The leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) was involved in the referendum to leave the European Union.
Since the founding of the European Union in 1951, some have been suspicious of its objectives and powers.
The French blocked the United Kingdom from joining until 1973.
Switzerland and Norway declined to join.
Adoption of the euro as a single currency in 2000 was one of the new treaties that countries objected to.
Euroskepticism has existed on the margins of the EU as it continued to expand.
A decade ago, some imagined that the European Union would become a "United States of Europe" and end American dominance.
As pundits were lauding the emergence of this imagined superpower, hostility toward the EU among its citizens was growing.
The EU began to generate a backlash across a number of nation- states rather than generating a common European identity.
The EU was criticized for being too bureaucratic, economical and liberal during the economic downturn.
Immigration and its impact on jobs, national identity, and political culture merged with these concerns.
Domestic politics in a number of important states were shaped by rising Euroskepticism.
One example of a Euroskeptic force is the United Kingdom Independence Party.
The party platform to leave the European Union attracted more supporters in recent years.
In the EU's European Parliament elections in 2014, the UK's UKIP came in first place with 28 percent of the vote and 24 of the UK's 73 seats.
European integration, once seemingly inevitable, was no longer so according to the leader of the UK Independence Party.
The UK's ruling Conservative Party wants to stem the rise of Euroskepticism by holding a referendum on continued membership in the European Union.
The populist arguments appealed to individuals across the political spectrum, but they tended to appeal to older individuals and those with less education who believed globalization had hurt them the most.
52 percent of British voters chose to leave the European Union on June 23, 2016 despite predictions that the referendum would fail.
A two-year time limit is set in the Treaty on the European Union for member states to withdraw.
This has never been put into practice, and it is not known how hard or soft the United Kingdom's exit will be.
Britain is not the only country where such parties have gained power.
France has seen the rise of the Euroskeptic National Front.
Europe's economic recession gave the Front a new opportunity to make its case that the EU is a threat to national values.
The National Front took a different position than the UK Independence Party because it believed that European integration was hurting the French economy.
Both parties agree that immigration from within and without the EU is a threat to jobs and national identity.
In France, the Front won 25 percent of the votes and 24 of the 74 seats in the European Parliament.
The leader of the National Front, Marine Le Pen, came in second place in the presidential elections in France.
An optimistic interpretation is that Euroskepticism will open the doors for important reforms inside the EU and a deeper relationship between EU members.
If Britain's economy declines as a result of leaving the EU, this may be more likely.
Euroskepticism, fueled by fears of immigration and globalization, will weaken the European Union.
A divided EU will not be able to fulfill the needs of its citizens or play an important role in the global community.
Since World War II, the number of individuals questioning economic and political integration in developed democracies has not been as high.
We had considered the institutions and values that represented developed democracies to be a relatively fixed set.
How political, economic, and social institutions differ in the developed democracies is analyzed.
Compare how sovereignty has been faced by developed democracies.
The rise of postmodern values has been seen in developed democracies.
Evaluate the chal enges faced by the postindustrial economic institutions.
We can investigate how political institutions manifest themselves in the world now that we are familiar with some of the concepts that help us compare them.
We will look at countries with similar political institutions.
The term can cover a diverse set of countries that may get only more diverse in the future.
The term refers to countries that have a high level of economic development and prosperity.
In this chapter, we look at the basic institutions and dynamics that characterize developed democracies, applying the concepts we have studied so far.
We will compare the roles of individual freedom and collective equality in the developed democracies.
We will look at the challenges their institutions face in contemporary politics once we have a grasp of these ideas.
The idea of state sovereignty that has been at the core of modern politics may be challenged by the forces of integration and devolution.
The emergence of postindustrial societies is changing the nature of wealth and labor.
As old and new social values come into conflict, similar changes can be seen in societal institutions.
As the populations of the developed democracies become older and more diverse, all of these issues are compounded.
