Popular in History

Arts and Humanities

Titus Quinctius Flamininus’ “Italian triumph”

McGill University Michael Fronda

Arts and Humanities

Lincoln and the Jews

Brandeis University Jonathan Sarna

Arts and Humanities

Early Modern Natural Law Theories

University of Copenhagen Knud Haakonssen

Arts and Humanities

Phoenicians Among Others: Why Migrants Mattered in the Ancient Mediterranean

University of California San Diego Denise Demetriou

Arts and Humanities

The loneliness of leadership

University of Liverpool Elaine Chalus

Arts and Humanities

La Güera Rodríguez

Brandeis University Silvia Arrom

Arts and Humanities

The Myth of Continuity in American Gun Culture

University of California Berkeley Brian DeLay

The Rise of the Bureaucratic State

View more insights in Arts and Humanities - History - European History

View more figures from University of Manchester

View the page of Georg Christ

Read the Study

Image courtesy of interviewee. March 25, 2024

Generating Workspace

Export as PDF

This video video discusses European identity in the context of the EU's cohesion policy, particularly in light of developments like Brexit and shifting political landscapes. It emphasizes the importance of a shared European identity for the sustainability of the EU and examines how various factors contribute to the formation of this identity.

Key points include:

1. **Cohesion Policy's Role**: The EU cohesion policy is highlighted as a significant redistributive policy that shows solidarity by allocating funds to less developed regions, thus playing a vital role in enhancing European identity.

2. **Research Focus**: The study aims to explore what drives European identity, particularly through three mechanisms: cognitive mobilization (awareness of EU actions), instrumental benefits (material advantages from EU policies), and communication (media and public acknowledgment of EU contributions).

3. **Survey Findings**: A survey of 8,559 citizens from 17 EU regions revealed that awareness of EU funding significantly correlates with a stronger sense of European identity. Participants who recognized EU funding initiatives were more likely to identify with Europe.

4. **Identity Types**: The study describes identity as a spectrum, ranging from national identity to a mixed identity (both national and European) to a full European identity. It suggests that individuals' perceptions of benefits from EU funding influence their identification as Europeans.

5. **Communication Strategies**: This video video advocates for improved communication about what the EU does and how it benefits citizens, emphasizing the impact of symbols and public acknowledgment of EU funding on enhancing European identity.

6. **Conclusion and Recommendations**: The authors recommend that the EU focus on effective communication strategies to raise awareness of its cohesion policy and the benefits it brings to its citizens, which could foster a stronger European identity.

Overall, the text conveys that understanding and promoting European identity is crucial for the EU’s political and social cohesion, particularly through effective public engagement and acknowledgment of the EU's contributions to local communities.

Language:

Export as PDF

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:01.505 --> 00:03.045
The context is very interesting,

00:03.105 --> 00:06.005
and it's related to developments within the European Union

00:06.005 --> 00:09.725
developments in, UK politics, the Brexit referendum,

00:09.785 --> 00:12.485
and everybody started to question the feasibility

00:12.485 --> 00:14.005
of the European, project.

00:14.265 --> 00:17.925
So as for there is an increased recognition on the

00:18.095 --> 00:21.605
importance of a shared European identity for the overall,

00:21.745 --> 00:25.565
EU project, for the sustainability of the European Union

00:25.665 --> 00:27.685
as a political, regime.

00:28.185 --> 00:31.005
And then, previous studies, like during court,

00:31.145 --> 00:34.365
for example, has shown that the, a degree of, the degree

00:34.365 --> 00:37.325
of identification with the European Union also explain

00:37.465 --> 00:40.045
how people voted, in the Brexit.

00:41.505 --> 00:43.725
We need to know, and we need to understand more

00:44.235 --> 00:47.485
what explains European, identity, what,

00:47.545 --> 00:49.085
drives European identity.

00:49.745 --> 00:54.245
And, most, studies have focused on, cultural

00:54.845 --> 00:58.325
policies, monetary economic, policy,

00:58.325 --> 01:02.445
foreign foreign policy, for explaining, this drive

01:02.465 --> 01:06.525
for European or also, the Erasmus program, which,

01:06.705 --> 01:09.205
really is about mobility across the European Union.

01:09.705 --> 01:12.565
And we want to do something in addition to this.

01:12.745 --> 01:16.965
So we want to see if, what European does

01:17.025 --> 01:20.685
for citizens really matters for,

01:20.985 --> 01:22.485
the development of European identity.

01:22.945 --> 01:25.245
And we looked at EU cohesion policy.

01:25.825 --> 01:28.085
Now, why cohesion policy is

01:28.085 --> 01:31.605
because, it is one of the most

01:32.445 --> 01:35.885
redistributive policies across, the European Union.

01:36.625 --> 01:38.085
It comes with a huge budget,

01:38.425 --> 01:42.485
and it shows the EU solidarity in EU budget

01:42.705 --> 01:46.205
by allocating funds to the least developed, regions.

01:46.785 --> 01:50.205
And, it co-fund, co-fund, project,

01:50.265 --> 01:52.885
highly visible projects for infrastructure.

01:53.785 --> 01:57.885
So, business development training for people across eu,

01:57.905 --> 02:02.045
for example, motorways, buildings.

02:02.185 --> 02:07.165
Um, and it's, credited this policies credited

02:07.165 --> 02:10.525
by encouraging, some sort of a sub-national

02:11.045 --> 02:14.325
participation in the regional development of the policy.

02:14.505 --> 02:17.525
So we go and see what are the needs across regions,

02:17.545 --> 02:20.125
and then we, allocate them Afghani.

02:20.185 --> 02:24.205
So in other words, EU is providing, there is scope

02:24.205 --> 02:26.245
for a bit of civic engagement at all levels

02:26.345 --> 02:27.365
in this, policy.

02:28.185 --> 02:30.925
Now, how do we,

02:33.165 --> 02:37.015
conceptualize, the European Union,

02:37.075 --> 02:38.335
and the European identity?

02:38.995 --> 02:42.735
Of course, the European identity is a contested,

02:42.875 --> 02:45.235
concept.

