Perceive Project
Perceive Project
2019
This document, published by the Perceive Project in 2019, presents findings from three years of research focused on the relationship between Cohesion Policy, identity, awareness, and perception of Europe. It outlines eight key conclusions that can inform citizens, practitioners, and policymakers regarding the effectiveness of EU communications and the public's understanding of European integration. 💬 Communication Challenges The research indicates that Europe struggles with communication, particularly regarding the Cohesion Policy, which has not effectively promoted support for the EU. Traditional media channels such as television (30%) and newspapers (23%) dominate awareness efforts, while social media only accounts for 5.8%. Enhanced communication strategies are necessary to ensure that local governments do not take undue credit for benefits derived from EU funds. 💰 Structural Funds and Public Support Allocating structural funds does not automatically translate to public support for the EU. For instance, regions like Calabria (Italy) benefit significantly from EU funding, yet only 10% of residents perceive these benefits positively. The study suggests that poor spending of funds and ineffective communication about the outcomes of this policy contribute to this disconnect. 📉 Awareness Gaps The research reveals that half of European citizens are unaware of EU policies, with only 45% knowledgeable about the Cohesion Policy. Awareness varies across regions, with peaks in newer EU member states like Poland (63%) and Estonia (60%), contrasting sharply with much lower figures in the UK (21%) and the Netherlands (18%). 🌍 Euroscepticism and Perception Interestingly, not all Eurosceptic governments govern Eurosceptic populations. For example, Poland, despite having a Eurosceptic government, shows a high percentage of citizens (60-80%) recognizing the benefits of EU funding, with over 75% viewing EU membership positively. 👥 Demographics and EU Perception Citizens’ perceptions of the EU are influenced by factors such as age, education, and urban living. Younger, more educated individuals in urban areas are more likely to acknowledge the benefits of European integration. Conversely, older and less-educated citizens in rural areas tend to have a lower identification with the EU. 📈 Investment in Awareness Investment in communication and structural funds can enhance awareness of EU policies. Regions with substantial funding and dedicated communication budgets see higher levels of public awareness. However, this effect may diminish over time, necessitating ongoing investment to maintain awareness and support. 🏛️ Institutional Quality and Trust Lastly, regions with higher institutional quality and wealth tend to express more concern regarding EU efficacy and corruption. In contrast, poorer regions exhibit greater trust in EU institutions, possibly due to high perceived corruption and lower governance quality.
3 years of research and 8 conclusions about Europe. Research has 8 things to say PERCEIVE research produced several deliverables and outputs. Out of those, we selected 8 main findings that can help citizen, practitioners and policy-makers to understand more on the relationship between Cohesion Policy, identity, awareness and perception of Europe. 01. Europe has a problem with communication. The communication of Cohesion Policy has not been effective in promoting support to the EU. The truth is, communication itself has never been a goal of the Policy – it should be. Europe must learn to better communicate its policies, avoiding local governments to take credit for concrete benefits coming from EU funds. Channels are crucial: awareness of European projects still passes through traditional tools (30% TV, 23% newspapers), while struggling on social media (5,8%). The role of the first ones should be rethought: they can increase visibility of Cohesion Policy but do not fuel support for the EU project. More sophisticated tools (e.g. video competitions, ”Did you know?” campaigns, photo exhibitions, etc.) could be effective for specific groups but not for others. Specific tools and messages should be used for the “losers” of European integration, i.e. olders, unskilled, rural citizens. 02. Allocating structural funds is not sufficient to obtain consent. Benefiting from European funds does not necessarily imply supporting the European project and identifying with Europe. Some regions largely benefit from European funds and are aware of receiving funds from the EU but do not translate this awareness into support for the European project. For example, Calabria (Italy) is a region that benefits greatly from European funds and more than 60% of respondents are aware of the existence of structural funds.
Although, only 10% perceive the benefits of EU funds and the 34% (the highest proportion recorded in PERCEIVE survey) considers being part of the EU a bad thing. This, according to PERCEIVE researchers, can happen for two reasons: Structural Funds do not generate a benefit because they are not spent well; communication needs to be improved with regard to the virtuous results of cohesion policy. 03. Half of European citizens are not aware of EU policies. PERCEIVE research showed that citizens’ awareness of what the EU is investing in their regions is generally low, with large differences across Europe. Overall, every two European citizens, less than one knows about EU Cohesion Policy (45%). Structural Funds are known on average by 50% of EU citizens. In the case of EU Regional Policy, the average percentage rises to 53%: according to PERCEIVE researchers, this is also because – simply – words count: “cohesion policy” is much more cryptic than “regional policy”. 04. Recognition of EU policies is higher among “new” countries. Europe faces a “two-speed” scenario: citizens from countries that joined most recently the Union are more aware of what the EU is investing in their region. Awareness of EU Cohesion Policy reaches peaks of 63% in Poland or 60% in Estonia, followed by drops to 21% in the UK and 18% in the Netherlands. Structural Funds’ awareness fluctuates between 75% in Poland or 69% in Latvia, to 24% in Netherlands or 26% in the UK. In the case of EU Regional Policy, the research showed peaks of 70%, as Slovakia, and heavy downs in France, Netherlands and the UK, which stand between 31 and 24%. Among regions, awareness drops from peaks of 84% in Warmińsko-mazurskie (Poland) to 18% in Essex (UK) — any possible connection with Brexit? 05. Not all Eurosceptic governments govern Eurosceptic people.
Countries that largely benefit from European funds do not ignore the benefits of European policies. For example, in Poland – governed by Eurosceptics – a proportion of respondents ranging from 60% to 80% perceive that European funding has produced obvious benefits in their region. The same proportion in Emilia Romagna (Italy), for example, is around 15%. Besides, more than 75% of the citizens interviewed in the Polish regions consider belonging to the European Union a positive thing and identify with Europe. 06. Perception of the EU is lower among older, less-educated and rural citizens. Education and income positively influence citizens’ identification and appreciation of the EU, so do urban environments. The average profile of those who perceive the benefits of Europe? Mostly younger (28% between 18 and 29 years old, 31% between 30 and 49), with higher education (45% of graduates, compared to 23% of those who did not attend high school) and who live in a large city (35% in cities over a million inhabitants, 26% in those under 10,000). 07. Investment can still be fundamental in amplifying awareness. Awareness continues to play an important role in building support for European integration and investment from the EU can impact it positively. Both the amount of structural funds absorbed by the region and the specific budget allocated to communication have an impact on citizens’ awareness of the Cohesion Policy. However, the effect of communication investment has a potentially decreasing effectiveness over time (“decay effect”). Citizens that are “aware” of the policy tend to perceive higher personal benefits from the EU and can, as a result, increase their support to Brussels. 08. National institutional quality and corruption impact citizens’ trust in the EU.
Richest regions where quality of institution is high are more concerned about the efficacy and corruption of the EU. Wealthier regions have a lower pattern of identification with the European project and are more disapproving towards Brussels. On the other side, higher levels of recognition and trust in the EU institutions emerge in poorest regions, where people perceive high internal levels of corruption and lower quality of government.