Evidence in this chapter will allow us to consider possible scenarios.
The countries of the "Second World," or communist states, and those of the "Third World," the vast body of less developed countries, were contrasted with them.
Even within each category there was a great deal of institutional diversity, which was problematic whenDividing countries into these three "worlds".
The collapse of communism and the end of the Cold War made the three- worlds approach less useful.
Critics might say that these categories differ from past approaches only in name.
We list what we can consider developed democracies in Table 8.1.
Some of these countries will also appear in the subsequent chapters on postcommunist and developing countries, especially those that lie in an area of transition from one category to another.
In the area of democracy, we can rely on the factors discussed in Chapter 5, looking at the degree and institutionalization of participation, competition, and liberty.
The issues raised in Chapter 4: the presence of private property, open markets, and the level Defining Developed Democracy 239 of gross domestic product at purchasing power parity can be considered in the area of economic development and prosperity.
The kind of economic output that countries produce might be considered.
A small portion of the GDP of developed democracies is derived from agriculture and industrial production.
During and after the Industrial Revolution, industry displaced agriculture in many of today's developed democracies, and now industry itself is being displaced by the service sector, which includes jobs in retail sales, information technology, and education.
The output of wealth should be considered as well as the overall well- being of society.
Some of these factors are measured in Table 8.2 for several developed democracies as well as for a few nondeveloped democracies.
The countries listed in Tables 8.1 and 8.2 have high levels of economic development and small agricultural sectors.
They are one of the top third of HDI regimes that have high levels of human development according to the United Nations.
Several recently democratizationd and postcommunist countries that also exhibit the hallmarks of economic development and democracy are within this category.
They are different from countries that are poorer, have low HDI rankings, and lack a strong industrial and service sector.
The countries that we place in this category are diverse and have grown more diverse over the past decade.
Poland and South Korea were once categorized as part of the Second and Third Worlds.
With economic and political changes in both countries, it makes little sense to think of them in these terms.
Poland has more in common with Germany and France than it does with other countries that were once part of the communist world, and South Korea has more in common with Japan and the United States than it does with other countries in Asia.
Many readers would add or remove countries on the basis of other criteria, so this group is not meant to be definitive.
The chapters on postcommunist countries and developing countries will discuss a number of these countries again.
Due to recent global economic and political changes, the camp of developed democracies has expanded well beyond its traditional provinces of Western Europe and North America.
Mexico and Nigeria are classified as partly free by the Freedom House.
All of these countries share a high level of economic development based on industry and services.
In the area of political economy, developed democracies reconcile freedom and equality differently.
The role of the state in regulating the market and providing public goods is usually limited in countries with liberal political- economic systems.
Mercantilist systems tend to focus more on development than freedom.
These countries are united by democratic regines and political- economic institutions.
All developed democracies share a belief in participation, competition, and liberty and are institutionalized liberal democracies.
They define these terms differently.
Civil rights can be expanded or restricted without questioning the democratic nature of a country.
Take the case of abortion.
In countries like South Korea, Argentina, and Poland, abortions have limitations.
Some developed democracies ban abortions altogether or only under exceptional circumstances.
There are discrepancies in the regulation of prostitution, drugs, or hate speech and in the degree to which privacy is protected from state or economic actors.
The judicial systems of developed democracies interpret and defend their citizens' rights.
Some of these countries rely on vigorous constitutional courts whose wide array of powers allows them to overturn legislation, while other courts play a more conservative role, circumscribed by the existing forms of abstract and concrete review.
The level of political participation of the public varies.
The electoral systems discussed in Chapter 5 can be found in many countries.
In a few countries, like the United States and Germany, such votes are only used at the local level, while in others, like Japan, they are not used at all.
There is no electoral competition uniform in the developed democracies.
Some countries limit the amount of money that private actors can contribute to any political party or candidate and require the disclosure of the source of private political contributions.
The electoral systems influence politics.
