Are the Czech Or Slovak Regions “Closer to Europe”? Pro-Europeanness from a Subnational Perspective Martin Plešivčák*

Home , Czech Sovereignty, Dawn (Slovakia), Myjava, Nitra Region, Party of Common Sense, Senica

Original Article 183 Are the Czech or Slovak regions “closer to Europe”? Pro-Europeanness from a subnational perspective Martin Plešivčák*

Comenius University in Bratislava, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Department of Economic and Social Geography, Demography and Territorial Development, Slovakia * Corresponding author: [email protected]

ABSTRACT Based on the 2003–2019 electoral data, this article evaluates the level of pro-Europeanness in Czechia and Slovakia at the regional and sub-regional levels during and after their EU accession period. The TOPSIS multi-criteria evaluation method and cluster analysis were used to quantify the pro-European levels and to create the subsequent categories of territorial units. The results show support for the ideas of European integration primarily in large urban regions (Prague, Brno, Bratislava, Košice), territorial units with a higher concentration of ethnic minorities, larger scale agricultural activities (southwestern Slovakia), and a high degree of religiosity (northeastern Slovakia). The low level of pro-Europeanness was predominant in the less developed north-western Czechia and parts of Moravia. In Slovakia, the Eurosceptic regions were mostly located in the northwest, where the values of statism, egalitarianism and nationalism have a strong tradition. This approach can be used to identify areas of weak support for the EU project at a spatially disaggregated level in other EU countries.

KEYWORDS Pro-Europeanness; TOPSIS method; EU referendum; European Parliament elections; subnational level; Czechia; Slovakia

Received: 4 October 2019 Accepted: 16 July 2020 Published online: 30 September 2020

Plešivčák, M. (2020): Are the Czech or Slovak regions “closer to Europe”? Pro-Europeanness from a subnational perspective. AUC Geographica 55(2), 183–199 https://doi.org/10.14712/23361980.2020.13 © 2020 The Author. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0). 184 Martin Plešivčák

1. Introduction real assistance from European structural and investment funds. Indeed, if we want to avoid disintegration Czechia, Slovakia and eight other mainly post-social- processes within the EU and the threat of its gradual ist countries of Central and Eastern Europe, joined decomposition, just in those regions which are char- the European Union on May 1, 2004. In the periods acterized by the highest degree of Euroscepticism, the before and after accession, the moods in the two EU’s contribution to the future should be the most vis- countries in relation to the European integration pro- - ject differed based on time, location, and the politi- - cal and socio-economic conditions. Public support ticismible. This at theis prevented regional and by the sub-regional knowledge levels. of “problem for the country’s accession to the EU, as well as the atic” regions and the reasons that can cause Euroscep referendum turnout itself differed for both countries, 2. Theoretical background can be said for the period after May 1, 2004, in the depending on their intraregional specifics. The same for Eurosceptic parties in the European Parliament politics, in the case of European elections, is the sec- (EP)case ofelections. the territorial specificities of turnout and votes ond-orderThe dominant national concept election of understanding theory (Reif and European Schmitt We have seen a gradual shift of Euroscepticism 1980). European Parliament elections were character- toward the centre of European politics since the ized as national elections taking place simultaneously in all the member states of the European Community. both enlargement and elections in 2004. For the new member1990s. Nevertheless, states, there it was gained high stronger public support influence for after the of major (general) national elections and are domi- European Union project; however, it began to decline natedThese byare the less same important parties elections that focus held more in theon national shadow after accession. In addition to contextual factors such interests than European issues or on the position of the national parties to the EU (Hix and Marsh 2011). rhetoric of several political actors could have con- Nevertheless, the results of the national and Europe- as the financial and migration crises, changes in the an elections are still different. Second-order elections right-wing political parties learned from the past and do not lead to national government formation and insteadtributed of to proclaiming the rise of radicalEuroscepticism. views (including The extreme xeno- are therefore of less interest to voters, the media and phobia, racism and anti-Semitism) they moved on to a somewhat milder and more tolerant populism and decision than if the national elections were organized thus Euroscepticism was addressed to a wider elec- political actors. This leads voters to make a different- ate votes on the basis of what they think about the values or Euroscepticism include citizens on the one country’son the same economic day (Hix situation, and Marsh the 2011). government’s The elector per- hand,torate and (Goodwin their political 2011). representatives,The bearers of pro-European political par- formance or the topics that move domestic politics at

- et al. 2011). For this reason, the campaigning and tac- tifyties andthe degreespecific ofcandidates pro-Europeaness on the other. of the public in ticsthat ofmoment political (Carrubba parties in and second-order Timpone 2005; elections De Vries are CzechiaThe main and Slovakiaobjective at of thethis time contribution of accession is to to iden the motivated by national themes (Reif and Schmitt 1980; EU and afterwards at the hierarchically lower, region- Cabada 2010). Also, media coverage of these elections al and sub-regional (district) levels, to create a typ- is usually limited. Furthermore, immediately after the election and the end of the campaign, the European long-term pro-European orientation and to charac- Parliament returns to obscurity (Lodge 2010). In the ificationterize the of groups partial formed territorial on theunits basis according of its indica to theis emphasized the fact that one of the main aspects of decision making method regarding the value distance theanalysis second-order of the first elections European is that elections there is(1979), less at therestake oftors. given For territorial this reason, unit we to apply the most TOPSIS positive multi-criteria and most negative value within the set of units under study. We the national parliament or the government, and the also try to outline possible factors related to pro-Eu- electorate(Reif and Schmitt is not 1980).highly Themotivated election to does participate not involve in ropeanness at the regional and district levels, dis- the election or to vote differently than they would if - - tion theory predicts that elections to the European Pinkcussing 2012; with Voda findings 2015; of Kostelecký previous studies et al. 2016; on elector Przy- Parliamentnational elections follow werethree held.main The formulas: second a orderlower elec rate al behaviour (e.g. Krivý et al. 1996; Madleňák 2012; of participation (lower turnout), a more positive out- of the sub-national units of these countries, which is come for small and new parties, and a loss of support particularlybyla 2019). Thus, important the aim in relationis to map to the running “Europeanity” an effec- for government parties stemming from the location of general elections in the national election cycle (Reif promotionaltive, place-specific activities, campaign and in focusing the context on EU of relevance regional of the theory in the context of post-socialist countries (cohesion)and benefits, policy, the also meaningful due to the dissemination proper direction of itsof hasand beenSchmitt addressed 1980; Hix by severaland Marsh authors, 2007). e.g. The Linek validity et al. Pro-Europeanness from a subnational perspective 185

