Trends #European Union: The power of microblogs

Over the past two years there has been an explosion in the number of microblogs, mainly through the websites Facebook and Twitter. These bits of information, hence the name “microblog”, give status updates and short commentary from a user that is viewable by all of the user’s friends or followers. Microblogging grew an astonishing 1400 percent from 2009-2010 and Twitter now sees over 50 million “tweets” per day.  Twitter and Facebook are free to use, easy to set up and accessible not only through a computer, but also through applications on mobile devices, providing the possibility for the entire public to microblog.

Marketing firms have jumped the opportunity to use this medium to campaign and conduct research for their clients. It is almost impossible to find a celebrity or politician who has also not begun to capitalize on this publicity tool. Almost all of the traffic that comes through this blog are people redirected from Facebook. These new media tools can generate what seems like limitless publicity for a person that uses these networks to their full potential. Google and the Library of Congress have begun to catalogue microblogs and you can now search on Google for “updates” which narrows your search strictly to microblogs. When this information becomes easily accessible through Google and Library of Congress, it will provide a vast, largely untapped, wealth of information.

Microblogs are extremely useful in exploring public opinion because of their widespread audience and ease of access; in 2010 everyone has become a journalist.  While gathering newspapers, blogs and television transcripts in the U.S. regarding the EU for May 2010, I also wanted to explore tweets. I doubted there have been or ever will be a day when #European Union becomes a trend shown on the Twitter homepage.

To explore this issue a search was conducted every day for tweets containing the phrase “European Union.” Each tweet was then logged and broken down into two categories: containing links and not containing links. A sample was also collected of information regarding the users who were tweeting about the EU. Total number of tweets, location and number of followers for the user were gathered.  The total number of tweets will give insight into total exposure on Twitter and the sample of users will provide a profile of the users who bother to Tweet about the EU. Tweets containing links will show the relationship between Twitter and other online media, such as blogs and newspapers.

In May Twitter users tweeted about the EU an average of 264 times per day. With over 50 million tweets per day, the EU accounts for .0005 percent of total Twitter traffic. Almost all of these tweets were links to other articles, indicating a strong relationship between the microblogosphere and other online media. A similar problem arises, that also came up when analyzing other media (see post) in determining if this is a high level of exposure relative to other similar subjects.

Establishing a profile of a user that tweets about the EU was an extremely difficult task. The variance in the number of microblogs users have tweeted since they joined the site was extreme: the mean was over 9,500 and the median was 2,953. If the median is used as the average, it would mean that users tweeted twice a day for the four years that Twitter has been in existence. This is staggering, and a wider sample of users must be looked at to explore why the variance was so high.

The number of followers was also examined because of the implications this has on determining total exposure. If a user has 1,000 followers, 1,000 other users will see this tweet on their phone, computer or Twitter equipped device, compounding the level of exposure. Again, there was a huge amount of variance in the sample. The median amount of followers a user had was 359. With an average of 264 tweets per day, and 359 people viewing each of these tweets, 94,776 Twitter users are viewing tweets about the EU daily. This number is possibly inflated because a single user who followed multiple users’ who tweeted about the EU was not accounted for. This number, however, vividly shows the influence that a microblogging site like Twitter possesses.

Lastly, the location of the user was examined. This was taken into account as there was no way to search for only users that are located within the United States. Tweets were limited to English, but this obviously will not narrow the results to only the Anglo-Saxon world. This was also the most problematic part of the study because listing your location is voluntary. Users do not have to disclose their location, can create a fictional location, or even lie that they are located somewhere they are not.

Keeping these limits in mind, the results were at follows. Over 35 percent of user locations could not be identified. Users that listed their location within the U.S. made up a little over 29 percent and both the EU and countries outside the U.S. and the EU, categorized as “Other,” accounted for around 18 percent. It would be interesting to conduct a similar study with an expanded search to include the additional 22 languages of the EU. I am doubtful that including 22 more languages would yield many more tweets, due to the fact that most EU specific news sources are published in English, and most tweets contained links to outside media.