02:45.765 --> 02:48.755
There are various ways to, look at it,

02:48.755 --> 02:53.195
but there are, very clear, pathways.

02:53.215 --> 02:56.035
We can look at it through, cognitive perspective.

02:56.535 --> 02:58.675
So very much, a rational or

02:58.705 --> 02:59.885
Self categorization,

03:00.345 --> 03:01.725
or we can look at it through,

03:02.225 --> 03:03.685
an effective PERS perspective.

03:03.785 --> 03:05.925
So a more emotional perspective perspective

03:05.945 --> 03:07.605
of European, identity.

03:08.425 --> 03:12.125
Now, we conceptualize it in, our study

03:12.305 --> 03:16.205
as a collective identity, which, involves,

03:16.205 --> 03:19.085
individual self categorization at multiple levels,

03:19.265 --> 03:22.365
so multiple regions or multiple con countries.

03:23.065 --> 03:27.015
And, this, developments

03:27.015 --> 03:30.535
or this sub, operationalization, comes from,

03:31.355 --> 03:32.735
social identity theories.

03:33.115 --> 03:35.815
And the social identity theories recognize that

03:36.415 --> 03:38.015
identity is socially constructed,

03:38.915 --> 03:41.695
and then we can have a coexistence

03:41.795 --> 03:44.255
of territorial identities at different levels,

03:45.075 --> 03:47.975
but also, multiple dimensions.

03:48.035 --> 03:50.135
And the ones that I, I recently sp spoke about,

03:50.135 --> 03:51.815
so the cognitive and the effective ones.

03:51.815 --> 03:56.495
So not only the, coexistence of territorial identities,

03:56.515 --> 03:57.935
but also the rational

03:57.995 --> 04:00.775
and the effective, drives of, identity.

04:01.635 --> 04:05.345
And, we contribute to this,

04:05.345 --> 04:08.385
scholarship on European identity, which is already,

04:08.445 --> 04:13.305
of vast by arguing that we have three, additional,

04:13.445 --> 04:15.785
let's say, mechanisms in relation

04:15.785 --> 04:19.545
to this cohesion policy, which can contribute

04:19.545 --> 04:21.585
to the development of, European identity.

04:22.245 --> 04:25.905
So, we argue that we have a cognitive and instrumental

04:26.085 --> 04:28.705
and a communication, a communicative mechanism,

04:29.035 --> 04:31.905
which can enhance, European identity.

04:33.845 --> 04:37.335
Just to put it in a nutshell, I would say that we focus on,

04:37.435 --> 04:41.655
more on, what the EU does for people

04:42.155 --> 04:44.815
and how that affects European identity rather than

04:45.245 --> 04:48.135
what the EU is and how it operates,

04:48.195 --> 04:50.615
and how that impacts on the European identity.

04:51.555 --> 04:55.975
So, we, organized the,

04:56.495 --> 05:00.015
original survey about the data set of, eight,

05:00.815 --> 05:04.815
thousand 559 citizens in 17, e regions.

05:04.815 --> 05:06.775
And then we tested, argument,

05:07.315 --> 05:10.575
but just to, go very briefly through our,

05:10.835 --> 05:12.535
arguments.

05:12.535 --> 05:15.055
So, and the main, the main stages in our argument.

05:15.075 --> 05:18.375
So the first, the first stage in our argument is by saying

05:18.375 --> 05:22.175
that, cognitive mobilization through,

05:24.185 --> 05:26.465
cohesion policy can,

05:26.465 --> 05:28.185
drive European, identification.

05:28.485 --> 05:30.425
And I'm, I'm gonna explain a bit what that means.

05:31.005 --> 05:33.785
Um, cognitive mobilization is already established

05:33.845 --> 05:35.785
as a driver of European identity,

05:35.845 --> 05:37.105
and it follows from a work

05:37.105 --> 05:39.105
of inglehart in the, in the seventies.

05:39.765 --> 05:43.545
And, his works simply states that the accusation

05:43.545 --> 05:47.945
of political skills through education will,

05:48.395 --> 05:50.905
allow the individual to replace the parochial identity

05:51.015 --> 05:53.145
with a, with a more cosmopolitan identity.

05:53.245 --> 05:54.865
So that's the, starting point.

05:55.405 --> 05:57.725
And then, of course,

05:58.105 --> 06:02.125
the cognitive mobilization works by,

06:02.215 --> 06:06.285
developing your I identity to receive and interpret messages

06:06.305 --> 06:09.085
and information about, political system.

06:09.185 --> 06:12.045
And in our case, this is how the European Union works

06:12.185 --> 06:14.965
and, how the cohesion policy works.

06:15.425 --> 06:17.925
Now, previous studies have tested mainly the

06:18.595 --> 06:20.565
general knowledge about eu,

06:20.625 --> 06:23.645
but then we wanted to go a bit, further

06:24.505 --> 06:28.805
and to see, actually we propose that

06:28.805 --> 06:32.605
what matters is not so much knowing what EU is.

06:32.705 --> 06:35.485
And so the, the actual knowledge about how the operates,

06:35.485 --> 06:37.005
how many member states does it have,

06:37.065 --> 06:39.485
or when elections

06:39.485 --> 06:41.565
for the European parliament are held, et cetera.

06:41.945 --> 06:46.365
But, rather, we wanted to see, whether knowing

06:46.755 --> 06:47.885
what EU does

06:48.065 --> 06:51.445
for the cohesion policy has any impact on your, identity.

06:51.865 --> 06:54.925
So we hypothesis that the more individuals are aware

06:55.385 --> 06:58.485
of the EU funds, the more likely they are

06:58.485 --> 06:59.765
to hold the European identity.

06:59.865 --> 07:02.685
So that's really the awareness, the awareness ident,

07:03.205 --> 07:04.765
hypothesis, which is related to the cognitive

07:04.765 --> 07:06.445
mobilization, mechanism.

07:07.315 --> 07:11.605
Then the second part in our argument is, instrumental,

07:11.865 --> 07:14.565
rationality refers to instrumental rationality.

07:15.435 --> 07:17.285
It's, and it's related

07:17.665 --> 07:20.925
to the material interests.