Šaradín (2008), Havlík and Hoskovec (2009),

(2007), Charlotdomestic 1986). and European Nevertheless, issues, their which importance was confirmed varies CabadaIn order (2010), to understand Klíma and theOutlý perception (2010), Kovář of the (2013), nature fromin the election first direct to election elections and in from 1979 place (Blumer to place. 1983; In Kovářof the Europeanand Kovář Parliament(2014). elections by the political general, however, the importance of European themes actors themselves (parties, politicians and voters), gains momentum over time, but this is in contrast to the connection of these elections with the concept of the declining voter participation in the European elec- Europeanization must be recognized. Europeaniza- - opment, food security, environment, foreign policy, and content of politics in such a way that the political immigration,tions. Traditional and economicissues, such and as industrial research policyand devel may andtion economicis defined dimensionsas a process ofof thechanging European the directionCommu- - ert Schuman Foundation 2004). Nevertheless, the cur- shape the content and scope of national policies (Lan- rentbe considered pan-European as “more themes European” of the (Budgegiven period, 2001; Robsuch drechnity influence 2002). It the is clear structure that European of national issues politics, have and an increasing effect on political debates at the national crisis, Brexit, migration, reviving debates on the con- level, but the response of national party systems is ceptas, the of aeconomic two-speed and Europe, financial the futurecrisis, ofGreece’s EU regional debt policy, etc., as well as the hot topics of the domestic - political scene, or analyses of election results in key very limited, without a more significant formation of- European integration countries play a no less impor- (new) parties built on a “European basis”. In this con tant role in this context. politicaltext, it is worthactors mentioninginvolved in the the term existing “European social struccleav- tureage”, should around ideally which be the shaped pre-election (ideally, strugglereal awareness of the In general, five basic forms of party Euroscepticism - majorcan be and identified government (Kopecký parties and with Mudde a critical 2002; attitudeTaggart trastof the to dimension the more traditional of the “Europeanness” concept of cleavages concerning (Lip- and Szczerbiak 2002). The first category concerns these elections). The term European cleavage, in con the functioning and direction of the Community itself. a concept for and against a territorial integration pro- towards the definition of European policies as regards jectset and within Rokkan Europe 1967), (the canEU as in a principle centrally be oriented defined and as - bureaucratic superstate, with a common economic or tationThis moderate of the socially form concerns oriented the EU attitude program, of whilethe social the strongerdemocratic form parties is represented toward the by inadequate conservative implemen or neo- one hand, or as a concept of a more lenient bundle of liberal parties who call for less regulation and inter- states,financial for (monetary, example onfiscal a customs or budgetary) union policybasis onor the vention by EU institutions. It therefore has a more ide- existence of a common market, on the other). Accord- also concerns government parties and deals with the on three levels: general (for and against the EU as a Europeanological character. integration The projectsecond typein terms of Euroscepticism of a reasona- territorialing to Bartolini integrator (2007), = thisindependence term can be / understoodintegration ble (or necessary) degree of Brussels interventions in dimension), constitutive (the cultural level – who can policies implemented at the national level. It is there- access, division of competences between EU insti- fore a pragmatic debate on the division of competenc- tutions and member states themselves, community es and agendas between EU institutions and member decision-making mechanism) and isomorphic (ide- - ological issues – liberalism, protectionism, welfare ed by a radical opposition to mainstream and govern- state, immigration policy, civil rights, etc.). We could mentstates. parties, The third in typethe senseof Euroscepticism of protest and is represent enforcing assume that those who evaluate the process of Euro- one’s own, far-right or far-left-oriented ideology, in pean integration in their particular life as a disap- the sense of maintaining national interests and iden- pointment tend to ignore the European Parliament tity on the one hand, and protesting against excessive elections, or they use the protest vote against the liberalization of the public sector and economic rela- mainstream parties and support Eurosceptic political forces of an extreme right- or left-wing orientation. - damentallytions with negative restoring social the functioning consequences of the on Communi the other.- electorate and the political parties in the European tyThe as fourth a whole, category the policy of Euroscepticism of exiting or refusing is aimed entry at fun to ParliamentThe question elections remains place regarding an emphasis how muchon address of the- the EU. However, in principle, parties of this type do ing internal political issues and how much the current challenges of European integration or the content of scene, but, somewhat paradoxically, in some countries - theynot have enjoy a significant a more prominent political impactrole particularly on the domestic in the ever, evidence that the Eurosceptic and pro-European - Europeanparties place policies importance themselves on European matter. issues,There is,and how this scepticism is relatively marginal in terms of political representationEuropean Parliament and time elections. span, andThe islast often type connect of Euro- in terms of better electoral results. An election cam- paignapproach for thehas European ideological Parliament and practical features significance a mix of ed to specific persons or “single use” parties. These formations do not require a fundamental reform of 186 Martin Plešivčák relations within the EU but rather focus on subtle ĽS-HZDS’s topics such as transparency and accountability for the staff of EU institutions, effective use of EU resources, laterEU at electorate, the time (“at along the withlast minute”); SNS and laterbut especially salaries of MEPs, etc. ĽS-NSpolicies in office as well as the profile of the eng.then Peo and- ple’s Party – Our Slovakia) proved to be Eurosceptic to the largest (Ľudová extent strana when – Našecomparing Slovensko, all of the major 3. Methodology in the case of the European Union membership ref- In the empirical part of the paper, we use two types of political parties in Slovakia (Gyárfášová 2007). Even electoral geographic data: the referenda on the coun- waserendum also presentin 2003, in a lowthe pastturnout (in comparison(52%) demonstrably with the European Parliament elections held in 2004, 2009, currentconfirmed ĽS-NS the factat the that time Euroscepticism of the impending in Slovakia mem- 2014try’s accession and 2019. to In the the EU second, in 2003 we (“yes also to work EU”) with and the bership in a more latent form). We do not consider results of the Eurosceptic parties. We put them into it to be strictly correct and the only possible to refer this group based on the work of several authors and to the divisions of various authors in this matter, as electoral programs of the parties themselves. In the Šárovec (2018) describe the SaS as case of the Czech political situation, we used several a Eurosceptic party, while a large part of its elector- atee.g. supportsHynčica and the EU project. We also consider it rel- Šaradín 2004; Baun et al. 2006; Fiala et al. 2006; Linek studies for the inclusion of the partiesík (Bradová and 2008; Hloušek and Pšeja 2009; Hricová 2009; Havlík theatively 2004 subjective European to Parliamentperceive parties elections. such With as KDH these or 2010;et al. 2007;Kovář 2014). Havlík In 2008; the case Havl of andSlovakia, Vykoupilová we also examplesSMER-SD (Hendersonwe wanted 2008)to illustrate as Eurosceptic, the fact thateven thefor

- problematic and to some extent subjective matter, in usedgraphical relevant context literature of electoral for this support purpose for (Gyárfášová the parties whichclassification different of partiesauthors as can Eurosceptic work with is differentreally a very set andin European Velšic 2004; elections Gyárfášová 2007). We refer to geo of Eurosceptic parties in research, as a certain degree differentiation of the extreme right support (Mikuš (Plešivčák 2015) and the spatial- avoid. ter of the electorate was the decisive criterion for of For subjectivity each election of classification of the period under is not study possible (2004– to theand inclusionGurňák 2016; of a political Mikuš partyet al. among2016). theThe group charac of - Eurosceptic parties. Recessive parties were not taken ceptic parties: into account. Given the above division of parties into 2019), we identified the following parties as Euros types according to the degree of Euroscepticism and Czechia their relevance within the party system, we would like to mention the cases when the inclusion of parties to 2004 European Parliament Elections the Eurosceptic, or their exclusion, was a problematic strana, eng. Workers’ Party matter. We emphasize that in classifying the parties, strana Čech a Moravy, eng. Communist –Party DS (Dělnická of Bohe- we primarily took into account the nature of the par- mia and Moravia ), KSČM (Komunistickáeng. National Coalition eng. Independent), then leaders. Among other parties, in the case of the ), NARKOA (Národníeng. koalice, Republicans ty’s electorate rather than the official rhetoric of its of Miroslav Sládek),) NEZ (Nezávislí, Úsvit (2014) to be the Eurosceptic parties (more pre- RMS2009 (Republikáni European Miroslava Parliament Sládka, Elections ciselyCzechia, parties we also with considered a predominantly KSČM (2004–2019) Eurosceptic elec and- eng. National Party), torate), although some authors label them soft Euro- eng. Party – DS, ofKSČM, Free sceptic (Havlík and Kaniok 2006; Kaniok and Havlík CitizensLibertas.cz, NS (Národní strana, - SSO (Strana svobodnýchČeskoslovenska, občanů, eng. Association for the Republic), SPR-RSČ – Republican (Sdružení Party pro republikuof Czechoslovakia – Repub), 2016). The electorate of these two parties is indeed Suverenitalikánská strana (eng. Sovereignty) strana,quite different eng. Civic from Democratic another partyParty often). In the associated case of 2014 European Parliament Elections – Česká suv- with Eurospeticism, ODS (Občanská demokratická erenita (formerly Suverenita, eng. Czech Sovereignty), Eurosceptic Party Group, based on several arguments (Baunthis party, et al. we 2006), finally as decided this party to not can include rather itbe in per the- eng. Work- ers’DSSS/SPE Party (formerlyof Social Justice/NoDělnická strana, to Brussels Dělnická Dictate! strana), sociální spravedlnosti/Ne diktátuČeskoslovenska, Bruselu!, eng. moreceived educated as “pro-European voters living with in the reservations”. urban environment Given Communist Party of Czechoslovakia morethe ODS in favourelectorate, of the which EU project, is largely we characterizedhave chosen not by KSČM, KSČ (Komunistickáeng. strana No to Brussels – Nation- to include the party into the Eurosceptic group. In the al Democracy ), ND (Ne BruseluČech, case of Slovakia, there was a problem with ĽS-HZDS Moravy– Národní a Slzska,demokracie, eng. Republican Party of Bohemia, and SNS, parties that even expressed support for the Moravia and Silesia), RSČMS (Republikánská strana

