Backlash kills alt solvency – open political institutions cause reactionary counter-mobilization
Kuhn et. Al 17 — Theresa Kuhn, associate professor in political science at the University of Amsterdam, Hector Solaz, senior research officer at ESSEXLab and the Department of Government at the University of Essex, Erika J. van Elsas, postdoctoral research fellow at the Amsterdam School of Communication Research, University of Amsterdam, 2017 ("Practising what you preach: how cosmopolitanism promotes willingness to redistribute across the European Union," Journal of European Public Policy, September 11, Available Online at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13501763.2017.1370005, Accessed 07-15-2023)
The European sovereign debt crisis has underlined the political relevance and the fragile foundation of public support for international redistribution in the European Union (EU). Amid unprecedented economic downturn, several member states have received financial assistance from the European Union and the International Monetary Fund (European Commission 2014). European policy makers are currently pushing for further social integration and risk sharing, as highlighted in the Five Presidents’ Report (European Commission 2015).
However, international redistribution is highly contentious, and sceptical public opinion makes it difficult to legitimize such actions (Hobolt 2015). Citizens do not necessarily adapt their allegiances to the transnationalization of society. Globalization also triggers counter-reactions such as ethnocentrism and parochialism. West European democracies are witnessing the emergence of a new political divide that pits the proponents of globalization against its opponents (Hooghe and Marks 2017; Kriesi et al. 2008). The most salient issues of this conflict are immigration and European integration, and they are predominantly discussed in cultural rather than economic terms (Hooghe and Marks 2017; Teney et al. 2014; Van der Brug and Van Spanje 2009). Teney et al. (2014) show that this conflict is related to cosmopolitan and communitarian ideological dispositions. While cosmopolitans favour opening national boundaries and welcome immigration and European integration, communitarians oppose these developments.
It is less clear whether openness towards immigration and European integration is mere lip service or translates into support for international redistribution, especially as much of the current debate focuses on cultural rather than economic aspects. Moreover, while cosmopolitanism entails more open and global orientations, this may not translate into support for redistribution either at home or abroad. Cosmopolitans might be simply too élitist, mobile and detached from society to care for ‘ordinary’ people in need (Calhoun 2002; Ciornei and Recchi 2017; Delhey et al. 2015). It is therefore not obvious that cosmopolitanism indeed breeds international solidarity within the European Union.