Table 1

Summary of the main hypotheses and operationalisation of independent variables

Independent variables	Supposed Effect	Operationalisation
Political values and orientations (individual level data)
Post-materialism	No effect	Four items table 5
Leftism	Positive	Three items table 6
Policy-perception	Positive	Four items table 7
Transgovernmental experiences (individual level data)
Experiences in the working groups	Positive	Years of participation in the Council
Social context (aggregate data)
South-European	Positive	Hofstede's distinction
Smallness	Positive	Dichotomous variable based on a population criterion
Period of entrance	Positive	Member-states divided in three waves
National elite attitude	Positive	Eurobarometer survey of 1996
Federal polity	Positive	Indicator employed by Hooghe
National experiences (individual level data)
Low organisational self-esteem	Positive	Seven items in table 8
Work-experiences in national settings	Negative	Years spent in the domestic state sector

Table 2

Distribution of respondents (N)

	13 Working Groups	Other Belgian Full-timers	Belgian Part-timers
Belgium	12	18	65
Great Britain	11
Denmark	10
Germany	12
France	12
Greece	8
Eire	10
Italy	11
Luxemburg	4
Netherlands	8
Portugal	11
Spain	11
Totals	120	18	65

Table 3

Attitudes towards European integration, univariate statistics (percentages, means and standard deviations)

	agree	............................................				disagree
	1	2	3	4	5	6
GUIDE. In the working groups, the European Commission and the national representatives should take an active part in drawing up guidelines for the policies of Member States.	26.1	17.5	18.4	10.5	11.4	15.8	Multinational sample N=120 (=3.40, s = 1.78)
	48.4	22.1	14.7	5.3	6.3	3.2	Belgians N=95 (=2.08, s = 1.39)
DIREC. In the working groups the representatives should develop a strong common policy and lay down clear directions for the national governments.	21.2	15.9	15.0	12.4	20.4	15.0	Multinational sample N=120 (=3.41, s = 1.66)
	36.2	27.7	20.2	7.4	4.3	4.3	Belgians N=95 (=2.29, s = 1.36)
EXECU. In my opinion, in the working groups we should work towards a strongly united policy which strengthens the executive role of the European Institutions.	18.9	13.5	18.0	18.0	19.8	11.7	Multinational sample N=120 (=3.41, s = 1.66)
	30.9	18.1	27.7	11.7	8.5	3.1	Belgians N=95 (=2.59, s = 1.42)

Table 4

Supra-Nationalism (factor-loadings)

	Belgians (N=95)	Multinational sample (N=120)
GUIDE	0.63	0.56
DIREC	0.60	0.79
EXECU	0.49	0.76
Eigenvalue	1.00	1.52

Table 5

Post-materialism (factor-loadings higher than 0.30)

		Belgians (N=95)	Multinational sample (N=120)
1.	What position would you take up if you had to choose between the maintenance of law and order and the protection of freedom of opinion? (11-point-scale)	0.55	0.63
2.	What position would you take up if you had to choose between the right to security and the right to privacy? (11-point-scale)	0.46	0.54
3.	If you had to choose between the quality of life and high economic growth, what position would you take up? (11-point-scale)	0.59	0.40
4.	Suppose you had to choose between the preservation of the environment and the preservation of jobs. What position would you take up? (11-point-scale)	0.52
	Eigenvalue	1.13	0.92

Table 6

Leftism (factor-loadings)

		Belgians (N=95)	Multinational sample (N=120)
1.	Do you prefer an economy controlled by the government or an economy which allows for an absolutely open competition? (4-point-scale)	0.65	0.55
2.	Reducing the differences in income rightly belongs to the government. (4-point-scale)	0.47	0.52
3.	To what extent would you locate yourself rather to the left or rather to the right of the political spectrum? (11-point-scale)	0.63	0.65
	Eigenvalue	1.05	1.00

Table 7

Perception of internationalised policy problems (factor-loadings)

		Belgians (N=95)	Multinational sample (N=120)
1.	Without the European Union, the Member States are no match for the other economic power blocks in the world. (4-point-scale)	0.55	0.44
2.	The European Union can handle a number of current problems in a much more effective way than the national governments can. (4-point-scale)	0.53	0.53
3.	I am in favour of a kind of subsidiarity in which the powers of the national governments are transferred to the European Union, if this leads to a more effective policy. (4-point-scale)	0.63	0.42
4.	Only a further European integration can guarantee that the European Institutions will be able to face new responsibilities and challenges. (4-point-scale)	0.47	0.53
5.	The European Union is indispensable because there are so many cross-border problems at present. (4-point-scale)	0.62	0.55
	Eigenvalue	1.59	1.23