), SSO, SZR-NE (Strana zdravého Pro-Europeanness from a subnational perspective 187 rozumu – Nechceme Euro, eng. Party of Common Sense we decided to work with the index of pro-European- – We Don’t Want the Euro), Úsvit ness. When constructing, in addition to supporting (eng. Dawn of Direct Democracy) 2019 European Parliament příméElections demokracie – ANS supporting Eurosceptic parties, as is commonly used. eng. Alliance of National Forc- EU accession by Referendum 2003, we considered es Českou republiku, eng. per cent minus the support for the Eurosceptic par- (AlianceAlternative národních for Czech sil, Republic), Česká suverenita, We could not automatically work “with the rest” (100 ), APAČI (AlternativaČesko pro (eng. Independents/Joyful group of parties would include much more hetero- Czechia), ČSNS/Patrioti ČR geneousties) as a political % for pro-Europeanness, entities (in relation as toa much the level wider of Svobodní/RadostnéČeské republiky, eng. Czech Nation- al Social Party/Patriots of (ČeskáCzech Republic strana národně (Konzervativnísociální/Patrioti alternativa, eng. Conservative Alter- EU support) than for parties defined as Eurosceptic. native eng. Moravians), KOALPrvní pro-EuropeannessThe settings of the vs.model votes calculation for Eurosceptic in the parties)TOPSIS republika (eng. First Republic - method technically solve this “discrepancy” (index of losti České), KSČM, republiky, Moravané eng. Independence ( Party of the of input variables with sensitivity to their orientation Czech Republic ), SNČR (Strana nezávis very easily and is based on evaluating the influence eng. Workers’ Party decrease in the value of index of pro-European and of Social Justice/National), DSSS/NF Front(Dělnická strana sociální- (increasing value of something “negative” means a- muraspravedlnosti/Národní (formerly Úsvit fronta, tation of the variable – for our research a positive ), SPD –eng. Tomio Freedom Oka orientationvice versa. Thein supporting researcher the sets country’s the desired accession orien and Direct Democracy přímé – Tomio demokracie, Okamura Svoboda a to the EU, and a negative orientation in supporting přímá demokracie – Tomio eng.Okamura, Reasonables - the Eurosceptic parties, which in both cases means ), SPR-RSČ,eng. increasing the value of the index of pro-European- NationalRozumní/ND Democracy (formerly) SZR, /Národ ness). ní demokracie, formerly Právo a Spravedlnost, Slovakia - ness thus were as follows: 2004 European Parliament Elections – KSS (Komu- The variables entering the index of pro-European eng. Communist Party – the more the better of Slovakia), ĽS-HZDS b)a) Votes forfor Eurosceptic accession to parties the 2003 in the European 2004 European Union nistická strana Slovenska,eng. People’s Party – Move- referendum (%) – the less the better ment for Democratic Slovakia (Ľudová strana – Hnutieľudová za c) Votes for Eurosceptic parties in the 2009 European demokratickéstrana, eng. Slovak Slovensko, People’s Party), SNS/PSNS (Slov- Parliament elections (%) – the less the better ), SĽS (Slovenská - d) Votes for Eurosceptic parties in the 2014 European na, eng. Slovak National Party/True Slovak National Parliament elections (%) – the less the better Partyenská) národná strana/Pravá Slovenská národná stra e) Votes for Eurosceptic parties in the 2019 European 2009 European Parliament Elections – KSS, Parliament elections (%) – the less the better ĽS-HZDS, SNS 2014 European Parliament Elections – KSNS WeParliament obtained elections data for (%) the state, regional and dis- eng. Christian trict levels from the databases of the Czech Statistical Slovak National Party), KSS, ĽS-NS (KresťanskáNaše Slovensko, slovenská eng. People’s národná Party strana, – Our Slovakia), (Ľudová strana – SlovakOffice and Republic the Statistical 2019). Office of the Slovak Republic Nation and Justice – Our Party Úsvit (eng. (Czech Statistical Office 2019; Statistical Office of the NaS-NS (Národ a Spravodlivosťeng. – Defiancenaša strana, – Labour eng. Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) to evaluate Party) ), SĽS, SNS, theWe position use the of TOPSISthe regions method and (Techniquedistricts under for Orderstudy Dawn),2019 Vzdor European – strana Parliament práce ( Elections – Kotleba – in mutual comparison based on the values of the set of ĽSNS (formerly Ľudová strana – Naše Slovensko, eng. Kotleba – People’s Party Our Slovakia), KSS/Vzdor – score for the index of pro-Europeanness to rank the mentionedindicators mentionedterritorial units. above. For This the methodneed of thegenerates empir- eng. Slovak People’s Part of Andrej Hlinka - ical part of the paper, we decided to use this method, strana práce, SĽS Andrejaeng. We HlinkuAre Family (formerly – Boris SĽS, Kollár eng.), which in relation to the objectives of the work can be ), SME RODI - stranaNA – Boris vlastencov, Kollár ( eng. Slovak National Unit – Patriot essary to use other methods, e.g. factor analysis). Giv- PartySNJ-sv), (formerlySNS KSNS, Slovenská národná jednota – enassessed that in asthis adequate part of the (for paper this reason,we decided it was to evaluatenot nec a set of variables indicating the degree of pro-Euro- We wanted to approach the issue from a positive peanness across the regions and districts of Czechia perspective, based on support for the EU project the multicriteria evaluation tools can be considered and Slovakia, the use of TOPSIS method as one of (Euro-optimistic), and not Euro-sceptically. Therefore, 188 Martin Plešivčák desirable. In addition, if we work with several territo- and the negative ideal solution rial units, in this case 20 at the regional and 149 at the district level, the use of this method is the right choice, Dj = (minj wij), j = 1, 2, … , k because in the case of a given territorial unit it takes into account the level of each input variable to ideal and to the least desirable value within the set of units solution by using the formula as follows: (i.e. with respect to the value of the most successful 4. To calculate the distance from the positive ideal and the least successful region or district). , i = 1, 2, … , p, Accelerators increasing the value of the pro-Euro- peanness index were the high values of indicator a and from∑ the negative ideal solution by using the ∑ (the higher the better) and the low values of indica- formula below: tors b-e (the lower the better). When calculating index (in scale from 0 to 1), each input indicator (a-e) was , i = 1, 2, … , p, ∑ (Hwang and Yoon 1981) is The Euclidean∑ distance measure was utilised to cal- consideredequally weighted, one of by the 1/5 most (0.2). classical multi-criteria culate the distance. decisionThe TOPSIS making method methods ideal solution by using the formula below: It constitutes a collection(Opricovic of shortcut and Tyeng methods 2004; 5. To calculate the relative distance from the negative designedShih et al. to 2007; minimize Manokaran the distance et al. 2011).from the ideal solu- , i = 1, 2, … , p

Variants are then arranged in descending order istion. then These the onemethods which use according an ideal variantto the selected as the object met- according to the ci values. ricsof aspiration. is the closest The toselected the ideal “best” option. compromise variant - It provides a complete ordering of all variants. ate groups of districts based on the pro-Europeanness Subsequently, we used the cluster method to cre matrix as well as the weight vector of individual cri- data and information has led to the need to devel- To resolve the problem, the multi-criteria decision opindex methods (Hastie to et clarify al. 2016). and Theclassify increasing them. In amount addition of method is to identify the variant that is closest to the positiveteria has ideal to be solution, determined. and farthestThe main from principle the negative of this ideal solution. numberto other ofclassification clusters, with methods, objects incluster one cluster analysis having has similarbegun to properties, be used. Thisand objectsmethod in produces different a clusters certain having as many different properties as possible. N matrixThe calculation procedure is as follows. objects denoted by indexes 1 < i < N, which have d fea- 1. To calculate the normalized multi-criteria decision turesThe indexed input for as 1cluster < j < d analysis is represented by R = (rij) to the N × d matrix: . These data are used to write using the formula:

rij = , i = 1, 2, … , p, j = 1, 2, … , k

∑ After this transformation, the columns in the matrix are vectors of unit size by Euclidean metrics.

matrix Line d-dimensional vector xi is a vector of the i-th 2. To calculate the weighted multi-criteria decision object, while element xij denotes the value of the j-th W = (wij) feature of the i-th object. - how the j-th column is multiplied by the appropri- al steps. 1. Selecting and extracting the features, 2. ate weight, as follows The cluster analysis is comprised of four gener- uating the results. wij = (vjrij) Selecting the algorithm, 3. Verifying accuracy, 4. Eval to conduct the clustering. As a result of clustering, basedThe on IBM the SPSS values Statistics of the index 22 programme of pro-Europeanness, was used

3. HToj =determine (maxi wij), the j = positive1, 2, … , kideal solution generated. five groups of districts with internal similarity were Pro-Europeanness from a subnational perspective 189