07:21.185 --> 07:24.125
So we, they are, of course, based on a rational,

07:24.125 --> 07:26.085
calculations about the cost

07:26.105 --> 07:28.685
and benefits from European integration.

07:29.265 --> 07:33.985
And then we want to see whether, the under opinion,

07:33.985 --> 07:37.425
assumption behind, behind this, the, theory is

07:37.425 --> 07:41.895
that, individuals are more likely

07:41.955 --> 07:44.855
to shift allegiance to, let's say, to political system,

07:44.855 --> 07:48.175
in this case, European Union, if,

07:48.805 --> 07:51.175
they can further their material, interest.

07:51.195 --> 07:53.095
And that comes from the work of, Thomas.

07:54.395 --> 07:59.055
So what we want to do is that in addition to,

07:59.285 --> 08:01.895
what has been previously tested in the, in the literature,

08:01.915 --> 08:04.415
we want to see whether,

08:05.695 --> 08:07.055
citizens perceived benefits,

08:07.935 --> 08:10.535
benefits from this cohesion policy,

08:11.325 --> 08:13.575
does impact in any way on the development of,

08:13.575 --> 08:14.655
European identity.

08:14.795 --> 08:17.415
So we want to, we are hypothesized

08:17.415 --> 08:20.335
that the more individuals perceive themselves as,

08:20.335 --> 08:23.495
benefiting from new funds, the more likely they are

08:23.495 --> 08:26.175
to hold up, European identity.

08:26.875 --> 08:29.975
And the third, third part in our argument relates

08:30.115 --> 08:31.615
to communication.

08:32.675 --> 08:35.935
Now, the communication perspective is very interesting,

08:35.935 --> 08:39.615
and we provide some, an alternative, approach

08:39.615 --> 08:41.495
to understanding identity formation.

08:42.245 --> 08:47.215
It's, unlike the rational, argument,

08:47.275 --> 08:51.335
and unlike the cognitive mobilization argument, it,

08:51.335 --> 08:53.935
places emphasis on, symbols,

08:54.165 --> 08:56.485
publicity campaigns and media.

08:57.545 --> 09:01.525
And, we proposed this, communication effect

09:01.525 --> 09:04.765
through cohesion policy on, on European identity.

09:05.745 --> 09:10.125
Uh, because I think the, the placards, the banners

09:10.125 --> 09:14.725
and the posters that the u, is requiring,

09:14.725 --> 09:17.645
beneficiaries to, show

09:18.505 --> 09:22.005
really can trigger, an acknowledgement, of course,

09:22.005 --> 09:23.725
first in launch of, of EU funding,

09:23.905 --> 09:27.685
but then, a psychological reaction through the use

09:27.685 --> 09:30.725
of the symbols for the development of the European identity.

09:31.425 --> 09:36.365
So we expect that all this, branding, will,

09:36.855 --> 09:39.525
let's say trigger positive associations,

09:39.615 --> 09:41.925
which will increase, trust

09:42.225 --> 09:46.605
and loyalty towards the, European I know.

09:46.605 --> 09:50.645
So in a, in a way, a sort of,

09:51.445 --> 09:56.005
transfer of a, a factor, a transfer process, by,

09:56.375 --> 09:59.565
evaluating, what eu, has done.

10:00.265 --> 10:02.815
So, policy communication

10:02.995 --> 10:05.655
to adverse can trigger a loyalty association.

10:05.655 --> 10:07.375
This is part, our recommendation.

10:07.995 --> 10:10.735
And then we expect these advertisements

10:10.835 --> 10:12.855
to increase political support for eu,

10:12.855 --> 10:14.975
enhance the development of European identity.

10:15.555 --> 10:18.855
So the more the, our hypothesis that the more individuals

10:19.755 --> 10:23.415
are, exposed to advertising,

10:23.795 --> 10:28.535
all EU funded projects across eu, the more likely they are

10:28.535 --> 10:29.815
to hold the European identity.

10:30.675 --> 10:35.455
Now, coming to this difference between, rational

10:35.595 --> 10:39.375
and effective for, type of identity, we,

10:40.155 --> 10:41.295
of course we acknowledge

10:41.295 --> 10:44.415
that the European identity is far from being as intense

10:44.675 --> 10:46.975
as a national identity would be across Europe

10:47.035 --> 10:48.175
and across national states.

10:48.995 --> 10:52.935
And we, in a way

10:53.715 --> 10:57.855
in relation to this cohesion policy, we argue that,

10:58.215 --> 11:00.535
European identity is a more of a cognitive

11:00.535 --> 11:01.895
and instrumental in kind,

11:02.115 --> 11:06.455
and has more, has greater dependence on,

11:06.895 --> 11:07.975
rational calculation.

11:08.715 --> 11:13.275
Uh, first because there are, policy specific,

11:13.695 --> 11:16.155
reasons, behind it.

11:16.155 --> 11:18.435
First, we, the primary goal

11:18.435 --> 11:21.115
of the cohesion policy is economic nature.

11:21.575 --> 11:26.155
So it was to, level the, level of the, economic,

11:26.255 --> 11:29.915
development across EU regions, so it helps,

11:29.915 --> 11:31.195
less developed region.

11:31.975 --> 11:35.915
And then, secondly, we have, also,

11:36.225 --> 11:38.835
calculative bargaining in this, process

11:38.895 --> 11:40.155
for allocating funds.

11:40.335 --> 11:45.155
So, first, you want to show solidarity across the EU

11:45.375 --> 11:47.275
by agreeing to distributing funds

11:47.295 --> 11:48.835
to the last developed regions,

11:49.335 --> 11:53.525
but also, in this process, you expose the winners

11:53.545 --> 11:55.325
and losers of a politicized budget.

11:55.385 --> 11:57.765
So who gets more funds and when and how.

11:58.585 --> 12:03.005
So, we also, in addition to this, we also think that,

12:03.105 --> 12:06.565
those feel emotionally attached to the U

12:07.355 --> 12:11.165
will continue to do so regardless of whether they are aware

12:11.185 --> 12:14.285
of how the u cohesion works, how much

12:14.345 --> 12:16.605
of funds the region, gets,

12:17.105 --> 12:20.605
and what kind of benefits they have as, individuals.