Table 8

Organisational Self-Esteem (factor-loadings higher than 0.30)

		Belgians (N=95)	Multinational sample (N=120)
1.	The internal co-ordination of the viewpoints of the different ministries in our country is chaotic. (5-point-scale)	0.68	0.76
2.	In the administrations of my country there is not sufficient training for officials who have to take part in negotiations at a European level. (5-point-scale)	0.59	0.48
3.	It often happens that I am not quite certain what point of view I should put forward in the working groups. (5-point-scale)	0.68	0.71
4.	For officials it is very important that the preparation of a policy is easily surveyable. The structure of the administration in our country does not always add to this effect. (5-point-scale)	0.69	0.60
5.	Most Member States prepare themselves more thoroughly for the negotiations in Brussels than we do. (5-point-scale)	0.52	0.56
6.	I only learnt how I had to deal with complicated European dossiers as I went along. (5-point-scale)	0.49	0.56
7.	I always get very clear instructions from my ministry or my department as to what position I should take up. (5-point-scale)	0.59	0.61
	Eigenvalue	2.60	2.68

Table 9

Bivariate correlations of independent variables with supranationalism (correlations, p<0.05; ns = statistically not significant)

Independent variables	Multinational sample (N=120)	Belgian sample (N=95)
Political values (individual level data)
Post-materialism	Ns	Ns
Leftism	0.21	Ns
Policy-perception	0.31	0.21
Transgovernmental experiences (individual level data)
Experiences in the working groups	Ns	Ns
National experiences (aggregate level data)
South-European	0.37	No variance
Smallness	Ns	No variance
Length of membership	0.43	No variance
National elite positive towards integration	-0.47	No variance
Federal polity	Ns	No variance
National experiences (individual level data)
Low organisational self-esteem	-0.19	-0.29
Work-experiences in national settings	-0.22	ns

Table 10

Nationality, enlargement, elite orientations and supra-nationalism

Nationality	Wave of entrance	Average elite attitude	Average multinational sample (rank)	N
Belgian	Founder	1.7394	-0.91 (1)	12
Italian	Founder	1.245	-0.27 (2)	11
Greek	First Wave	0.9458	-0.19 (3)	8
German	Founder	0.7137	0.67 (8)	12
Spanish	First Wave	0.515	0.59 (7)	11
Dutch	Founder	0.3349	-0.19 (3)	8
French	Founder	0.0823	0.25 (6)	12
Luxemburgian	Founder	-0.1651	-0.04 (4)	4
Britain	Second Wave	-0.3349	0.95 (10)	11
Irish	Second Wave	-0.515	0.69 (9)	10
Portuguese	First Wave	-0.7137	0.04 (5)	11
Danish	Second Wave	-1.739	1.47 (11)	10

Table 11a

Federal, Non-Unitary, Unitary Polities and Supra-nationalism (multinational sample, N=120, averages)

Federal polities (Belgium, Germany and Spain)	0.07
Non-unitary polities (Italy, Denmark, France and Portugal)	0.32
Unitary polities (Netherlands, Luxemburg, Greece, Ireland, and the UK)	0.35

Table 11b

Supranationalism by Federalism

7 (Belgium)	-0.91
6 (Germany)	0.67
5 (Spain)	0.59
2 (Portugal, Denmark, Italy and France)	0.32
1 (United Kingdom)	0.95
0 (Netherlands, Luxemburg, Ireland and Greece)	0.12

Table 12

Aggregated and desaggregated data (correlations, p<0.05 ; ns = statistically not significant)

Part A: Desaggregated (multinational sample, N=120)

	Entrance	Elite-orientations	Size	North-South
Elite-orientations	-0.71 (p=0.0001)
Size	0.21 (p=0.0189)	-0.24 (p=0.0096)
North-South	0.40 (p=0.0001)	-0.50 (p=0.0001)	0.10 (p=0.2553)
Federalism	-0.41 (p=0.0001)	0.51 (p=0.0001)	-0.26 (p=0.0045)	-0.27 (p=0.0024)

Part B: Aggregated (N=12)