4. Analysis, results and findings 2) are the least inhabited areas. 4.1 Levels of Territorial Units and the Banská Bystrica Region (68 inhabitants/km 4.1.2 Districts 4.1.1 Regions At the regional level, we analysed 22 spatial units, 14 regions in Czechia and eight regions in Slovakia caseAt the of districtSlovakia, level, the municipalwe worked districts with 149 of Bratislava units, 77 - (5)in Czechia and Košice and (4)72 inwere Slovakia connected (Fig. to2, Tab.one district1). In the in the entire city in order to strengthen the compara- (Fig.different, 1). These as the units smallest also regionrepresent has the an NUTSarea of 3 onlylev tive value of the analysis with the other districts of 496.10el. Their km territorial2 and population size is markedly 2 (Central Bohemia (the city Region). of Prague In Slovakia, as a separate the smallest NUTS 3 ofthe 1,945.69 countries. km 2The, while largest the Levicedistrict district in Czechia in the is Nitra the regionregion) is while the Bratislava the largest Region has an (2,052.5 area of 11,014.97 km2), and km the districtRegion (1,551.1of Klatovy km in2 the Plzeň Region, with an area 2). In other hand, the Brno-mě 2) is terms of population, the city of Prague is the smallest ) is the largest in Slovakia. On the- regionlargest inis theterms Banská of area, Bystrica but it Region has largest (9,454.4 population km 2) issto the district smallest (230.22 in Slovakia. km theIn Czechia, smallest the in Czechiacity of Prague and the has Kysucké the largest Nové Mespop- Vary Region has the smallest population (data as of to district (173.7 km (1,301,135 inhabitants) in Czechia, while the Karlovy- kia, the differences between regions are also smaller ulation (1,301,135 inhabitants); on the contrary,- inDecember this indicator, 31, 2018, as the 295,686 region withinhabitants). highest number In Slova of the Jeseník district in the Olomouc Region has the inhabitants with permanent residence is the Prešov smallest population (38,330 inhabitants as of Decem Region (825,022), and the region with the lowest theber Medzilaborce31, 2018). The district most populousin the Prešov area region in Slovakia is the is the city of Bratislava (432,864 inhabitants), while- - estnumber population of inhabitants density is are the the Trnava city ofRegion Prague (563,591 (2,622 (2,622least populous inhabitants/km (11,8962) dominates inhabitants in Czechia, as of Decem while inhabitants/kmas of December2 31,) in 2018).Czechia The and areas the Bratislava with the Region great theber Prachatice31, 2018). Indistrict terms in of the population South Bohemian density, PragueRegion 2 2) is the least populated. In Slo- 2) 2) has the (321 inhabitants/km ) in Slovakia. On the contrary, (37 inhabitants/km the South Bohemian Region (63 inhabitants/km vakia, Bratislava (1,177 inhabitants/km

Fig. 1 Territorial composition of NUTS 3 regions in Czechia and Slovakia. Source: Czech Statistical Office, Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic (2019). 190 Martin Plešivčák

Fig. 2 Territorial composition of districts in Czechia and Slovakia. Source: Czech Statistical Office, Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic (2019).

Tab. 1 Order number of districts in Czechia and Slovakia. Order District Region Country Order Number District Region Country Number 26 Karviná Moravian-Silesian Region Czechia 1 Benešov Central Bohemian Region Czechia 27 Kladno Central Bohemian Region Czechia 2 Beroun Central Bohemian Region Czechia 28 Klatovy Plzeň Region Czechia 3 Blansko South Moravian Region Czechia 29 Kolín Central Bohemian Region Czechia 4 Brno-město South Moravian Region Czechia 30 Kroměříž Zlín Region Czechia 5 Brno-venkov South Moravian Region Czechia 31 Kutná Hora Central Bohemian Region Czechia 6 Bruntál Moravian-Silesian Region Czechia 32 Liberec Liberec Region Czechia 7 Břeclav South Moravian Region Czechia 33 Litoměřice Ústí nad Labem Region Czechia 8 Česká Lípa Liberec Region Czechia 34 Louny Ústí nad Labem Region Czechia 9 České Budějovice South Bohemian Region Czechia 35 Mělník Central Bohemian Region Czechia 10 Český Krumlov South Bohemian Region Czechia 36 Mladá Boleslav Central Bohemian Region Czechia 11 Děčín Ústí nad Labem Region Czechia 37 Most Ústí nad Labem Region Czechia 12 Domažlice Plzeň Region Czechia 38 Náchod Hradec Králové Region Czechia 13 Frýdek-Místek Moravian-Silesian Region Czechia 39 Nový Jičín Moravian-Silesian Region Czechia 14 Havlíčkův Brod Vysočina Region Czechia 40 Nymburk Central Bohemian Region Czechia 15 Hodonín South Moravian Region Czechia 41 Olomouc Olomouc Region Czechia 16 Hradec Králové Hradec Králové Region Czechia 42 Opava Moravian-Silesian Region Czechia 17 Cheb Karlovy Vary Region Czechia 43 Ostrava-město Moravian-Silesian Region Czechia 18 Chomutov Ústí nad Labem Region Czechia 44 Pardubice Pardubice Region Czechia 19 Chrudim Pardubice Region Czechia 45 Pelhřimov Vysočina Region Czechia 20 Jablonec nad Nisou Liberec Region Czechia 46 Písek South Bohemian Region Czechia 21 Jeseník Olomouc Region Czechia 47 Plzeň-jih Plzeň Region Czechia 22 Jičín Hradec Králové Region Czechia 48 Plzeň-město Plzeň Region Czechia 23 Jihlava Vysočina Region Czechia 49 Plzeň-sever Plzeň Region Czechia 24 Jindřichův Hradec South Bohemian Region Czechia 50 Praha* Prague Czechia 25 Karlovy Vary Karlovy Vary Region Czechia 51 Praha-východ Central Bohemian Region Czechia Pro-Europeanness from a subnational perspective 191