12:21.265 --> 12:25.435
So in order to differentiate between those two types

12:25.455 --> 12:29.395
of new identities, we hypothesize the awareness

12:29.615 --> 12:33.795
of u cohesion fund, persist benefits from cohesion,

12:33.795 --> 12:36.675
funding and communication of cohesion policy.

12:37.455 --> 12:41.795
Um, have a stronger association through the cognitive, so,

12:41.935 --> 12:45.555
identity, the individual self categorization rather than

12:45.615 --> 12:49.395
the individual attachment to the European Union,

12:49.405 --> 12:51.875
which is the, effective identity.

12:52.735 --> 12:55.395
Now, how did we go empirically to test this?

12:56.335 --> 12:59.355
We commissioned a survey across, eu.

12:59.695 --> 13:02.315
Um, it was carried out by the growth of,

13:02.315 --> 13:04.795
for knowledge company, JFK.

13:06.055 --> 13:09.555
We acquired a representative sample of adults from,

13:09.995 --> 13:13.915
17 regions in 12 EU countries, which amounts to a total,

13:13.915 --> 13:17.795
sample size of 8,559 citizens.

13:19.015 --> 13:22.195
We, have a,

13:22.215 --> 13:25.475
pretty representative sample in terms of regions

13:25.945 --> 13:28.235
with regards to EU funding allocations.

13:28.575 --> 13:33.115
So, pretty diverse regions in terms of,

13:33.515 --> 13:35.275
spending, performance,

13:36.055 --> 13:40.475
but also attitudes towards the eu, economic development.

13:40.475 --> 13:41.515
So a varied sample.

13:41.535 --> 13:44.035
We didn't go only for those which were of course,

13:44.035 --> 13:47.555
less developed or, more, euroskeptic, et cetera.

13:47.555 --> 13:50.715
So we have a, a very sample of, regions.

13:50.815 --> 13:54.915
We asked 40 questions in order to,

13:55.335 --> 13:59.915
tap into our, three, lines of, argumentation.

14:00.855 --> 14:04.235
And, the 40 questions were asked

14:04.235 --> 14:05.355
during telephone interviews.

14:05.415 --> 14:09.795
And then, that amount for about, let's say 15 minutes

14:09.975 --> 14:13.915
for each, for each interview in terms of, an,

14:13.915 --> 14:16.875
an empirical strategy for testing our hypothesis.

14:16.895 --> 14:21.595
We employ, multi-level multinomial logistic model,

14:22.525 --> 14:25.635
which we found, more appropriate

14:25.825 --> 14:30.355
because, it calculates the odd

14:30.355 --> 14:33.235
of choosing a mixed, identity

14:33.775 --> 14:36.155
or a European identity in comparison

14:36.255 --> 14:38.195
to the country only identity.

14:38.415 --> 14:42.395
So it show, it shows us, the factors which drive that,

14:42.455 --> 14:43.515
choice.

14:44.375 --> 14:47.915
Um, what do we find in,

14:49.225 --> 14:50.755
what kind of questions we ask

14:50.815 --> 14:54.925
and what, do we have, how our data looks like. But very

14:55.245 --> 14:57.645
Interestingly, and we actually didn't expect at the time

14:57.665 --> 15:01.165
we, ran the survey, is that a strong majority

15:01.165 --> 15:05.725
of European citizens, about 67% have,

15:06.435 --> 15:09.525
some form of European identity, some form.

15:10.225 --> 15:12.605
So that means 49%,

15:13.105 --> 15:14.125
Um, think

15:14.125 --> 15:17.685
Of themselves as having a mixed identity,

15:17.685 --> 15:19.045
which puts their country

15:21.365 --> 15:24.225
Before, Europe or Europe, before

15:24.325 --> 15:25.325
Our country.

15:25.365 --> 15:26.365
Um,

15:26.775 --> 15:30.105
9%, 9% of our respondents have an identity,

15:30.105 --> 15:32.465
which puts Europe before the, their country.

15:32.885 --> 15:36.745
And also 9% think of themselves as being Europeans only.

15:36.805 --> 15:39.425
So they, European only comes as the first,

15:39.425 --> 15:41.665
first type of, identity.

15:42.285 --> 15:43.545
So, very

15:43.865 --> 15:46.945
Interesting, results of what I would say. And,

15:47.645 --> 15:48.945
Yes, our survey asked

15:49.225 --> 15:52.265
Questions about, so awareness, perception of benefits

15:52.285 --> 15:54.505
and communication, because these were our,

15:54.575 --> 15:57.745
main variables of interest, awareness

15:58.125 --> 16:01.105
for the awareness question, we asked a straightforward

16:01.505 --> 16:04.945
question, have you heard about the following funds?

16:05.205 --> 16:07.705
And then we listed the funds associated

16:07.705 --> 16:09.545
with cohesion, policy.

16:10.285 --> 16:14.065
So European original development fund, the cohesion fund,

16:14.165 --> 16:15.745
the European Social Fund.

16:16.325 --> 16:19.505
Now for the perception of benefits, we, distinguish

16:19.505 --> 16:22.505
between, benefits for the individual, benefits

16:22.505 --> 16:25.905
for the region, benefits for the country. And then we,

16:25.905 --> 16:29.185
Um, Ask three, four questions about,

16:29.965 --> 16:31.145
for other individual level,

16:31.255 --> 16:34.545
have you benefited in your daily lives,

16:34.615 --> 16:37.065
from a project funded by the European Union?

16:37.885 --> 16:40.385
So that's, how we phrase the question,

16:41.085 --> 16:42.705
or do you think that your region

16:42.805 --> 16:44.545
or your, city would have,

16:44.695 --> 16:46.505
developed without EU funding?

16:47.005 --> 16:50.025
And at the country level, my country has benefited from,

16:50.075 --> 16:53.505
being a member of the, European Union,

16:53.505 --> 16:55.065
whilst in relation to,

16:55.585 --> 16:56.585
Communication.