Does the EU receive high exposure on Twitter? Again this is difficult to say relative to other subjects, but looking at the huge volume of tweets per day, it can be concluded that the EU composes a minute proportion of daily traffic. Twitter and other microblog sites produce a vast amount of information every second that can be exploited to look into the public’s opinion on a wide variety of subjects. This strictly quantitative study is only a rough exploration of a new form of media that is going to play an important role in future research, in not only political science, but across all disciplines. 

Thank you for smoking, polluting, and speculating

Many people saw the movie Thank You for Smoking that gives a glimpse into the life of a tobacco lobbyist whose smooth talking can sell people products that inevitably lead to their deaths. Lobbying itself has become a dirty word. Instead "interest representation" or "advocacy" are used. Big oil, big sugar, big tobacco are all terms carrying a negative connotation used in the U.S. to describe massive organizations within an  industry that pour money into lobbying efforts. The U.S. public possesses a stereotype of lobbying in Washington, but is the perception of lobbying in Brussels similar to the U.S.?

I was drawn to the topic of interest representation by an article in the EUObserver discussing the website http://www.worstlobby.eu/ and the award it is granting for the worst lobbying organization in Brussels. The nominees are divided into two categories: finance and climate. Among these nominees are American hedge fund Goldman Sachs, for “aggressive lobbying to defend their financial weapons of mass destruction” and ArcelorMittal, a steel company, for “lobbying for CO2 cuts under the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and at the same time raking in windfall profits under the ETS.” It’s important to note however, that this campaign is run by opposing interest representation groups, like LobbyControl, Friends of the Earth Europe, and Spinwatch.

The European public has a history of skepticism towards lobbying organizations in Brussels, similar to the American public. Public outrage against government support of the financial sector is evident in the surging popularity of the Tea Party movement in the U.S. But there are some stark differences between the EU and U.S. Differences that exist because of federalism in the U.S. and the multi-level governance in the EU.

In the EU the most important lobbying actors are the member states themselves. Germany, France, the UK, etc. drive policy, rather than the executive or Congress. Interest groups have the option of “venue shopping” in the EU, where they can choose at what level of governance to dedicate resources. Even with interest groups focusing on member state governments, the most important actor, there has been an almost exponential increase in interest organizations in Brussels after the Singe European Act in 1986. The EU also differs from the U.S. because it engages interests through compromise due to the consensus based governance it has come to represent. The U.S. represents a “winner takes all” system[i], a zero sum game, where one interest is clearly the victor over the other. If big oil wins, the environment loses.

In the U.S. it is clear that governance structures will not change; this is not a given in EU, which is perpetually evolving. Therefore it is much easier for organizations to establish best practices and stick with them. Interest groups concentrate themselves in Washington because that is where the most important actors are located, not the case in the EU. In January the Supreme Court issued a ruling that has made it unconstitutional to ban interest groups from directly funding political advertisements during election campaigns (see Economist article) because it violates the First Amendment.

This ruling will certainly have an impact on political campaigns, but transparency is the major issue. This ruling will change little if the public knows that it is a coal company paying for an advertisement to support a legislative candidate promoting an increase in coal fired power plants. The same goes for renewable energy as well, although this is perceived as a “good” policy, rather than bad.

Perception is the main difference between the EU and U.S. Both public's are skeptical of special interests lobbying for concentrated benefits created through public policy, and are concerned about the public’s lack of involvement because the costs imposed are diffuse. However “good” and “bad” policies are perceived differently across the Atlantic. This is evident most clearly in environmental policy. During a meeting with Green Peace in Brussels I attended with my classmates, a question was raised asking if Green Peace suffers from an image problem in Europe. The question was answered “no” and the subject was immediately changed.

This was something myself and American classmates could not get over. From discussion afterward we came to the conclusion that Green Peace in the U.S. is viewed as having more in common with Al Qaeda than an NGO. This is obviously not true for all, or most Americans, but the perceived image in undoubtedly different. This sheds insight on perceived “good” and “bad” policies because the EU has shown, through substantial legislation, that it is going to do what it takes become an environmentally friendly continent. The federal government has take little action compared to the EU and the public in general is much more skeptical to the benefits that green policy measures can bring.

Is it easier for special interests to capture U.S. government institutions than the EU’s counterparts? That is a difficult question to answer, and lobbying is debated and studied extensively in the academic literature. Christine Mahoney and Frank Baumgartner are published extensively on this topic. Many of Dr. Baumgartner’s studies are available on his website. EU institutions are certainly more insulted than in the U.S. Whether or not this is good for democracy is debatable.