Order Order District Region Country District Region Country Number Number 52 Praha-západ Central Bohemian Region Czechia 102 Liptovský Mikuláš Žilina Region Slovakia 53 Prachatice South Bohemian Region Czechia 103 Lučenec Banská Bystrica Region Slovakia 54 Prostějov Olomouc Region Czechia 104 Malacky Bratislava Region Slovakia 55 Přerov Olomouc Region Czechia 105 Martin Žilina Region Slovakia 56 Příbram Central Bohemian Region Czechia 106 Medzilaborce Prešov Region Slovakia 57 Rakovník Central Bohemian Region Czechia 107 Michalovce Košice Region Slovakia 58 Rokycany Plzeň Region Czechia 108 Myjava Trenčín Region Slovakia Rychnov nad 109 Námestovo Žilina Region Slovakia 59 Hradec Králové Region Czechia Kněžnou 110 Nitra Nitra Region Slovakia 60 Semily Liberec Region Czechia Nové Mesto 111 Trenčín Region Slovakia 61 Sokolov Karlovy Vary Region Czechia nad Váhom 62 Strakonice South Bohemian Region Czechia 112 Nové Zámky Nitra Region Slovakia 63 Svitavy Pardubice Region Czechia 113 Partizánske Trenčín Region Slovakia 64 Šumperk Olomouc Region Czechia 114 Pezinok Bratislava Region Slovakia 65 Tábor South Bohemian Region Czechia 115 Piešťany Trnava Region Slovakia 66 Tachov Plzeň Region Czechia 116 Poltár Banská Bystrica Region Slovakia 67 Teplice Ústí nad Labem Region Czechia 117 Poprad Prešov Region Slovakia 68 Trutnov Hradec Králové Region Czechia 118 Považská Bystrica Trenčín Region Slovakia 69 Třebíč Vysočina Region Czechia 119 Prešov Prešov Region Slovakia 70 Uherské Hradiště Zlín Region Czechia 120 Prievidza Trenčín Region Slovakia 71 Ústí nad Labem Ústí nad Labem Region Czechia 121 Púchov Trenčín Region Slovakia 72 Ústí nad Orlicí Pardubice Region Czechia 122 Revúca Banská Bystrica Region Slovakia 73 Vsetín Zlín Region Czechia 123 Rimavská Sobota Banská Bystrica Region Slovakia 74 Vyškov South Moravian Region Czechia 124 Rožňava Košice Region Slovakia 75 Zlín Zlín Region Czechia 125 Ružomberok Žilina Region Slovakia 76 Znojmo South Moravian Region Czechia 126 Sabinov Prešov Region Slovakia 77 Žďár nad Sázavou Vysočina Region Czechia 127 Senec Bratislava Region Slovakia Bánovce nad 128 Senica Trnava Region Slovakia 78 Trenčín Region Slovakia Bebravou 129 Skalica Trnava Region Slovakia 79 Banská Bystrica Banská Bystrica Region Slovakia 130 Snina Prešov Region Slovakia 80 Banská Štiavnica Banská Bystrica Region Slovakia 131 Sobrance Košice Region Slovakia 81 Bardejov Prešov Region Slovakia 132 Spišská Nová Ves Košice Region Slovakia 82 Bratislava* Bratislava Region Slovakia 133 Stará Ľubovňa Prešov Region Slovakia 83 Brezno Banská Bystrica Region Slovakia 134 Stropkov Prešov Region Slovakia 84 Bytča Žilina Region Slovakia 135 Svidník Prešov Region Slovakia 85 Čadca Žilina Region Slovakia 136 Šaľa Nitra Region Slovakia 86 Detva Banská Bystrica Region Slovakia 137 Topoľčany Nitra Region Slovakia 87 Dolný Kubín Žilina Region Slovakia 138 Trebišov Košice Region Slovakia 88 Dunajská Streda Trnava Region Slovakia 139 Trenčín Trenčín Region Slovakia 89 Galanta Trnava Region Slovakia 140 Trnava Trnava Region Slovakia 90 Gelnica Košice Region Slovakia 141 Turčianske Teplice Žilina Region Slovakia 91 Hlohovec Trnava Region Slovakia 142 Tvrdošín Žilina Region Slovakia 92 Humenné Prešov Region Slovakia 143 Veľký Krtíš Banská Bystrica Region Slovakia 93 Ilava Trenčín Region Slovakia 144 Vranov nad Topľou Prešov Region Slovakia 94 Kežmarok Prešov Region Slovakia 145 Zlaté Moravce Nitra Region Slovakia 95 Komárno Nitra Region Slovakia 146 Zvolen Banská Bystrica Region Slovakia 96 Košice – okolie Košice Region Slovakia 147 Žarnovica Banská Bystrica Region Slovakia 97 Košice* Košice Region Slovakia 148 Žiar nad Hronom Banská Bystrica Region Slovakia 98 Krupina Banská Bystrica Region Slovakia 149 Žilina Žilina Region Slovakia 99 Kysucké Nové Mesto Žilina Region Slovakia 100 Levice Nitra Region Slovakia Notes: * whole city as a one district for this purpose Source: Czech Statististical Office, Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic 101 Levoča Prešov Region Slovakia (2019). 192 Martin Plešivčák highest population density, while the Medzilaborce Highest values also applied to regions using EU agri- 2) has the lowest popula- cultural subsidies and promoting a policy of guaran- tion density. teeing the rights of ethnic minorities (especially the district (27 inhabitants/km 4.2 Results and Findings typical of an approach toward the values of Chris- Trnava Region and the Nitra Region in Slovakia), or 4.2.1 Regions - Pro-Europeanness Index esttian values Democracy were recorded(the Zlín Regionin the Czechin Czechia regions and with the - aPrešov peripheral Region position in Slovakia). geographically On the contrary, and socio-eco the low- nomically (Ústí nad Labem Region and Karlovy Vary At the regional level (Fig. 3), the highest pro-Europe Region), with increased support for the far-left or far- anness index values (ranging from 0.700 to 0.906) right parties and the Slovak region with a traditionally votesreflecting for Eurosceptic five variables parties in total in (votes the 2004–2019 for accession Euro in- peanthe 2003 Parliament European elections) Union weremembership recorded referendum, by Bratisla- Region). - egalitarian, etatist and nationalist electorate (Trenčín 4.2.2 Districts almostva followed achieved by other also four by the regions capital from region Slovakia of Czechia, (Trna va, Nitra, Košice and Prešov). A level of 0.700 was pro-Europeanness index at the district level. Bystrica and Žilina) reached the values of index from We came up with other interesting findings for the Prague. Other two regions from Slovakia (Banská Pro-Europeanness Index obtained by two regions from Czechia (Zlín and South - 0.500 to 0.600. The values between 0.400–0.500 were ences (Fig. 4). In the districts with the highest values contrary, the lowest values of the index (0.029–0.294) ofThe the resulting index, the index Slovakian shows considerable districts absolutely spatial differdomi- wereMoravia) reported and the by thelast Ústí Slovak nad region,Labem Region,Trenčín. the On Kar the- lovy Vary Region and the Moravian-Silesian Region valuesnate, with of index the first are being located Dunajská exclusively Streda in (0.994) the south and- Czechia. second Komárno (0.903). Other districts with high in Czechia.Considering Of theregional last twelveperspective, regions, one all of arethe highfrom- est spatial concentrations were recorded also in inwest the of agro-sector Slovakia. These and adistricts, strong Hungarianwith geographical minor- regions of Prague, Bratislava and Košice, i.e. centres ity.proximity In the tocase the of capital, Czechia, enjoy the ahighest significant values position were that have been more successful in the post-socialist transformation, with higher economic performance, and Praha-východ) and the city district of the second - reached by districts of Prague (Praha-západ, Praha ulation with higher education and socio-economic the contrary, districts with the lowest values (below status,localization supporting, of significant in general, foreign liberal investment, political parties. a pop 0.200)largest arecity located of the country,in west Bohemia Brno (Brno-město). in the Ústí nad On

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0

Zlín Nitra Žilina Plzeň Trnava Košice Prešov Prague Trenčín Liberec Bratislava Pardubice Vysočina Olomouc Karlovy Vary Hradec Králové Banská Bystrica South Moravian South Bohemian Ústí nad Labem Central Bohemian Moravian-Silesian

Fig. 3 NUTS 3 regions of Czechia and Slovakia by Index of Pro-Europeaness. Note: Light greyindicates the Czech regions, dark gray indicates the Slovak regions. Source: Czech Statistical Office, Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic (2019), author’s research. Pro-Europeanness from a subnational perspective 193

Fig. 4 Districts of Czechia and Slovakia by Index of Pro-Europeaness. Source: Czech Statistical Office, Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic (2018), author’s research.

Labem Region (Most 0.144, Louny 0.156, Chomutov “districts of significantly pro-European orientation” is comprised of 19 districts, 0.161) and the Karlovy Vary Region (Sokolov 0.190). The second cluster, named 0.164 and Teplice 0.171), the Plzeň Region (Tachov concentration of these districts can be found in the areaof which located all are in thelocated southwest in Slovakia corner again. of the The country largest This group of districts is completed by couple from (Bratislava, Šaľa, groupMoravia of –districts Bruntál is (0.151, characterized Moravian-Silesian by a relatively Region) high the Prešov Region in the northeast (a compact belt unemploymentand Znojmo (0.168, rate andSouth relatively Moravian low Region). wages, withThis Galanta, Senec, Nové Zámky) and in support for left-wing, far-left or far-right parties (Hav- Ľubovňa, Bardejov, Sabinov and Prešov) continuing - toof thethe sixKošice districts Region – Poprad, in the Kežmarok,east of Slovakia Levoča, (Košice Stará kia, the districts with the lowest values are located in - thelík and northwestern Voda 2016; corner Maškarinec of the 2017, country 2019). in the In SlovaŽilina est towns of Slovakia (Bratislava, Košice and Prešov). Čadca Comparedand Trebišov). to the This national cluster average also includes (Fig. 6), thisthree catego larg- of long-term support for the values of egalitarianism, ry declared a strong support for accession in the EU Region (Kysucké Nové Mesto, and Bytča) typical pp) and lower support for Euro- 2012). pp). etatism and nationalism (Plešivčák 2011; Madleňák referendum (+12.71 “dis- 4.2.3 Clusters trictssceptic of parties mildly inpro-European the EU elections orientation” (−7.99 . It consists - The third category of districts is described as gories based on the values of the pro-Europeanness - Byindex using (Fig. the 5). cluster method, we derived five cate of 30 spatial units, the larger part of which (23) is “districts of markedly thelocated southwest in Slovakia. of Slovakia The main with concentration seven districts is recog over- pro-European orientation”, consists of only two spatial nized in the regions of Bratislava, Trnava and Nitra in The first category, named - - ing to this cluster are located in southwest Slovakia all (Pezinok, Malacky, Trnava, Senica, Nitra, Piešťany units, both located in Slovakia. The districts belong ofand the Hlohovec). Žilina The second compact area can be iden position of agriculture and a strong Hungarian minor- tified in the north of the country in the eastern part- (Dunajskaity. Compared Streda to the and national Komárno), mean with(Fig. 6),a traditional this group tration is comprehensively Region (Dolný Kubín, complemented Tvrdošín, byMartin, four recorded strong support for country’s accession to Liptovský Mikuláš and Ružomberok). This concen the EU (+14.06 pp) and very low support for Euros- pp). adjacent districts, from the Banská Bystrica Region (Banská Bystrica, Zvolen, Veľký Krtíš and Lučenec). ceptic parties (−16.92 The third concentration of districts of this type is 194 Martin Plešivčák