16:56.725 --> 16:59.545
Uh, we measure the exposure to project

17:00.265 --> 17:03.945
Advertising, and we asked whether they've seen any public

17:03.965 --> 17:06.705
acknowledgement of EU funding in their,

17:06.845 --> 17:10.065
Um, region, In their city, where

17:10.065 --> 17:11.105
They, live.

17:11.765 --> 17:16.095
Now in relation to results, we've,

17:16.675 --> 17:18.375
distinguishing between funds

17:18.475 --> 17:21.335
and, across the world overall, we did

17:21.445 --> 17:22.895
Find, an empirical

17:22.895 --> 17:25.655
Support for our first, hypothesis.

17:25.995 --> 17:30.095
But, awareness of cohesion policy increases citizens,

17:30.195 --> 17:33.135
European identity in line with,

17:33.135 --> 17:34.215
cognitive mobilization,

17:34.995 --> 17:36.495
and especially those who heard

17:36.495 --> 17:39.055
of cohesion fund are more likely

17:39.235 --> 17:42.095
to develop a mixed form of identity.

17:42.995 --> 17:47.475
So, and also an identity, which post was Europe

17:47.735 --> 17:49.845
before, before the country,

17:49.935 --> 17:51.925
which we do find, interesting.

17:52.225 --> 17:56.685
And in our sample in, 10, about the 17 regions, which,

17:56.825 --> 18:01.405
we, what we, our inter, our survey,

18:02.055 --> 18:04.485
about 30% on average, of,

18:04.485 --> 18:07.925
of respondents show awareness to,

18:09.505 --> 18:13.965
we also find that awareness of cohesion fund is,

18:14.995 --> 18:18.765
substantiated in regions with a high allocation of EU funds,

18:18.775 --> 18:20.605
which is what should be, expected

18:20.745 --> 18:23.525
and matters for the development of a,

18:24.005 --> 18:25.405
European, identity.

18:26.025 --> 18:28.925
In relation to our second hypothesis, our second dine of,

18:29.025 --> 18:32.085
argument, the results show that,

18:33.035 --> 18:35.725
that differentiation between the individual

18:35.865 --> 18:40.765
and regional benefits, from cohesion policy matters

18:40.945 --> 18:42.525
for European identification,

18:43.305 --> 18:46.525
and especially for the development of a mixed, identity.

18:47.225 --> 18:50.885
So perceived, regional benefits,

18:51.235 --> 18:53.405
influence the development of a mixed country

18:53.865 --> 18:56.165
and EU identity,

18:56.385 --> 18:59.645
but also the individual level benefits.

18:59.645 --> 19:03.405
The perception of individual level, benefits,

19:03.785 --> 19:07.245
is fostering a form of a mixed, form

19:07.265 --> 19:09.005
of European, identity.

19:09.705 --> 19:10.925
Um, so,

19:11.345 --> 19:15.365
and in addition to this, they also stimulate that,

19:15.905 --> 19:19.885
so identification with, with Europe, which we, find,

19:20.065 --> 19:22.045
rather interesting.

19:22.105 --> 19:25.685
So the more individuals think they benefited in their daily

19:25.685 --> 19:28.725
life from immune France, the more they self-identify,

19:28.865 --> 19:30.525
as, Europeans.

19:31.225 --> 19:34.085
Now, our third hypothesis in relation to the influence

19:34.145 --> 19:38.825
of EU publicity, is also,

19:38.825 --> 19:40.465
also finds, support.

19:40.885 --> 19:43.825
And just to put a bit of context here, EU rules,

19:44.325 --> 19:47.745
oblige projects to acknowledge the EU co-funding through,

19:47.805 --> 19:52.665
billboards, posters, placard with EU and B,

19:52.665 --> 19:55.385
but also acknowledging the amount, amount of,

19:55.385 --> 19:57.545
funds they receive from the European Union.

19:58.405 --> 20:03.145
And, we, across our region, we have an average

20:03.745 --> 20:06.905
exposure to such banners of about 51%

20:07.805 --> 20:10.985
whilst in regions, let's say, which receive more funding,

20:11.125 --> 20:12.185
we have a higher average.

20:12.365 --> 20:14.305
So in, regions, in Poland

20:14.305 --> 20:16.585
or Hungary, for example, over 8%

20:16.605 --> 20:20.665
of respondents declare they have seen banners acknowledging

20:20.685 --> 20:22.465
the era, the EU funding.

20:23.245 --> 20:27.905
Uh, and of course, even more interesting, this,

20:28.745 --> 20:30.825
communication mechanism works hand in hand

20:30.825 --> 20:33.865
with the awareness, because out of those who heard

20:34.445 --> 20:39.305
of cohesion funding, 72% have also seen,

20:39.315 --> 20:41.105
block cards and acknowledging your funding.

20:41.165 --> 20:45.185
So that means communication, works hand in hand with,

20:45.205 --> 20:46.625
with awareness.

20:47.745 --> 20:51.265
Um, and then, finally to that difference

20:51.265 --> 20:52.265
between cognitive

20:52.265 --> 20:54.705
and effective difference be, effective,

20:54.925 --> 20:56.105
identification.

20:56.965 --> 21:01.185
Um, we find them to be different in relation to our,

21:01.205 --> 21:05.905
of course, our, theoretical, framework.

21:06.685 --> 21:10.385
And, we find attachment to du

21:10.765 --> 21:13.465
to work different from the,

21:13.695 --> 21:16.785
cognitive identity from the self categorization with Europe.

21:17.365 --> 21:21.105
So none of our, explanatory factors work

21:21.125 --> 21:22.785
for the effective identities.

21:22.885 --> 21:24.345
So awareness, benefits,

21:24.425 --> 21:27.945
and communication do not work for, effective identity.

21:27.945 --> 21:30.545
They work for cognitive, identity.

21:31.325 --> 21:35.585
But what we find that really, matters more significantly

21:36.125 --> 21:40.225
for attachment is the cognitive mobilization.