It is clear that there is room to increase the public’s confidence in government through increased transparency regarding lobbying in both the U.S. and the EU. With government bailouts of key sectors, both governments must take measures to distance themselves and illustrate clearly, through increased transparency, that they are not subject to capture. Distance and transparency will also help eliminate the problem of moral hazard that has not developed in bailed out industries.

Is lobbying a bad thing? Absolutely not, and increased transparency will show this by leveling the playing field for all organizations. Lobbying, interest representation and advocacy are here to stay and represent an integral part of democracy. Citizens’ initiatives account for the largest number of advocacy groups and play an important role in the legislative process, contrary to common belief. Both “good” and “bad” policies can be advocated for; it is simply in the eye of the beholder.

---

[i] Mahoney, Christine. 2007. “Lobbying Success in the United States and the European Union.” European Union Politics: Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 35-56.

A bunch of unelected bureaucrats: Solving the democratic deficit

Last Friday, October 8^th myself and three JMU alumni attended a lecture at the Cato Institute entitled Power Grab: European Integration in the Post-Democratic Age. The panel consisted of the moderator Marian Tupy, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute ,Fritz Bolkestein former Commissioner for Internal Market and Services, Angelos Pangratis, Deputy Head of the EU delegation to the U.S. and John Gillingham, professor at University Missouri-St. Louis. The title of the lecture was controversial, and being at the Cato Institute, I knew I would hear a libertarian take on the EU, a perspective that I am unfamiliar with.

The forum began with Fritz Bolkestein, who made it clear that he become disillusioned with the EU. He made the argument that the EU is moving in the wrong direction with the Lisbon Treaty. Bolkestein pointed out that the European Council, where heads of state convene to determine big policy initiatives, has now become an official institution, which will significantly increase the already bloated bureaucracy. While he pointed out more specific problems, his main issue was with the Parliament and the lack of democracy in the EU. Bolkestein concluded stating that the EU is “a bunch of unelected bureaucrats.”

Dr. John Gillingham spoke last, but he made similar arguments to Bolkestein. Gillingham believes that the EU has spiraled out of control and become a government that does not serve its intended purpose. He believes that EMU has been disastrous and granting the EU fiscal powers will not remedy the recent crisis from happening again. The way to fix the EU is through structural reform that allows flexibility. This flexibility will come through bilateral treaties, which seems to stem from Andrew Moravczik’s theory of interngovernmentalism. Gillingham concluded that he does not know if this is possible, but there are things about the EU worth saving, like the single market, and therefore reform is necessary.

Dr. Pangratis faced tough opposition representing the EU. His defense was that the EU is necessary to govern the complexities of a modern world. If you compare the bureaucracies of the U.S. and the EU, the EU employs only 30,000 people, a fraction of the U.S. federal government, and more comparable to a state’s civil service. Gillingham refuted this by stating the EU does not provide services, like mail or building roads, that governments typically provide.  Pangratis acknowledged that the EU must address the democratic deficit.

You cannot discuss the EU without discussing the democratic deficit. So why hasn’t it been addressed? The Lisbon Treaty attempts to do this, and is mildly successful, although not to the critics. The Parliament and the Council now act similarly in most legislation as the House and Senate in the U.S, forming a bicameral legislature. And new citizens’ initiatives have been introduced, where a percentage of the populous can compel the Commission to introduce legislation. Going into all the mechanisms would be lengthy and has been written about extensively, so I will go into any more depth here.

As Bolkestein and many scholars point out, the Parliament has many inherent problems. Voter turnout has declined steadily since the first direct elections in the 70s. Voters also use these elections as “second order” elections, punishing or rewarding their domestic government. If they are unhappy with the Socialist government, voters will vote liberal in the Parliament elections, or for another party. So how can this be fixed? Peter Maier has pointed out that parties are no longer capable of representing the people of Europe. Simon Hix, who has also written extensively on the democratic deficit, believes there needs to be more direct democracy introduced, such as direct participation in electing the Commission president.