Some developed democracies like the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada rely on single- member district plurality or majority to get their legislatures elected.
Mexico, Hungary, Italy, and Japan use mixed electoral systems that combine proportional representation and single member districts.
The United States, Brazil, Mexico, France and South Korea all have presidential systems in which the prime minister is the main executive.
Some of the states have federal systems while others are unitary.
There are different ways in which these institutions manage liberal democracy.
democracies are politically diverse They all guarantee liberty, but they differ in how they are exercised and where the boundaries of these elements are drawn.
The form and content of freedom varies from case to case.
In addition to a commitment to freedom, developed democracies share a simi lar approach to equality that emphasizes capitalism.
Basic standards of living are higher in the developed democracies than in other countries, and life expectancy is over 70 years in some countries.
The wealth is sometimes concentrated among certain ethnic groups, and this prosperity coexists with varying degrees of inequality.
The Gini index, a measurement of inequality around the world, found a surprising amount of difference even among countries with the same levels of economic development.
The state's role in equality is a factor.
The economic functions of the state differ greatly across the developed democracies.
In the United States, Mexico, and Japan, the state doesn't spend a lot on social welfare programs.
The total tax burden on the public in these countries is usually lower because individuals or families have more responsibility for funding basic needs.
There are distinctions in eligibility.
Eligible voters have different levels of privacy.
Voting is compulsory.
In social democratic systems such as those in Europe, taxation is often higher and the resulting revenues are used for income redistribution through an extensive system of social expenditures.
Some social democratic systems have more job protection or high levels of unemployment insurance than others.
Private property and free markets are fundamental institutions in each developed democracy.
The developed democracies share a basic set of institutions that reconcile freedom and equality.
Liberal democracy, with its emphasis on participation, competition, and liberty, and capitalism, with its emphasis on free markets and private property, are included in these institutions.
Each of the developed democracies has built their institutions in a different way.
The institutions of developed democracies are subject to change under the influence of domestic and international forces.
For a number of years some scholars have argued that developed democracies are moving away from modern social, political, and economic institutions.
This word says more about what isn't than what is.
The challenges to moder nity in the developed democracies will be the focus of the rest of the chapter.
These are big questions that rely on incomplete evidence.
The categories that have defined our discussion up to this point are political, societal, and economic institutions.
We talked about a number of ways to analyze and compare states.
We talked about state power in terms of capacity and autonomy.
In recent decades, we have seen a movement towards greater integration between countries.
In integration, states pool their sovereignty, surrendering some individual powers in exchange for political, economic, or societal benefits.
Integration blurs the line between countries by forging tight connections, common policies, and shared rules.
Devolving political power to lower levels of government is called devolution.
The process is intended to increase local participation, efficiency, and flexibility by having local authorities manage tasks once handled at the national level.
Integration and devolution have changed the developed democracies the most.
The twin processes of integration and devolution have been expected to transform the modern state.
Countervailing processes may limit or even end these movements.
The European Union is one of the best examples of integration.
The idea of a unified Europe came on the heels of a devastating war that left millions dead.
In the aftermath of World War II, a number of European leaders argued that the conflicts in the region were caused by a lack of interconnection between countries.
If their countries could be bound together through economic, societal, and political institutions, they would reject war against one another as irrational.
They argued that a common political agenda would give European states greater international authority in a postwar environment that had become dominated by the Soviet Union and the United States.
Some wanted integration to lead to a federal Europe, while others had more limited expectations.
In the early 1950s, a core of Western European countries began the process of integration.
This was not an easy step for any state or society to take.
The EU developed slowly.
It began as a small agreement that focused on the production of steel and coal.
Over time, the EU became a body that included many more members and held more responsibilities.
A basic set of institutions developed out of this expansion gave the EU more power over the member states.
The European Council is charged with setting the general political direction and priorities of the EU and with helping member states resolve the complex or sensitive issues that arise between them.
The office of the president does not hold the kind of power that is implied by its title.