21:40.365 --> 21:44.905
So cognitive mobilization to in politics,

21:45.295 --> 21:49.305
past residents, let's say in a new country trust in eu.

21:49.305 --> 21:51.825
So these are the factors which influence more the,

21:51.825 --> 21:54.425
effective part of, identity.

21:55.205 --> 22:00.185
And, to conclude, really is, well,

22:00.355 --> 22:04.745
first we show that there is, a link between

22:05.205 --> 22:06.505
how the eus largest

22:06.805 --> 22:10.785
and most redistributive, budgetary policy contributes

22:10.845 --> 22:12.025
to European identity.

22:13.405 --> 22:17.345
We, show that, benefits, awareness

22:17.445 --> 22:20.345
and communication, trigger

22:21.005 --> 22:23.505
and, contribute to the development of,

22:23.585 --> 22:24.665
a European identity.

22:25.845 --> 22:27.745
We don't, look at identity

22:27.885 --> 22:30.665
as being a dichotomous country or European.

22:30.845 --> 22:34.385
We look at I identity as a mixture of, forms

22:34.445 --> 22:35.705
of identifications

22:35.765 --> 22:38.385
or country, starting from country only.

22:38.445 --> 22:41.945
You move to country and European, European and country.

22:42.085 --> 22:44.265
And finally, a European identity.

22:44.805 --> 22:48.785
And then we also acknowledge that citizens may, think

22:48.785 --> 22:51.625
of it as, let's say, progression

22:51.765 --> 22:52.825
for identity development,

22:52.825 --> 22:55.545
but we also acknowledge they may be as possible that,

22:56.345 --> 22:59.145
citizens will, citizen will move from country,

22:59.145 --> 23:02.465
only identity to, EU and country identity,

23:02.725 --> 23:06.665
or in my jam from a country identity to, country

23:06.845 --> 23:09.545
and EU identity, or straight to European identity.

23:09.645 --> 23:13.985
So citizens, have different, mechanisms

23:14.045 --> 23:17.265
for really, moving forward the identification.

23:17.885 --> 23:19.425
But, what are the,

23:19.545 --> 23:22.785
a very important policy implication, I would say is

23:22.785 --> 23:27.335
that, if EU wants

23:27.355 --> 23:28.895
to connect with its citizens

23:29.035 --> 23:32.935
and, to promote European identification, let's say,

23:33.235 --> 23:37.735
to move from a, economic project to a more politically

23:37.735 --> 23:40.135
and social, socially oriented project,

23:40.955 --> 23:43.815
the cohesion policy is an effective instrument.

23:44.235 --> 23:46.365
And what EU needs to do,

23:46.505 --> 23:50.085
we highlight here is the importance of, communication

23:50.225 --> 23:53.125
for increasing the, awareness of

23:53.235 --> 23:55.005
what EU does in practice.

23:55.665 --> 23:58.835
So, improving

23:59.095 --> 24:02.835
and focusing on, publicity, symbols

24:02.935 --> 24:06.555
and the messaging around around the EU funding, plus,

24:06.815 --> 24:10.355
a promotion of for, let's say,

24:10.425 --> 24:12.475
more visually appealing publicity,

24:12.915 --> 24:16.435
focusing on the achievements of the eu funding on the ground

24:17.045 --> 24:20.995
apply to, specific regions can really,

24:21.185 --> 24:26.035
improve awareness of those funds, improve benefits

24:26.095 --> 24:28.995
and ultimately identification with,

24:29.025 --> 24:30.115
with the European Union.

24:30.655 --> 24:34.995
So yes, we do, we did, promote also,

24:35.065 --> 24:38.235
data gathering, projects along this lines

24:38.455 --> 24:41.475
and, the European Barometer,

24:41.485 --> 24:43.155
start taking this into account

24:43.215 --> 24:46.835
and ask the question, which links the cohesion funding

24:46.835 --> 24:48.075
with the European education.

24:48.095 --> 24:50.875
And this is really where we want to, contribute.

24:50.895 --> 24:55.395
So finding, finding more about,

24:55.855 --> 24:59.995
how citizens perceive, what EU does, but,

25:00.085 --> 25:03.355
after really being prompted with a better,

25:03.595 --> 25:06.835
communication, which triggers their, perception

25:06.835 --> 25:11.435
of benefits and, awareness of, the,

25:11.435 --> 25:12.155
cohesion policy.

00:01 - The context is very interesting, and it's related to developments within the European Union developments in, UK politics, the Brexit referendum, and everybody started to question the feasibility of the European, project. So as for there is an increased recognition on the

00:18 - importance of a shared European identity for the overall, EU project, for the sustainability of the European Union as a political, regime. And then, previous studies, like during court, for example, has shown that the, a degree of, the degree of identification with the European Union also explain how people voted, in the Brexit. We need to know, and we need to understand more what explains European, identity, what, drives European identity.

00:49 - And, most, studies have focused on, cultural policies, monetary economic, policy, foreign foreign policy, for explaining, this drive for European or also, the Erasmus program, which, really is about mobility across the European Union. And we want to do something in addition to this. So we want to see if, what European does for citizens really matters for, the development of European identity. And we looked at EU cohesion policy.

01:25 - Now, why cohesion policy is because, it is one of the most redistributive policies across, the European Union. It comes with a huge budget, and it shows the EU solidarity in EU budget by allocating funds to the least developed, regions. And, it co-fund, co-fund, project, highly visible projects for infrastructure. So, business development training for people across eu, for example, motorways, buildings.

02:02 - and it's, credited this policies credited by encouraging, some sort of a sub-national participation in the regional development of the policy. So we go and see what are the needs across regions, and then we, allocate them Afghani. So in other words, EU is providing, there is scope for a bit of civic engagement at all levels in this, policy. Now, how do we, conceptualize, the European Union,

02:37 - and the European identity? Of course, the European identity is a contested, concept. There are various ways to, look at it, but there are, very clear, pathways. We can look at it through, cognitive perspective. So very much, a rational or Self categorization, or we can look at it through, an effective PERS perspective.