An idea that has constantly arose in my mind is, would changing the system of proportional representation to a system of single member district plurality introduce more direct democracy to the Parliament? I had the opportunity to ask both Peter Maier and Simon Hix this question. Maier believes that this could be a possible solution, while Hix does not believe that this will do much because districts would be so large and diverse.

I believe changing the system from proportional to single member district would not introduce democracy to the EU, but rather input legitimacy. The EU already possess a high amount of output legitimacy through the consensus that it reaches through its complex legislative process, there is usually no direct loser in European politics. It lacks input legitimacy, where citizens directly participate in government. This is a stark difference between the U.S. and the EU, where the U.S. has a high degree of input legitimacy, but low output legitimacy. The U.S. system is one of a winner takes all. When Republicans win, Republican policy measures benefit their supporters, and punish Democrats. The EU attempts to introduce legislation that is acceptable to all major parties.

How can the democratic deficit be fixed? By forgoing one type of legitimacy for another. Switching types of legitimacy would be a fatal blow to the integration process. Single member districts will introduce the problem of pork barrel and log rolling into the Parliament. Other measures to increase input legitimacy will allow more say from a largely Euroskeptic European public. Bolkestein is correct to point out that there is no opposition government in the Parliament, but polarizing the Parlimanet along party lines will lead to legislative gridlock or a system that benefits winning parties and punishes the losers, a far cry from the system of governance the EU has a become, a system based on consensus. Single member districts also tend to produce two party systems like in the U.S, while proportional representation allows for more parties to enter into the government.

So which type of legitimacy is “better?” This is the question. The idea of democracy is government by the people. This would lead one to believe that democracy has degraded in Europe because the average European has little direct influence on the supranational government. However, democracy with input legitimacy sometimes allows for some very undemocratic outputs. This is evident when an elected majority produces policy that punishes the minority. Both the U.S. and EU forms of governance have their flaws. Which system is better equipped with the tools to address the complexities of the modern world? Only time will tell, but European economies seem to be faring the current crisis better than the U.S.

Are you smarter than a 5th grader?

Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader is a trivia game show that asks an adult questions with difficulty levels based on different primary school grade levels. If stumped, they can receive the assistance of children actually in those grades. Granted, the contestants are usually not America’s best and brightest, there is something to be said for the basic knowledge that is lost as we age. My ultimate goal is to determine the complete perception that average the American has about the EU, and this show actually offers some valuable insight.

If a contestant on the show was asked a question about the EU would he/she know it? Would the primary school student know? Neither most likely will. Recalling my primary and secondary education, where history and social studies quickly became my favorite subjects, I remember learning almost nothing about post-war Europe. Europe before World War II is still vivid in my mind, from the British Empire, back to the Renaissance, to Medieval Europe, all the way back to the Roman Empire. My history/social studies education ended with briefly covering the Cold War and Vietnam. European history up to WWII is so intertwined with America’s that it is impossible to teach American history without an understanding of Europe.  But then something happens. After WWII the Europeans choose to forge their own path and the continent all but disappears from American memory.  

Coming out of high school, I could’ve told you that I had heard of the European Union, but that’s it. This led me to look up the New Jersey Department of Education’s core curriculum for social studies. Located at here there is an impressive list of material that needs to be covered from grades 4-12. I was surprised to see the depth that the standards go into. They list some very specific topics, such as “explain the role of specialization in the production and exchange of goods and services” to be achieved by the end of grade 4. This standard shocked me. I did not learn about comparative advantage and economies of scale until taking Principles of Macroeconomics in college. 

Is there any mention of the EU in this very detailed list that ultimately shapes the lives of New Jersey’s youth? I was surprised that there was one mention:”Assess the impact of the European Union on member nations and other nations.” This appears in the category of 1945-Present. I was surprised at the depth of the standards in the post-war era, as this does not reflect my own educational experience. Strictly based on my personal experiences, I find most Americans to be experts on World War II, while their knowledge of contemporary issues lacks the depth of earlier historical events.

The lack of standards regarding EU material is merely an observation. I am not qualified, and definitely biased, to say that there should be more material taught on the EU. However, from my experience, I took all history courses rather than social studies; there was never a focus on contemporary issues. Why is this? Do more social studies and history teachers major in history rather than political science in college, and stick with their specialty? I understand the magnitude of material that must be taught to students is huge, covering all of human history.

