European unity is a frequent headline theme these days – from crisis talks on European support for Ukraine to broader questions about U.S. security guarantees. And the European Union is also reeling over Donald Trump’s sudden threat to impose 25% tariffs on E.U. exports to the United States. All of these challenges are now piling onto broader concerns about economic growth, as well as rising threats from Europe’s right-wing parties.
Of course, how Europeans view the European Union varies. Its popularity has rebounded in recent years, surveys suggest. But the desire to “take back control” from the E.U. led many people to vote “Leave” in the United Kingdom’s 2016 referendum on E.U. membership.
When confronting a difficult situation, how do Europeans really feel about the E.U.? Our survey sheds some light on this question.
Is the E.U. welcome in domestic politics?
E.U. fiscal and regulatory requirements sometimes appear to generate public resentment. They may make tough domestic policies – like slashing budgets – even more controversial. Here’s an example from 2023: In return for continued support for health care, education, and innovation, the E.U. required Spain to adopt contentious changes to its pension system. Some Europeans see this kind of E.U. intervention as unnecessary, and unwelcome.
Nevertheless, some surveys suggest the endorsement of policies by a respected outside institution, like the E.U. or the International Monetary Fund (IMF), might lend confidence to voters. Voters who do not fully trust their own government may find the approval of an outsider reassuring, for instance.
Do European voters trust the E.U.?
We were curious about how voters see E.U. requirements when confronted with news of austerity. We designed a survey experiment where a control group was informed about hypothetical budget cuts. A treatment group received the same information – with the added twist that the E.U. required these budget cuts.
We implemented the survey in Spain because of the country’s familiarity with spending cuts and its history with international organizations.
Following the 2008 global financial crisis, Spain entered a deep and persistent economic recession. In May 2010, the Spanish government cut public salaries, reduced infrastructure spending, and froze pensions. The E.U. mandated these measures in countries that had racked up high levels of government debt, leading to the Eurozone crisis. In return for making these cuts, Spain and other countries received E.U. bailout funds, and were able to stabilize their economies.
This interaction with the E.U. is part of a trend. The E.U. has had a growing presence in Spain, over the past half century. In the past, the country also grappled with financial difficulties with the help of the IMF.
What we learned from our survey in Spain
Here’s what we found: Informing Spanish citizens that controversial budget cuts are required by the E.U. lowers people’s opposition to these cuts.
Interestingly, this shift in people’s views wasn’t simply because we informed them of a requirement from just any outside organization. We also included a treatment group whom we told that the IMF – not the E.U. – required the cuts. The IMF treatment group showed no statistically significant effect. As research suggests, the identity of the outside actor matters. And Spanish citizens appear to place meaningful faith in the E.U.
Spanish voters in our survey trust the E.U.
To be clear, we surveyed our respondents twice. The first wave (conducted from May 12-25, 2021) established people’s baseline opposition to domestic spending cuts. In the second wave (from June 30-July 25, 2021), we divided our sample into control and treatment groups. We can thus present the change in people’s opposition to spending cuts. We also provided the gory details about the budget cuts in the second wave of the survey. Unsurprisingly, opposition went up – but not for the E.U. treatment group.
Figure: Does it matter who mandated the spending cuts?
As the figure shows, telling survey participants that the E.U. required these spending cuts effectively reduced opposition. Answers were measured on a seven-point scale, with higher values indicating greater opposition to spending cuts. In the control group, opposition increased between the first and second waves of the survey by 0.37 of a point, from 3.91 to 4.28. The IMF treatment did little to stem the rise in opposition, with opposition in that sample increasing by 0.24 of a point. So, the overall effect of the IMF treatment was to lower opposition by 0.13 – a difference that’s not statistically significant at conventional levels. The pattern was notably distinct for the E.U. treatment group: Opposition barely changed between the two survey waves. So, the overall effect of the E.U. treatment was to lower opposition by 0.35, a statistically significant difference.
We did find limitations on the E.U. effect: First, it holds only for relatively small budget cuts (2% versus 8%). Second, it holds only for citizens who did not support Spain’s ruling party. It seems that government supporters do not need the reassurance of the E.U., while voters less trusting of the incumbent government do. Finally, nationalism mattered: Highly nationalistic respondents were unmoved by the E.U., while cosmopolitan voters were more receptive to the E.U. requirement.
The bottom line?
Despite the backlash against globalization, international organizations may continue to play a positive role in shaping public opinion even when times are hard. Still, we caution against being overly optimistic. The identity of the organization matters – and there are limits.
That said, our results represent a win for the European Union. The institution was shaken by Brexit and remains under fire from anti-integration movements across Europe. Yet, in Spain, trust in the E.U. appears alive and well.
Pablo M. Pinto is Distinguished Professor at the Hobby School of Public Affairs, University of Houston, and the director of the Hobby School’s Center for Public Policy.
Stephanie J. Rickard is a professor at the London School of Economics.
James Raymond Vreeland is a professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton University.
They are the authors of a new article in International Studies Quarterly, “The Effect of International Actors on Public Support for Government Spending Decisions.”