03:03 - So a more emotional perspective perspective of European, identity. Now, we conceptualize it in, our study as a collective identity, which, involves, individual self categorization at multiple levels, so multiple regions or multiple con countries. And, this, developments or this sub, operationalization, comes from, social identity theories. And the social identity theories recognize that

03:36 - identity is socially constructed, and then we can have a coexistence of territorial identities at different levels, but also, multiple dimensions. And the ones that I, I recently sp spoke about, so the cognitive and the effective ones. So not only the, coexistence of territorial identities, but also the rational and the effective, drives of, identity. And, we contribute to this,

04:05 - scholarship on European identity, which is already, of vast by arguing that we have three, additional, let's say, mechanisms in relation to this cohesion policy, which can contribute to the development of, European identity. So, we argue that we have a cognitive and instrumental and a communication, a communicative mechanism, which can enhance, European identity. Just to put it in a nutshell, I would say that we focus on, more on, what the EU does for people

04:42 - and how that affects European identity rather than what the EU is and how it operates, and how that impacts on the European identity. So, we, organized the, original survey about the data set of, eight, thousand 559 citizens in 17, e regions. And then we tested, argument, but just to, go very briefly through our, arguments. So, and the main, the main stages in our argument.

05:15 - So the first, the first stage in our argument is by saying that, cognitive mobilization through, cohesion policy can, drive European, identification. And I'm, I'm gonna explain a bit what that means. cognitive mobilization is already established as a driver of European identity, and it follows from a work of inglehart in the, in the seventies. And, his works simply states that the accusation

05:43 - of political skills through education will, allow the individual to replace the parochial identity with a, with a more cosmopolitan identity. So that's the, starting point. And then, of course, the cognitive mobilization works by, developing your I identity to receive and interpret messages and information about, political system. And in our case, this is how the European Union works and, how the cohesion policy works.

06:15 - Now, previous studies have tested mainly the general knowledge about eu, but then we wanted to go a bit, further and to see, actually we propose that what matters is not so much knowing what EU is. And so the, the actual knowledge about how the operates, how many member states does it have, or when elections for the European parliament are held, et cetera. But, rather, we wanted to see, whether knowing

06:46 - what EU does for the cohesion policy has any impact on your, identity. So we hypothesis that the more individuals are aware of the EU funds, the more likely they are to hold the European identity. So that's really the awareness, the awareness ident, hypothesis, which is related to the cognitive mobilization, mechanism. Then the second part in our argument is, instrumental, rationality refers to instrumental rationality.

07:15 - It's, and it's related to the material interests. So we, they are, of course, based on a rational, calculations about the cost and benefits from European integration. And then we want to see whether, the under opinion, assumption behind, behind this, the, theory is that, individuals are more likely to shift allegiance to, let's say, to political system, in this case, European Union, if,

07:48 - they can further their material, interest. And that comes from the work of, Thomas. So what we want to do is that in addition to, what has been previously tested in the, in the literature, we want to see whether, citizens perceived benefits, benefits from this cohesion policy, does impact in any way on the development of, European identity. So we want to, we are hypothesized

08:17 - that the more individuals perceive themselves as, benefiting from new funds, the more likely they are to hold up, European identity. And the third, third part in our argument relates to communication. Now, the communication perspective is very interesting, and we provide some, an alternative, approach to understanding identity formation. It's, unlike the rational, argument, and unlike the cognitive mobilization argument, it,

08:51 - places emphasis on, symbols, publicity campaigns and media. And, we proposed this, communication effect through cohesion policy on, on European identity. because I think the, the placards, the banners and the posters that the u, is requiring, beneficiaries to, show really can trigger, an acknowledgement, of course, first in launch of, of EU funding, but then, a psychological reaction through the use

09:27 - of the symbols for the development of the European identity. So we expect that all this, branding, will, let's say trigger positive associations, which will increase, trust and loyalty towards the, European I know. So in a, in a way, a sort of, transfer of a, a factor, a transfer process, by, evaluating, what eu, has done. So, policy communication to adverse can trigger a loyalty association.

10:05 - This is part, our recommendation. And then we expect these advertisements to increase political support for eu, enhance the development of European identity. So the more the, our hypothesis that the more individuals are, exposed to advertising, all EU funded projects across eu, the more likely they are to hold the European identity. Now, coming to this difference between, rational and effective for, type of identity, we,

10:40 - of course we acknowledge that the European identity is far from being as intense as a national identity would be across Europe and across national states. And we, in a way in relation to this cohesion policy, we argue that, European identity is a more of a cognitive and instrumental in kind, and has more, has greater dependence on, rational calculation.

11:08 - first because there are, policy specific, reasons, behind it. First, we, the primary goal of the cohesion policy is economic nature. So it was to, level the, level of the, economic, development across EU regions, so it helps, less developed region. And then, secondly, we have, also, calculative bargaining in this, process for allocating funds.

11:40 - So, first, you want to show solidarity across the EU by agreeing to distributing funds to the last developed regions, but also, in this process, you expose the winners and losers of a politicized budget. So who gets more funds and when and how. So, we also, in addition to this, we also think that, those feel emotionally attached to the U will continue to do so regardless of whether they are aware of how the u cohesion works, how much

12:14 - of funds the region, gets, and what kind of benefits they have as, individuals. So in order to differentiate between those two types of new identities, we hypothesize the awareness of u cohesion fund, persist benefits from cohesion, funding and communication of cohesion policy. have a stronger association through the cognitive, so, identity, the individual self categorization rather than the individual attachment to the European Union, which is the, effective identity.

12:52 - Now, how did we go empirically to test this? We commissioned a survey across, eu. it was carried out by the growth of, for knowledge company, JFK. We acquired a representative sample of adults from, 17 regions in 12 EU countries, which amounts to a total, sample size of 8,559 citizens. We, have a, pretty representative sample in terms of regions with regards to EU funding allocations.