Is this the correct focus however? To understand the present you have to understand the past. But should the focus be on the past at the opportunity cost (another standard to be taught by the end of grade 4) of examining the present? Can both be adequately covered? Does it matter since it appears we lose this knowledge rather quickly? Evident from the game show. I must stress that these observations come from my personal experiences. I encourage everyone to comment if they had a similar or different educational background. New Jersey’s core curriculum shows the lack of focus on contemporary Europe. Already handicapped by a lack of coverage of EU affairs by the American media, Americans suffer another handicap in understanding the continent through secondary education. What can and should be done?

Meet the Europeans: A Guide for Americans

We here in America like to think we know what's going on over there. Somewhere along the line, Europeans all decided it was high time they got a little cozier with their neighbors, trade in their currencies, and open their borders to each other... because they're just one continent of small car-driving, social welfare-loving people after all, right?

These are of course stereotypes and broad oversimplifications; ones that my American colleagues would likely agree dominate our sometimes critical and mostly romanticized notion of the European continent and those who live there. But who are they really-- and perhaps the better question is-- is there even a "they" to speak of?

The question of European identity is not just interesting to consider from a social or anthropological standpoint; in Europe the question is decidedly political and absolutely relevant to the future of the European Union and its stakeholders as a polity. The question is not new; conceiving of the limits of European integration and of shifting sovereignties has been of special interest to EU bureaucrats since the late 1980s and early 1990s, when European institutions took on many new areas of competency and the European Union began to be considered as something greater than an inner market. The anxiety-inducing topic of discussion in Brussels is that the European Union will-- if it hasn't already-- encounter its political and economic limits unless people start feeling European.

What's going on in Europe is a largely elite-driven experiment to see if truly, post-nationalism is possible. Some things are generally agreed upon-- the merits of an open and competitive European market, ease of travel, a common currency-- but where the EU stands on unstable ground is its ability to touch social issues. Of course, EU leadership is careful not to purposely step on any toes too soon, emphasizing in most Commission documents that edge in on aspects of social policy that core competencies are still delegated to the Member States under the principle of subsidiarity. It might surprise most Americans that most of the things Europeans can't seem to agree on have to do with state-run welfare, but on the other hand this makes sense: national welfare programs are expensive, politically sensitive, and vary widely.

The focus in most of the research and in the EU’s own attempts to monitor questions of identity and support for integration has been on a national basis in each Member State. Since 1973, the Eurobarometer surveys have been administered by the Commission twice a year in each Member State to examine trends in attitudes towards integration, looking at both shifting attitudes over time and differences between Member States in terms of their level of support. Drawing from a large body of data on attitudes towards the EU, European scholars and the EU institutions alike have shown considerable interest in identifying the national identity considerations factoring into support (or lack thereof) for the European project. Characterizing each nation by their level of support has been conceptualized in much of the literature as distinguishing between the nations of “Euroskeptics” and the nations of “Europhiles.”

But what is it that makes them quintessentially European nonetheless? Popular notions of Europe being a physical place is certainly troubled by its misty division from Asia and the EU's possible expansion to places that aren't really all that much on the European continent. The Roman empire itself included much of North Africa-- what makes some of the former empire popularly Europe and some of it decidedly not? There are debates that "Europe" exists along other lines such as the linguisitic, political, religious and cultural, but no theory really proves European identity to be a tangible, definable thing. Surely, democracy and the rule of law are important binding characteristics of the Member States of the European Union, but these exist elsewhere in the world and it's probably reasonable to suggest that the U.S. will not be offered EU membership anytime soon. 

So. Europe doesn't exist. Close down the blog. Debate over.

Unfortunately, this answer doesn't help anyone. The EU exists-- and exercises growing global economic clout-- even if the notions of Europe and what it means to be European are elusive concepts. There is something that makes them work together on a great number of things that are undeniably key to peace and stability among them. Even if we don't know what this is, in the U.S., it's crucial that we understand as much as we can about what's working and what isn't within its multi-level governance structure, what the Member States agree on and what they don't; only in this way will we really know what's going on over there... and be better prepared to 'meet the Europeans' on the foreign policy playing field.

Michelle Melton is a contributor to U.S. Watch on Europe and is a 2010 Master's degree recipient from James Madison University's European Union Policy Studies program based in Florence, Italy.