Fig. 5 Categories of districts in Czechia and Slovakia clustered by Index of Pro-Europeaness. Source: Czech Statistical Office, Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic (2019), author’s research.

located in the eastern part of Slovakia in the regions - ed in the Ústí category, with 22 (88%) from Czechia. Most are locat of Banská Bystrica (Revúca), Košice (Rožňava, Spišská nad Labem Region (7 of 7), theÚstí Plzeň nad ofNová districts Ves and of mildlyMihcalovce) pro-European and Prešov orientation (Snina, Vranov can be LabemRegion Region (4 of 7)and and the theMoravian-Silesian Moravian-Silesian Region, Region have nad Topľou and Svidník). In Czechia, the only cluster certain(3 of 7). socio-economic Most of them, problems mainly from (relatively the high unemployment, and low wages), favouring left-wing, found in the capital region (districts of Prague). One- far-left and recently protest parties to some extent. district is located in the east of the Vysočina Region (Žďár nad Sázavou), three in Moravia in South Moravi northwest of Czechia, encompassing the regions of an Region (Brno-město) and Zlín Region (Zlín, Vsetín). The most visible concentrationÚstí is locatedÚstí in nad the (Fig.Two largest6) slightly cities above-average of Czechia (Prague support and for Brno)EU acces fell- - sioninto (+2.44 this category. pp) and lower This groupsupport is for characterized the Eurosceptic by tov),Liberec Central (Česká Bohemia Lípa), (Rakovník nad Labem and (Děčín, Kladno), Kar- pp). Labem, Teplice, Litoměřice, Most, Louny and Chomu numerousparties in EU of electionsall clusters, (−4.06 we labelled “transitional” regionslovy Vary of (Sokolov Moravia and and Cheb) Silesia, and there Plzeň are (Domažlice, six such districtsThe fourth group of districts, which is the most districts,Tachov, Plzeň-sever namely Znojmo, and Rokycany). Vyškov (South In the Moravianhistorical

. Cluster analysis marked 73 spatial units- - (almost a half of all districts), of which 48 (66%) are vakia,Region), districts Přerov of (Olomouc this type Region),are located Jeseník, exclusively Bruntál in easternlocated inBohemia. Czechia. In The Slovakia, largest the concentration most compact of areadis theand northwestKarviná (Moravian-Silesian of the territory inRegion). the Žilina Within Region Slo tricts of this type can be identified in the central and- Čadca, - isized situated by (Fig. in 6) all slightly territory below of Trenčín average Region support and for adja EU for(Bytča, its traditional Kysucké support Nové of nationalist Mesto), whereparties, theyand cent districts. Thispp category) and mildly of districts higher is support character for theformed values a compact of etatism concentration. and egalitarianism. This area Compared is known to Eurosceptic parties in EU elections (+2.15 pp). the national average (Fig. 6), this cluster of districts is accession (−3.51 characterized by a markedly below average approv- by the notable degree of Euroscepticism (“districts pp) and an outstanding withThe mild last or group significant consists elements of districts of Euroscepticism” characterized). support for the Eurosceptic parties in EU elections (+8.25al for EU pp ).accession (−6.44

Of the total number of 149 districts, 25 fall into this Pro-Europeanness from a subnational perspective 195

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0

“YES” in EU Referendum 2003 0.0 Districts of markedly Districts of signiﬁcantly Districts of mildly “Transitional” Districts with mild pro-European pro-European pro-European Districts or signiﬁcant elements Support for Eurosceptic parties orientation orientation orientation of Euro-scepticism (in EU Elections 2004–2019) –5.0

–10.0

–15.0

–20.0

Fig. 6 Categories of districts in Czechia and Slovakia clustered by Index of Pro-Europeaness – selected EU electoral characteristics. Note: Difference from average value for Czechia and Slovakia, difference is measured by percentage points. Source: Czech Statistical Office, Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic (2019), author’s research.

5. Discussion the left (Bale 2010). Nevertheless, in Czechia, the

Some regions of Czechia and Slovakia are character- in the case of elections to the European Parliament, ized by increased turnout and low level of Euroscep- thoughfar-left KSČMcurrently has of been declining enjoying trend. significant Economic support prob- ticism in the case of European issues (referendum, lems and migratory pressures are causing uncertain- elections), while others are more passive in voting ty in Europe and create a breeding ground for popu- lists (Charvát - recently addressed the causes of support for far-right peanor support parliamentary Eurosceptic elections parties toinclude a great disappoint extent. The- 2007). Quite a number of authors have mentmost frequentwith politics, reasons non-alignment for not participating with the electoralin Euro program of any of the parties, and a lack of political increaseparties in in Czechia Euroscepticism and Slovakia can (e.g. be linkedKluknavská to ongoing 2012, globalization2013; Gregor (Salo2015; 2014). Mikuš It et has al. created2016). Ina groupgeneral, of interest in voting in European elections as well as sup- - portcommitment for Eurosceptics, as such (Greffet it is also 2007). important In the to debate mention on nerable to the current liberalization, worrying about the voter’s relationship to the idea of Euro-citizenship their“bereaved” economic who future are losing and growing certainty cultural and feeling diversity. vul (Frognier 2000), the project of European integration, Eurosceptics does not necessarily have to be a result Europeanism, the degree of awareness related to the of populism, but also as a legitimate part of the politi- (Blon- - zation (Salo 2014). It is said about the new European role of the EU and the benefits of membership cleavagecal arena ofthat social represents polarization those based “bereaved” on the by existence globali fromdel et EUal. 1997)membership, and the visibilitye.g. through of the structural EU in ordinary funds, of various life and material opportunities (in our havelife (Irwin a higher 1995). tendency Voters to ofparticipate regions benefiting in the European more research, especially socio-economic status, civil and Parliament elections and support Euro-optimist par- minority rights) perceived by different actors with different interests depending on the process of terri- voter (non)participation were investigated by Linek ties (Jesuit 2003). In the case of Czechia, reasons for It turns out that the current wave of Euroscepti- torial integration (Bartolini 2007). cism(2013), or populismin Slovakia is bybetter Gyárfášová understood (2019). by the far-right 6. Conclusions - kia by ĽSNS). - erssubjects who (inpreviously Czechia inalmost particular unreservedly by SPD and supported in Slova They are able to attract manual work Considering the NUTS 3 regions of both countries (14 in Czechia and 8 in Slovakia) in terms of the final index 196 Martin Plešivčák of pro-Europeanness and regional cleavage, the highest values were achieved by the regions of the largest found mainly in the Ústí nad Labem Region, the Kar- cities (Prague in the Czechia, Bratislava and Košice in lovyare from Vary the Region Czechia. and Thethe highestMoravian-Silesian concentration Region, was Slovakia) typical of a more educated, urban popula- - tion with a higher socio-economic status, more eco- - lowi.e. in wages), regions with with increasing relatively support significant for radical socio-eco (left- cialist transformation, with a higher concentration of wingnomic or difficulties right-wing) (relatively and protest high (anti-system) unemployment parties. and large,nomically especially efficient foreign and moreinvestment, successful and ain predomi post-so- Within Slovakia, districts of this type are located in the northwest of the territory in the Žilina Region second case of a pronounced tendency towards the Čadca, - EUnant project right-wing is represented (or central/liberal) by regions usingelectorate. EU subsi The- ally support nationalist parties and espouse values of dies under its largest agricultural policy, also depend- etatism(Bytča, and egalitarianism. Kysucké Nové Mesto), which tradition ent on the supranational policy securing the rights of In general, ideas of European integration and Euro-optimism as such in Czechia and Slovakia are the Nitra Region in Slovakia) or known for values of more common among the urban electorates (Prague, ethnic minorities (especially the Trnava Region and Brno, Bratislava, Košice), areas with a higher con- - lowestChristian values Democracy of the (thepro-Europeanness Zlín Region in Czechiaindex were and cant agricultural production (southwest of Slovakia), registeredthe Prešov inRegion the socio-economically in Slovakia). On the and contrary, geograph the- whichcentration in this of acase particular is probably ethnic related group, to with the signifi status ically peripheral regions of Czechia, with increased of the EU as a guarantor (higher instance for pro- support for far-left, far-right and protest parties (the tection) of civil and minority rights, and a provider Ústí nad Labem Region, the Karlovy Vary Region and of agro-subsidies. In the case of Euroscepticism, the the Moravian-Silesian Region) and parts of Slovakia Czech districts and regions prevail, especially from with a population traditionally close to the values the peripheral northwest and the Moravian-Silesian border areas. In this context, relatively important Region). socio-economic problems (in comparison with the of egalitarian, etatism and nationalism (the Trenčín national average high unemployment and low wages) theAt top the two district categories level (149(“districts districts of markedly in total, 77 pro-Eu from- the EU (membership) for them (or at least in the ropeanCzechia orientation”and 72 from andSlovakia), (“districts it was of found significantly that in formcan be of mentioned. a penalty for Part their of thefailure electorate to solve can them) “blame” and pro-European orientation”), with the highest values thus, on a practical level, can prefer populist (radical, of the index of pro-Europeanness, the Slovak districts anti-system) and Eurosceptic parties. In the case of (mainly from the southwest) dominated over Czech Slovakia, regions located to the northwest without - category (“districts with mild or significant elements ditional vote for (ultra)nationalists (ĽSNS, formerly ofdistricts. Euroscepticism” On the contrary,) came from 88% Czechia, districts with of the the abso last- votingsignificant for SNS), socio-economic egalitarian problems, and etatist-minded but with the politi tra- lute lowest values being registered for districts from Ústí nad Labem Region (northwestern Bohemia). - cal movements (SMER-SD, formerly voting for HZDS), gories of districts across the countries based on the ofwere previous shown studies as least from pro-European the Czech (Pink oriented. 2012; Voda The By using the cluster method, we derived five cate 2015;obtained Kostelecký results are et al.in 2016;accordance Koubek with 2019) the andfindings Slo- “districts of markedly,values significantly of the pro-Europeanness or mildly pro-European index. The orientation” first three) “evidently pro-European” groups ( socio-economicvak literature (e.g. causes Krivý affecting et al. 1996; the spatialPlešivčák distribu 2011;- - tionMadleňák of election 2012; results. Przybyla 2019) on the historical and terizedconsists by of a 51 clear spatial support units, for 86% accession of them to locatedthe Euro in- - peanSlovakia. Union The and districts low support of these for clusters Eurosceptic are characparties in European Parliament elections. Several districts of This study provides new insights into the “geog ofraphy regions of pro-Europeanness” and districts of two over countries a relatively that in long the in Czechia, and Bratislava, Košice and Prešov in Slo- pastperiod formed of time a (2003–2019),single state, applying at the sub-national a methodology level vakia),this type while are othersurban are(districts located of in Prague, southwest Brno-město Slovakia not used before to assess the territorial context of EU - - tion for policy- and decision-makers on the regions (Senec,duction Dunajskaand a strong Streda, concentration Komárno and of the Nové Hungarian Zámky) inintegration which EU support. assistance This should work alsobe targeted provides to informa sustain where there is relatively significant agricultural pro (restore) the meaningfulness of both the idea of Euro- pean integration and EU membership in those parts of minority. On the opposite side, there are districts with the countries that are currently most critical to the EU supportmild or significant for Eurosceptic elements parties of Euroscepticism, when EU elections with project, and thus to stop encouraging Euroscepticism significantly lower support for EU accession relevant across the EU, starting with its partial regions. take place. Of the 25 spatial units in this category, 22 Pro-Europeanness from a subnational perspective 197