13:28 - So, pretty diverse regions in terms of, spending, performance, but also attitudes towards the eu, economic development. So a varied sample. We didn't go only for those which were of course, less developed or, more, euroskeptic, et cetera. So we have a, a very sample of, regions. We asked 40 questions in order to, tap into our, three, lines of, argumentation. And, the 40 questions were asked

14:04 - during telephone interviews. And then, that amount for about, let's say 15 minutes for each, for each interview in terms of, an, an empirical strategy for testing our hypothesis. We employ, multi-level multinomial logistic model, which we found, more appropriate because, it calculates the odd of choosing a mixed, identity or a European identity in comparison to the country only identity.

14:38 - So it show, it shows us, the factors which drive that, choice. what do we find in, what kind of questions we ask and what, do we have, how our data looks like. But very Interestingly, and we actually didn't expect at the time we, ran the survey, is that a strong majority of European citizens, about 67% have, some form of European identity, some form. So that means 49%,

15:13 - think Of themselves as having a mixed identity, which puts their country Before, Europe or Europe, before Our country. 9%, 9% of our respondents have an identity, which puts Europe before the, their country. And also 9% think of themselves as being Europeans only. So they, European only comes as the first,

15:39 - first type of, identity. So, very Interesting, results of what I would say. And, Yes, our survey asked Questions about, so awareness, perception of benefits and communication, because these were our, main variables of interest, awareness for the awareness question, we asked a straightforward question, have you heard about the following funds? And then we listed the funds associated

16:07 - with cohesion, policy. So European original development fund, the cohesion fund, the European Social Fund. Now for the perception of benefits, we, distinguish between, benefits for the individual, benefits for the region, benefits for the country. And then we, Ask three, four questions about, for other individual level, have you benefited in your daily lives, from a project funded by the European Union?

16:37 - So that's, how we phrase the question, or do you think that your region or your, city would have, developed without EU funding? And at the country level, my country has benefited from, being a member of the, European Union, whilst in relation to, Communication. we measure the exposure to project Advertising, and we asked whether they've seen any public

17:03 - acknowledgement of EU funding in their, region, In their city, where They, live. Now in relation to results, we've, distinguishing between funds and, across the world overall, we did Find, an empirical Support for our first, hypothesis. But, awareness of cohesion policy increases citizens, European identity in line with,

17:33 - cognitive mobilization, and especially those who heard of cohesion fund are more likely to develop a mixed form of identity. So, and also an identity, which post was Europe before, before the country, which we do find, interesting. And in our sample in, 10, about the 17 regions, which, we, what we, our inter, our survey, about 30% on average, of,

18:04 - of respondents show awareness to, we also find that awareness of cohesion fund is, substantiated in regions with a high allocation of EU funds, which is what should be, expected and matters for the development of a, European, identity. In relation to our second hypothesis, our second dine of, argument, the results show that, that differentiation between the individual and regional benefits, from cohesion policy matters

18:40 - for European identification, and especially for the development of a mixed, identity. So perceived, regional benefits, influence the development of a mixed country and EU identity, but also the individual level benefits. The perception of individual level, benefits, is fostering a form of a mixed, form of European, identity. so,

19:11 - and in addition to this, they also stimulate that, so identification with, with Europe, which we, find, rather interesting. So the more individuals think they benefited in their daily life from immune France, the more they self-identify, as, Europeans. Now, our third hypothesis in relation to the influence of EU publicity, is also, also finds, support. And just to put a bit of context here, EU rules,

19:44 - oblige projects to acknowledge the EU co-funding through, billboards, posters, placard with EU and B, but also acknowledging the amount, amount of, funds they receive from the European Union. And, we, across our region, we have an average exposure to such banners of about 51% whilst in regions, let's say, which receive more funding, we have a higher average. So in, regions, in Poland or Hungary, for example, over 8%

20:16 - of respondents declare they have seen banners acknowledging the era, the EU funding. and of course, even more interesting, this, communication mechanism works hand in hand with the awareness, because out of those who heard of cohesion funding, 72% have also seen, block cards and acknowledging your funding. So that means communication, works hand in hand with, with awareness. and then, finally to that difference

20:51 - between cognitive and effective difference be, effective, identification. we find them to be different in relation to our, of course, our, theoretical, framework. And, we find attachment to du to work different from the, cognitive identity from the self categorization with Europe. So none of our, explanatory factors work for the effective identities.

21:22 - So awareness, benefits, and communication do not work for, effective identity. They work for cognitive, identity. But what we find that really, matters more significantly for attachment is the cognitive mobilization. So cognitive mobilization to in politics, past residents, let's say in a new country trust in eu. So these are the factors which influence more the, effective part of, identity. And, to conclude, really is, well,

22:00 - first we show that there is, a link between how the eus largest and most redistributive, budgetary policy contributes to European identity. We, show that, benefits, awareness and communication, trigger and, contribute to the development of, a European identity. We don't, look at identity as being a dichotomous country or European.

22:30 - We look at I identity as a mixture of, forms of identifications or country, starting from country only. You move to country and European, European and country. And finally, a European identity. And then we also acknowledge that citizens may, think of it as, let's say, progression for identity development, but we also acknowledge they may be as possible that, citizens will, citizen will move from country,

22:59 - only identity to, EU and country identity, or in my jam from a country identity to, country and EU identity, or straight to European identity. So citizens, have different, mechanisms for really, moving forward the identification. But, what are the, a very important policy implication, I would say is that, if EU wants to connect with its citizens and, to promote European identification, let's say,

23:33 - to move from a, economic project to a more politically and social, socially oriented project, the cohesion policy is an effective instrument. And what EU needs to do, we highlight here is the importance of, communication for increasing the, awareness of what EU does in practice. So, improving and focusing on, publicity, symbols and the messaging around around the EU funding, plus,

24:06 - a promotion of for, let's say, more visually appealing publicity, focusing on the achievements of the eu funding on the ground apply to, specific regions can really, improve awareness of those funds, improve benefits and ultimately identification with, with the European Union. So yes, we do, we did, promote also, data gathering, projects along this lines and, the European Barometer,

24:41 - start taking this into account and ask the question, which links the cohesion funding with the European education. And this is really where we want to, contribute. So finding, finding more about, how citizens perceive, what EU does, but, after really being prompted with a better, communication, which triggers their, perception of benefits and, awareness of, the, cohesion policy.

Faculti AI can make mistakes