second similarity is that both conceptualisations using both dimensions or combining both models of political order are rare in all three discourses.

Thirdly, all categories, except the marginal ones just mentioned above, lead more often to a negative than a positive evaluation of the EU’s legitimacy. The only exception to the rule is found in the Dutch discourse, where a focus on output legitimacy leads more often to a positive evaluation.

Some differences have come forward in the similarities above, but there are two more differences that warrant attention. Both are from the French discourse: First, the judgement of the EU’s legitimacy seems to be unrelated to the dimensional conceptualisation of legitimacy, because the percentages diverge only minimally from the French average. In the other discourses, a universalist conceptualisation leads more often to a negative evaluation than the national averages, whilst a nationalist one leads much more often to a positive evaluation.

Secondly, observations focussing on indirect legitimacy lead more often to a negative evaluation of the EU’s legitimacy than the national average, unlike the Dutch as the British discourse, where such a focus leads more often to a positive evaluation than the national average.

9.1.3 – Multi-level Governance

The number of articles that take the reality of multi-level governance into account is the same in all the discourses: it is almost non-existent. The number of observations that take multi-level governance into account is the largest in Dutch discourse with 97,7% not taking it into account! With numbers so outspoken there is little left to say.

9.1.4 – The Overall Legitimacy Discourses

The overall discourses are similar in three ways. First of all, the most common perceptions of legitimacy are all negative in their evaluation. Secondly, in all three discourses, the perception using a universalist concept of legitimacy with a focus on input and direct legitimacy leading to a negative evaluation characterises more than a quarter of all observations. In the Dutch discourse, more than a third of the observations is characterised as such. The third similarity is that perceptions characterised by a nationalist conceptualisation with a focus on input and direct legitimacy leading to a negative evaluation and those characterised by a universalist concept of legitimacy with a focus on throughput and direct legitimacy leading to a negative evaluation are both common in all three discourses.

Next to these similarities there are also several differences between the discourses. The Dutch discourse clearly focuses on input legitimacy. There are two findings that support this, namely the aforementioned number of observations characterised by a universalist concept of legitimacy with a focus on input and direct legitimacy leading to a negative evaluation. Furthermore, three of the four most common perceptions focus on input legitimacy. On the other hand, the Dutch often evaluate the EU’s legitimacy on the basis of a nationalist conceptualisation in combination with a focus on output legitimacy.

The British discourse takes an interest in input legitimacy, but stands out, because it emphasises output legitimacy to a much larger extent than the others. Two often encountered perceptions focus on output legitimacy compared to none in the Netherlands and one in France. Further, legitimacy is more often assessed using nationalist concept of legitimacy than in the other discourses. Finally, the British discourse is the only one in which one of the most common perceptions focuses on indirect legitimacy.

The French discourse does not actually stand out as much as it falls in-between the other two. On the one hand, it shares the Dutch emphasis on input legitimacy to some extent; on the other hand, one of the most often encountered perceptions focuses on output legitimacy, which places it more in line with the British discourse.

Finally, when it comes to the most common positive perceptive on the EU’s legitimacy the discourses differ. A perspective characterised by a universalist conception of legitimacy focussing on output and direct legitimacy leads to the most positive observations in the Netherlands. The British have the most positive perceptions when they use a perspective characterised by a nationalist concept of legitimacy with a focus on input and indirect legitimacy. Finally, the French are most often positive when using a nationalist concept of legitimacy with a focus on output legitimacy and does not use any model of political order.

9.1.5 – The Grouping of the Numbers

In this part, the empirical findings presented above are systematically ‘grouped’ in similarities and differences. The similarities, except for the first one, are grouped on the basis of the hypotheses. This is done for clarity as well as to accommodate answering the hypotheses later on. The differences are divided along national boundaries. The groupings form the basis for the narrative approach, which will take a closer, qualitative look at these ‘groups of numbers’.

First up are the similarities. The first similarity is that in all three discourses we find overall support for the European project, but a very negative evaluation of its legitimacy. This seems to indicate the EU’s legitimacy deficit.

Secondly, all the non-marginal categories lead more often to a negative evaluation of the EU’s legitimacy than a positive one. The categories that are used most often lead more often to a negative evaluation than the national average. These categories are the ones associated with the idea of a universalist, democratic deficit – a universalist conceptualisation, a focus on input legitimacy and a focus on direct legitimacy. Another finding supporting the hypothesis of a democratic deficit is that the most common perception in all three discourses is characterised by a universalist concept of legitimacy focussing on input and direct legitimacy leading to a negative evaluation. Finally, in all the discourses a negative perception of the EU’s legitimacy based on a universalist conceptualisation focussing on throughput and direct legitimacy is common.

The third group of similarities indicate a mismatch between the perception of multi-level government and the reality of multi-level governance. First, all the categories lead more often to a negative than a positive evaluation. In this regard, the distribution of observations conceptualising legitimacy on the basis of either dimension is rather balanced. Thus both dimensions influence the discourses and both lead more often to a negative evaluation than a positive one. Furthermore, in all three discourses a nationalist concept of legitimacy with a focus on input and direct legitimacy leading to a negative evaluation characterises many observations. Finally, none of the discourses takes the reality of multi-level governance into account.

The ways in which the discourses differ from one another are as follows: The Netherlands stands out in three important ways. First, there is more emphasis on input legitimacy than in the other discourses. Secondly, the focus on and positive evaluation of the EU’s output legitimacy. Finally, the most articles were published in the Netherlands.

The British, on the other hand, published the lowest number of articles. Although input legitimacy clearly matters and is problematic, there is much more focus on output legitimacy, although its evaluation is not much better. Finally, a perspective of legitimacy with a focus on indirect legitimacy is more important in the British discourse.

Finally, the French discourse knows a dramatic rise in publications. Further, France seems to fall in-between the other two discourses with a mixed emphasis on input and output legitimacy. On the other hand, the discourse stands out, because the dimensions are more in line with the national average than in the other discourses and the indirect model leads more often to negative evaluation than the national average.