Acknowledgements Goodwin, M. (2011): Right Response: Understanding and Countering Populist Extremism in Europe. London, Chatham House. - This paper was prepared with the support provided Greffet,Macmillan, F. (2007): Basingstoke, Abstention. 1–6. In: Encyclopaedia of by research grants of Slovak Research and Develop European Election. Y. Déloye, M. Bruter. Palgrave ment Agency APVV-17-0079 “Population Analysis and Forecast of the Slovak Republic in Time-horizon 2080: Gregor, K. (2015): Kto sú Kotlebovi voliči? Preskupovanie Identification and Modelling the Impacts on Society in G voličov v, Banskobystrickom kraji v rokoch 2009 až 2014. Different Spatial Scales”. Sociológia – Slovak Sociological Review 47(3), 235–252. References yárfášová O. (2007): Jak volili Slováci ve volbách do EP v roce 2004 v kontextu veřejného vnímáníústav Evropské AV ČR, unie. In: Volby do Evropského parlamentu 2004. L. Linek, J. Outlý, G. Tóka, A. Batory. Sociologický Bale,from T. (2010): the Populist If You Radical Can’t Beat Right Them in Western Join Them? Europe. Praha, 279–292. Explaining Social Democratic Responses to the Challenge Gyárfášová,K. Falasca, O. M. (2019): Grusell Public’s and L. Nord.perception Mittuniversitetet, of the EU and Sundsvall,turnout in 56–56.the EP election. In: Euroflection. Eds. N. Bolin, Political Studies 58(3), 410–426, https://doi.org /10.1111/j.1467-9248.2009.00783.x. širšie Bartolini, S. (2007): Cleavages. In: Encyclopaedia of Gyárfášová, O. Velšic. M.členstva (2004): Volebné správanie European Elections. Ed. Y.Šaradín, Déloye, M. Bruter. Palgrave slovenských voličov v prvých eurovoľbách a Macmillan, Basingstoke, 43–51. súvislosti vnímania v EÚ.. Bratislava, Inštitút pre Baun,and M., the Durr, EU Referendum. J., Marek, D., Journal ofP. Common(2006): The Market verejné otázky. StudiesEuropeanization 44(2), 249–280, of Czech https://doi.org/10.1111 Politics: The Political Parties Hastie,Prediction, T., Tibshirani, Second R. Edition Friedman, (Springer J (2016): Series The in ElementsStatistics). /j.1468-5965.2006.00622.x. Berlin,of Statistical Springer. Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Blondel, J., Sinnott, R., Svensson, P. and Voter participation. European Journal for Political (1997): Representation Havlík, V. (2008): Jak je měřit? Přístupy a metody analýzy Havlík,postojů V. (2010): politických České stran k evropské integraci. Central Research 32(2), 243–272, https://doi.org/10.1023 European Political Studies Review 10(4), 340–369. Sage./A:1006832419724. Brno, Masarykova univerzita. politické strany a evropská Blumer, J. G. Šaradín,(1983): Communicating to Voters. London, integrace: Evropeizace, evropanství, euroskepticismus?České České republice. řádu. Bradová,Ed. P. Šaradín. E., P. (2004): Volební kampaň. In: Volby Havlík, V., Hoskovec, L. (2009): Krajské volby v Budge,do Evropského I. (2001): Mapping parlamentu Policy v Preferences: Estimates for zastupitelstevrepublice v kontextu v letech konceptu 2000–2008. voleb European druhého Electoral Periplum, Olomouc, 179–207. Analýza vybraných aspektů voleb do krajských

Parties, Electors and Governments (1945–1998). Oxford, Studies 4(1), 22–47. Oxford University Press. Havlík,politologický V., Kaniok, ústav P. (2006): Masarykovy Euroskepticismus univerzity. a země Cabada, L. (2010): Volby do Evropského parlamentu jako střední a východní Evropy. Brno, Mezinárodní volby druhého řádu: reflexe voleb v nových členských and Re-Alignment of Party Politics in the Czech Republic. zemích EU ze středovýchodní. (2005): Evropy. Explaining Working vote Papers Havlík,Acta V.,Politologica Voda, P. (2016): 8(2), 119–144. The Rise of New Political Parties Fakulty mezinárodních vztahů 4(11), 5–26. Carrubba,elections: C., evidenceTimpone. from R Europe. Comparative Political switching across first-order and second order Havlík,of the V., Czech Vykoupilová, Republic. H. Communist (2008): Two and dimensions Post-Communist of the Europeanization of election programs: The case Studies 38(3), 260–281, https://doi.org/10.1177 /0010414004272693. Studies 41(2), 163–187, https://doi.org/10.1016 Czech Statistical Office. (2019): Elections Database /j.postcomstud.2008.03.007. C(2003–2019).. (2011): Individual Prague, and Czech contextual Statistical variation Office. in EU Henderson,Euroscepticism, K. (2008): Vol. The 1 Case Slovak Studies Republic: and Country Eurosceptics Surveys. De Vries, C., van der Brug, W., van Egmond, information. M., van Electoral der Eijk, and Phoney Europhiles. In: The Party Politics of

/j.electstud.2010.09.022.issue voting: The role of political Hix,Eds. S., MarshA. Szczerbiak, M. and P. Taggart. Oxford University Studies 30(1), 16–28, https://doi.org/10.1016 UnderstandingPress, Oxford, 277–294. European Parliament Elections. (2007): Punishment or Protest? Fiala, P., Hloušek, V., Pitrová, M., Pšeja, P. (2006): časopis Evropeizace politických stran a zájmových skupin: Hix,The S., MarshJournal, M. of (2011):Politics 69(2),Second-order 495–510, effects https://doi. plus pan- základní problémy a směry analýzy. Politologickýélectorale: Europeanorg//10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00546.x. political swings: An analysis of European 13(1), 3–26. élections Frodnier, A.-P., (2000): Identité et participationélections pour une approche européenne des Hloušek,Parliament V., Pšeja, elections P. (2009): across Europeanization time. Electoral ofStudies Political 30(1), européennes.P. Perrineau, C. In: Ysmal, Le vote C. Pressesdes Quinye. de Sciences, Les Paris, Parties4–15, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2010.09.017. and the Party System in the Czech Republic. européennes du 13 juin 1999. Ed. G. Grunberg,