The European Commission is made up of 28 members, each responsible for a specific policy area, such as transport, environment, and energy.
The president of the commission must be approved by the European Parliament before he can take office.
A 5-year term is served by him or her.
The president of the commission is in charge of the work of the commission, which is to set policy objectives, propose legislation, as well as manage the EU budget.
The European Parliament is a third body.
Unlike the council and commission, which are staffed, directed, or chosen by EU member governments, the European Parliament is a legislature whose 751 members are directly elected by the EU member states.
Legislation is passed by the parliament.
The budget for the EU can be passed, and members of the commission can be called for their resignation.
The size of the country's population affects the number of representatives it has.
The EU Court of Justice, made up of one judge for each country, rules on EU laws and conflicts between EU laws and the laws of member states.
The Court of Justice can be appealed to by member countries, EU bodies, companies and individuals.
EU laws are superior to national laws.
The EEC was created from the ECSC.
The EEC created the European Community.
Greece is joining the EC.
The European Union was created from the EC.
Most EU member states have a monetary union.
Most former communist countries are accepted by the EU.
The Lisbon Treaty is a new constitution of the EU.
Croatia is a member of the EU.
The United Kingdom voted to leave the EU.
The EU looked like it was on the way to becoming a federal state.
State sovereignty would eventually come to threaten integration and unity.
One important point to make about European integration is that it was a technical project led by elites.
Most political projects are shaped by elites who are able to provide the leadership and authority necessary to create institutions.
In Chapter 1, we looked at how successful institutions become valued for their own sake and take on a life of their own.
It is necessary for states and regimes to mobilize the public through ideas and identities.
After World War II, these were seen as the identities that got Europe into trouble.
The creation of a European union was more than just a question of trying to forge a common European identity.
It was a question of whether Europe could separate itself from traditional political identities.
European integration was primarily a technical project and public participation was limited.
The work of creating legislation is not taken on by the European Parliament, which became directly elected in 1979.
It can be argued that the European Union does not have a democratic regime.
While the EU is made up of developed democracies, and enjoys a democratically elected institution like the Parliament, for many Europeans the EU is not seen as a source of democratic values.
The EU was seen as running counter to democracy by many because of bureaucrats who were unaccountable to their citizens.
A 500 page document was created in 2001 to counter the lack of legitimacy.
Rejected by referenda in the Netherlands and France, a more limited treaty was enacted in 2009.
The EU's inability to overcome its democratic deficit was compounded by monetary union.
On January 1, 1999, the majority of EU member states linked their currencies to the euro, a single currency, under control of the European Central Bank.
The logic of monetary union was that a single currency would allow for one measure of prices and values across the EU, increasing competition by stimulating trade and cross- border investment within the EU.
A single currency backed by some of the world's wealthiest countries would increase the EU's power in the international system by creating what could become a "reserve currency" for other countries.
It was hoped that the euro would give EU citizens and their elected leaders a sense of identity.
All future members of the EU were expected to join the currency union in the future, even though six former communist countries had not yet joined the euro.
As a federal project, a single currency makes sense.
Creating a single currency across many different states, each with its own central bank, is more problematic.
The euro member states shared the same interest rate and exchange rate.
Poorer countries saw interest rates under the euro go down.
In Greece, the government racked up debt as a result of running significant deficits.
The Greek state ran out of money during the global economic downturn in 2008 and was unable to borrow money to meet its needs.
Fearing economic collapse, other EU members were forced to loan money to Greece to keep it afloat.
Problems affecting one member of the euro or EU would have a domino effect across the EU and member states would need to take financial responsibility for one another.
Tensions have arisen between the EU countries over managing their debt levels and whether some EU members need to bail out other EU members in a financial crisis.
The ongoing expansion of the EU has proved to be a source of conflict.
The EU grew from 6 member states to 15 after the fall of communism in Eastern Europe.
Over 100 million people were added to the EU through the acceptance of 13 new countries.
