Shifting the Blame or Defending Implementation: How Do Explanations for Compliance Shape the Legitimacy of Contested EU Policies?

Abstract

As European Union (EU) policymaking becomes increasingly politicized, national and local authorities face pressure to justify compliance with contested EU rules. This study examines how different explanations for compliance affect citizens' perceptions of legitimacy. We distinguish between blame-shifting and defending strategies communicated by national and municipal authorities. Our expectations and findings challenge the popular view that blaming the EU is the most credible approach. In policy implementation, national governments are often perceived as primarily responsible, making their blame-shifting attempts less persuasive. Instead, we expect and find that defending compliance by claiming responsibility increases perceived legitimacy. Municipal authorities, however, can more credibly deny responsibility for externally mandated policies because of their distance from the EU decision-making process. These results advance research on elite communication and the legitimacy of EU policies, offering new insights into how governments can reconcile public responsiveness with supranational obligations in an era of contested EU governance.