	Entrance	Elite-orientations	Size	North-South
Elite-orientations	-0.66 (p=0.0185)
Size	0.30 (p=0.3409)	-0.27 (p=0.3868)
North-South	0.30 (p=0.3409)	-0.50 (p=0.0936)	0.00 (p=1.0000)
Federalism	-0.31 (p=0.32661)	0.46 (p=0.1360)	-0.18 (p=0.5814)	-0.32 (p=0.3119)

Table 13

Co-variance analysis (Belgian sample, N=95, p<0.05; ns = statistically not significant)

Independent Variables	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3
Post-materialism	Ns	Ns	Ns
Leftism	Ns	Ns	Ns
Policy-perception	5.04	Not tested	4.90
Experiences in the working groups	Ns	Ns	Ns
Organisational self-esteem	7.99	Ns	Ns
Work experience in national settings	Ns	Ns	Ns
Full-timer or part-timers	Ns	Ns	Ns
Interaction: policy-perception and level of involvement	Not tested	Ns	Not tested
Interaction: organisational self-esteem and level of involvement	Not tested	4.33	4.22
Model evaluation	F=2.61 (df=7, p=0.0178) R²=0.18	F=2.29 (df=8, p=0.0290) R²=0.19	F=2.60 (df=7, p=0.0180) R²=0.18

Table 14

Interpretation of effect with the help of averages (Belgian sample, z-scores)

A.Supra-nationalism by policy-perception

	Policy-perception
	Internationalised (N=65)	Not internationalised (N=30)
Supra-nationalism	-0.47	-0.21

B. Supra-nationalism by involvement and organisational self-esteem

	Organisational self-esteem
	High (N=33)	Middle (N=29)	Low (N=33)
Full-time involvement (N=30)	-0.47 (N=12)	-0.06 (N=10)	-0.68 (N=8)
Part-time involvement (N=65)	-0.16 (N=21)	-0.26 (N=19)	-0.82 (N=25)

Table 15

Co-variance analysis (Multinational sample, N=120, p<0.05 ; ns = statistically not significant)

Independent Variables	Model 1	Model 2
Post-materialism	Ns	Ns
Leftism	Ns	Ns
Policy-perception	Ns	Not tested
Organisational self-esteem	Ns	Ns
Work experience in national settings	4.91	Ns
Size	Ns	Not tested
Period of entrance	9.52	Not tested
Federalism	Ns	Not tested
Interaction: policy-perception and size	Not tested	3.13
Interaction: federalism and size	Not tested	3.11
Interaction: period of entrance, work experience in national settings and experiences in the working groups	Not tested	6.23
Model evaluation	F=4.58 (df=10, p=0.0001) R²=0.32	F=4.99 (df=11, p=0.0001) R²=0.36

Table 16

Interpretation of effects with the help of averages (Multinational sample, z-scores)

A. Supra-nationalism by policy-perception and size

	Policy-perception
Size	Internationalised (N=53)	Not internationalised (N=67)
Big (N=55)	0.38 (N=23)	0.47 (N=34)
Small (N=65)	-0.27 (N=30)	0.45 (N=33)

B. Supra-nationalism by size and territorial decentralisation

	Territorial decentralisation
Size	Federal polities (N=35)	Decentralised polities (N=44)	Unitary polities (N=41)
Big (N=55)	0.63 (N=23, Germans, Spanish)	-0.02 (N=23, French, Italians)	0.95 (N=11, British)
Small (N=65)	-0.91 (N=12, Belgians)	0.68 (N=21, Danish, Portuguese)	0.12 (N=30, Dutch, Luxemburgers, Greek, Irish)

C. Supra-nationalism by period of entrance and experiences in national settings

	Experience in national settings
Entrance	Low (N=63)	High (N=57)
Founder (N=59)	0.14 (N=29)	-0.39 (N=30)
First wave (N=31)	0.89 (N=19)	1.24 (N=12)
Second wave (N=30)	0.21 (N=15)	0.15 (N=15)

D. Supra-nationalism by period of entrance and involvement in working groups

	Working group experience
Entrance	Low (N=65)	High (N=50)
Founder (N=59)	-0.06 (N=25)	-0.16 (N=34)
First wave (N=31)	1.02 (N=20)	1.01 (N=11)
Second wave (N=20)	0.22 (N=20)	-0.01 (N=5)

©1998 by Beyers
formated and tagged by MN, 10.11.1998