75–94. Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics 198 Martin Plešivčák

25(4), 513–539, https://doi.org/10.1080 Krivý, V., Feglová, V., Balko, D. (1996): Slovensko a jeho 2009:/13523270903310902. Prostor pro evropeizaci politických stran ve Ladrech,regióny: R. (2002):sociokultúrne Europeanization súvislosti volebného and Political správania. Parties: Hricová, H. (2009): Česká republika. In: Eurovolby Bratislava, Nadácia Médiá.

středovýchdoní Evropě. L. Cabada, V. Hloušek. Aleš 4002.Towards a Framework for Analysis. Party Politics 8(4), Making:Čeněk, Plzeň, Methods 41–66. and Applications. New York, Springer- 389–403, https://doi.org/10.1177/135406880200800 Hwang, C. L., Yoon, K. (1981): Multiple Attribute Decision volební účasti v České republice v letech 1990–2010. Šárovec Linek,Brno, L. Centrum(2013): Kam pro sestudium ztratili demokracie voliči? Vysvětlení a kultury. vývoje Verlag, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9. , A. Hynčica, P., , D. (2018): Slovenské politické strany ústav optikou konceptu novosti. Acta Fakulty filozofické Linek,AV ČR.L., Outlý, J., Tóka, G., Batory (2007): Volby do Západočeské univerzity v Plzni 10(2–3), 7–34, Evropského parlamentu 2004. Praha, Sociologický Paris,https://doi.org/10.24132/actaff.2018.10.2-3.1 Publications de la Sorbonne. Alignments: Cross–national Perspectives. London, Charlot, M. (1986): The June 1984 European Elections. Lipset,Collier-Macmillan. S. M., Rokkan, S. (1967): Party Systems and Voter

Charvát, J. (2007): Současný politický extremismus Parliament. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan. campaigna radikalismus. for the Praha, elections Portál. for the European Parliament Lodge, J. (2010): The 2009 elections to the European Irwin G. (1995): Second-order or third-rate?: Issues in the Manokaran,Madleňák, T. E., (2012): Subhashini, Regionálna S., Senthilvel, diferenciácia S., volebného 1994. Electoral Studies 14(2), 183–199, https://doi.org Muruganandham,správania na Slovensku R., Ravichandran, (1998–2010). K. Bratislava,(2011): Veda. Electoral/10.1016/0261-3794(95)96843-7. Politics: Participation in National and European Application of multi criteria decision making tools Jesuit,Contests D. (2003): in the The 1990s. Regional European Dynamics Union of Politics European 4(2),

2001. and validation with optimization techniquecase Kaniok,139–164, P., Havlík, https://doi.org/10.1177/146511650300400 V. (2016): Populism and euroscepticism 112–115.study using TOPSIS, ANN & SAW. International Journal of Management & Business Studies 1(3),

in the Czech Republic: Meeting friends or passing by? Maškarinec, P. (2017): A Spatial Analysis of Czech Romanian Journal of European Affairs 16(2), 20–35. Parliamentary Elections, 2006–2013. Europe-Asia Klíma, M., Outlý, J. (2010):Čeněk. Volby do Evropského parlamentu Studies 69(3), 426–457, https://doi.org/10.1080 2009. V vybrané otázky přípravy, průběhu a výsledků parties/09668136.2017.1313962. in Czech parliamentary elections between voleb. Plzeň, Aleš Maškarinec, P. (2019): The rise of new populist political Kluknavská,časopis pro A. výzkum (2012): radikalismu,Krajne pravicové extremismu strany v a terorismu parlamentných voľbách 2012 naSlovensku. Rexter – 2010 and 2017: the geography of party replacement. Štúra Euroasian Geography and Economics 60(5), 511–547, 10(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/15387216.2019.1691928. Kluknavská, A. (2013): Od k parazitom: Tematická Mikuš, R., Gurňák, D. (2016): Rómska otázka ako jeden adaptácia krajnej pravice v parlamentných voľbách Cassoviensisz mobilizačných 10(1), faktorov 29–46. volebnej podpory krajnej na Slovensku. Politologický časopis 20(3), 258–281, pravice na Slovensku a v Maďarsku., A. (2016): Geographia Analýza Euroscepticism:https://doi.org/10.5817/PC2013-3-258. Party Positions on European Integration Kopecký, P., Mudde, C. (2002): The Two Sides of Mikuš, R., Gurňák, D., Máriássyová volebnej podpory Mariána Kotlebu ako reprezentanta in East Central Europe. European Union Politics 3(3), krajnej pravice v krajských voľbách 2013. Sociológia 297–326, https://doi.org/10.1177/146511650200Čermák, 48(1), 48–70. Bernard,3003002. J., Šimon, Opricovic, S., Tzeng, G. H. (2004): Compromise solution Kostelecký, T., Mikešová, R., Poláková, M., D., Researchby MCDM 156(2), methods: 445–455, a comparative https://doi.org/10.1016 analysis of VIKOR Česku M. (2016): Geografie výsledků ústav and TOPSIS. European Journal of Operational AVparlamentních ČR. voleb: prostorové vzorce volebního Pink, M. (2012): Volební mapy České chování v 1992–2013. Praha,českých Sociologický /S0377-2217(03)00020-1. pro studium demokracie a kultury. a Slovenské republiky Koubek, J. 2019. Volební chování velkoměst v po roce 1993: vzorce, trendy, proměny. Brno, Centrum historické perspektivě se zaměřením na výsledky levice. ElectionsPraha, Masarykova in the Czech demokratická Republic: A akademie.Light at the End of the Plešivčák, M. (2011). Regionálny obraz korelačnej závislosti Kovář, J. (2013): The Supply Side of Second-Order 5(1),medzi 2–16. volebnými preferenciami a vybranými sociálnymi charakteristikami populácie Slovenska. Regionální studia Tunnel? Romanian Journal of European Affairs 13(1), 57–82. Plešivčák, M. (2015): First Two Elections to the European Kovář, J. (2014): Europeizace volebních programů pro volby Parliament in Slovakia: Turnout and Results in Regional do EP. Politické vedy 17(3), 32–67. Perspective. Evropská volební studia 10(1), 14–32. Kovář,Slovakia J., Kovář, Compared. K. (2014): Perspectives Representation on European of Women Politics Przybyla, V. (2019): Vliv vybraných demografickýchčasopis in Second-order Elections: The Czech Republic and charakteristik na volební chování na Slovensku v meziválečném období. Geografický 71(2), and Society 15(1), 1–18, https://doi.org/10.1080/1570 181–199, https://doi.org/10.31577/geogrcas.2019 5854.2013.793533. .71.2.10. Pro-Europeanness from a subnational perspective 199

Reif, K., Schmitt, H. (1980): Nine second-order national elections: a conceptual framework for the analysis of European election results. European Journal of Political Computer Modelling 45(7–8), 801–813, https://doi.org /10.1016/j.mcm.2006.03.023. Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic (2019): Elections RobertResearch Schuman 8(1), Foundation 3–44, https://doi.org/10.1111 (2004): Survey on Evaluation and Referenda Database (2003–2019). Bratislava, of/j.1475-6765.1980.tb00737.x. competences at the European and national levels Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic. Šaradín, P. (2008): Teorie voleb druhého řádu a možnosti Salo, S. (2014): Eurosceptics in the 2014 EP Elections. jejich aplikace v České republice. Olomouc, Univerzita Protest(in EU member Parties Mobilizedstates), 28–30 on National April 2004. Cleveages Between EuroscepticismPalackého v Olomouci. in EU Member and Candidate States. Globalization Winners and Losers. Helsinki, Finnish Taggart,Brighton, P., Szczerbiak, Sussex European A. (2002): Institute. The Party Politics of Institute of International Affairs. České Voda, P. (2015): Jaká je role postkomunismu? Volební Shih, H. S., Shyurb, H. J., Lee, E. S. (2007): An extension of ageografie kultury. a Rakouské republiky v letech TOPSIS for group decision making. Mathematical and 1990–2013. Brno, Centrum pro studium demokracie