The EU's total GDP is close to that of the United States.
Euroskepticism has been fueled by the EU's enlargement.
Many former communist member states are poorer, and many Eastern Europeans have migrated west looking for work, while many Western European firms have relocated to Eastern Europe to take advantage of lower wages.
Tensions have arisen over immigration and jobs.
In the case of Britain's 2016 referendum to leave the European Union, a central concern was about immigrants from within the European Union, such as Poland, who are seen by some as competing for jobs.
Free movement within the EU for its own citizens (19 million citizens of the European Union now live in a different state than the one in which they were born) has become entangled with discussions of non- European refugees and concerns about globalization.
Population size is indicated by numbers in parentheses.
The UK is in the process of leaving the EU.
The EU has been a victim of its own success.
One can make a strong argument that integration not only prevented conflict in Europe but also laid the foundation for economic development and prosperity across the continent and institutionalized democracy in countries that had never experienced it.
Despite the results, the perception among many is that the cost has been an unacceptable loss of sovereignty and national identity.
The lessons are not limited to Europe.
Even though integration provides tangible benefits, they are not spread evenly and many see the trade- offs as unacceptable.
In our final chapter on globalization, we will look at this dilemma more.
devolution is shaping how developed democracies manage their sovereignty.
Devolution is the transfer of powers and resources from central state institutions to a lower level.
In many ways, devolution reverses the historical development of the state, which is noteworthy for its centralization of power over time.
Power over institutions such as social welfare has moved to the national level.
Power has been shifted to the local level across the developed democracies.
As we discussed with regard to Euroskepticism, there is concern about the growing public distrust of the state, viewing it as too large, distant, and inflexible.
Devolution is seen as a way to counteract distrust by increasing local control and participation.
Devolution can help give voice to marginal communities, such as ethnic minorities.
The transfer of responsibility and funds to local authorities gives them a greater say in how policies are crafted and executed.
Local institutions can craft policy when they have more control and responsibility.
In the United States in the 1990s, welfare reform created bulk transfers of funds to the states, which they could use to design and implement their own particular social welfare policies.
The EU has encouraged devolution through its Committee of Regions that focuses on bringing local communities into the EU decision- making process.
Creating wholly new political institu tions to provide a greater level of public participation is one way to effect devolution.
The government created this new province to give the native Inuit people control over the natural resources in the region where they lived.
In 1999 the United Kingdom created a new directly elected assembly for the regions of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
There has been growing resistance to integration.
devolution and integration are not zero sum, where one gains only at the other's expense.
In the case of the EU, integration and devolution have been seen as complimentary projects, where greater powers at the EU level would require stronger connections to subnational institutions like regions and cities.
A new localism focus on cities can be an attempt to link urban areas more directly to international opportunities provided by globalization.
Out of hostility to the state and integration, devolution can emerge, fueled by a populist demand for more local autonomy.
State capacity can be weakened by this.
When devolution is a response to ethnic conflict, it can either help resolve the problem or only increase demands for sovereignty, depending on how the institutional reforms are structured.
In the United Kingdom, devolution has brought about an end to religious conflict between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland.
The failed referendum for Scottish independence was caused by the increased power of Scottish nationalists.
Following Britain's successful referendum to leave the EU, this issue is back on the agenda.
A number of countries have moved away from devolution in order to fight the threat of terrorism and manage legal and illegal immigration.
External and internal conditions can affect devolution's pace and strength.
That no longer seems to be the case.
societies are being pulled in two directions at the same time, just as advanced democratic states are facing a number of political challenges and changes in the new millennium.
Some political scientists point to a new set of shared norms and values emerging across the developed democracies that are not bound to traditional identities of nation and state; others emphasize the strengthening of local identities that are turning these same societies inward.
The struggle over integration and devolution is connected to these processes.
There is a debate among political scientists about whether the developments are a sign of greater cooperation or a sign of conflict.