New Jersey: the Greece of the U.S.?

Moving away from looking at media exposure for the moment, I want to comment on the recent protests against austerity measures in the EU.

During May all forms of media had their gaze fixed on Europe, in particular Greece and the so called PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain). All of these states, because of large deficits and government debt, were under threat to default on their sovereign debt. This gave rise to the fear of “contagion,” that this would spread throughout Europe, and even possibly to the U.S. and cause a sovereign debt crisis throughout the world as investors would lose confidence in government bonds.

This did not happen. Europe finally agreed on a bailout package for these states if default should occur. This nearly $1 trillion package, including IMF support, was finally agreed upon with resistance from Germany, who did not want to pay for the sins of its irresponsible neighbors.

For Germany the crisis now appears over, its economy is surging and its strict employment laws have curbed the problem the U.S. is facing with a jobless recovery. Now Eurozone states must balance their budgets and the only way to do this is through austerity measures and/or raising taxes. States must meet a relic of a regulation called the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP). Under this pact states must keep their annual deficit at 3 percent of GDP and total government debt below 60 percent. The formation of the SGP came at a time when economies were growing on average of 3 percent, a fact that is not reality in the present.

Budget slashing is also a trend in the U.S. Republicans are basing their platforms around balancing the budget through slashing spending without raising taxes. I come from a rural town in New Jersey, a typically democratic state that recently elected a Republican governor, hell bent on getting New Jersey’s debt under control, which has spiraled out of control and is in the billions. This comes with good reason and leads to the title of this post. New Jersey is similar in many ways to Greece in the EU. New Jersey citizens face some of the highest taxes in the U.S., with the highest property taxes in the country. There have been recent scandals within the state government and inefficient spending and civil service bloat has been a reoccurring problem.

Like people in Europe, in New Jersey we are now facing drastic cuts in spending. These cuts have affected transportation and education to highlight a few on a long list of cuts. Education spending has recently taken a huge hit and is the most visible to me. My mother is a teacher and many of my friends are education majors. A few of these friends were let go from their jobs and are now finding it nearly impossible to find employment (veteran teachers are secured their positions through tenure and a powerful teachers union, but that is another discussion in itself). With irresponsible states like New Jersey and California, who have run up huge deficits and who now must tighten their spending belts, why haven’t there been protests on the streets like in Europe? Why haven’t New Jersey and California threatened to undermine the dollar like Greece did the Euro? I decided to look at the economies of the PIIGS countries and compare them to U.S. state economies.

State	GDP billion $	Country	GDP billion $
U.S.	14520	EU	15050
California	1846	Italy	1832
Texas	1223	Spain	1413
Washington	322.8	Greece	340.2
Wisconsin	240.4	Portugal	239.1
Alabama	170	Ireland	186.7

New Jersey’s economy, at $475 billion is much larger than Greece’s and two times that of Portugal’s, yet these small states threaten the entire 16 state Eurozone. So why did Greece, the size of Washington state, have such a huge impact on the Eurozone? The answer is simple; U.S. states have the backing of the federal government. New Jersey, or even California, an economy the size of Italy, is not going to single handedly take down the dollar because fiscal and economic policy is a competency of the federal government and because of the dollars supremacy as a reserve currency throughout the world. While the Euro has become a stronger currency since its creation and has grown stronger relative to the dollar over almost the past 10 years, the Eurozone does not have the equivalent of the federal government.

Member states hesitated to back Greece and it caused bond rating agencies to attack Greek bonds, exacerbating the crisis, something that just wouldn’t happen in the U.S. Both U.S. states and EU member states face a tough road ahead as they try to lift themselves out of the crisis and balance their budgets. With the German economy strong, Europe cannot hesitate to delegate more authority to supranational institutions, especially Eurozone members. Supranational Eurozone fiscal and economic governance is the only way to avoid another Greek crisis and give the world complete confidence in the Euro. For this to happen the PIIGS are going to have to accept austerity measures, and Germany and other strong economies are going to have to accept picking up the slack for struggling economies during times of crisis. As for New Jersey and the rest of the U.S., only time will tell if it is time to slash budgets and balance the budget, or pump up the economy with more deficit spending to create jobs. Partisan lines have been drawn.