Understanding Brexit: Cultural Resentment Versus Economic Grievances

P. Norris, R. Inglehart
{"title":"Understanding Brexit: Cultural Resentment Versus Economic Grievances","authors":"P. Norris, R. Inglehart","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3222901","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study considers the evidence for 'demand-side' theories seeking to explain the outcome of the Brexit referendum and subsequent divisions in UK politics. Economic theories suggest that the Leave decision was driven mainly by the 'left-behinds' in jobs or wages, such as those living in struggling communities in the North of England, the Midlands, and Wales. By contrast cultural accounts emphasize political attitudes and values, including long-term British suspicion about the European Union project, public disgust with the political class at Westminster, anxiety about the effects of the refugee crisis and migration from other EU countries, and opposition to the government's austerity cuts. These theories can also be regarded as complimentary rather than rivals, for example if economic deprivation catalyzed resentment about immigrants and the rejection of open borders. To examine these issues, Part I sets out the electoral context and historical background in the run up to Brexit--and its implications for party competition in the UK. Drawing upon a larger book-length study, Part II sets out the arguments based on economic and cultural theories about the British electorate. Part III describes the evidence from the British Election Study panel surveys, which allows us to examine the factors dividing supporters in the Leave and Remain camps in the 2016 Brexit referendum, as well as those predicting support for UKIP from 2015-17. Part IV examines the impact of demographic control factors like age and sex, indicators of economic grievances, and the cultural profile of voters in their authoritarian and populist values, as well as their attitudes towards the Europe Union, immigration, and left-right ideology. The conclusion in Part V considers developments since Brexit and their implications for the future of populism in the UK. The main advocate of Brexit, UKIP, succeeded in attaining this goal, but then failed to achieve a decisive break through as a parliamentary party. Yet authoritarian-populism remains alive and well in post-Brexit Britain, absorbed into the bloodstream of the body politic, disrupting and dividing both major parties.","PeriodicalId":170522,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Other European Economics: Labor & Social Conditions (Topic)","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERN: Other European Economics: Labor & Social Conditions (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3222901","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

This study considers the evidence for 'demand-side' theories seeking to explain the outcome of the Brexit referendum and subsequent divisions in UK politics. Economic theories suggest that the Leave decision was driven mainly by the 'left-behinds' in jobs or wages, such as those living in struggling communities in the North of England, the Midlands, and Wales. By contrast cultural accounts emphasize political attitudes and values, including long-term British suspicion about the European Union project, public disgust with the political class at Westminster, anxiety about the effects of the refugee crisis and migration from other EU countries, and opposition to the government's austerity cuts. These theories can also be regarded as complimentary rather than rivals, for example if economic deprivation catalyzed resentment about immigrants and the rejection of open borders. To examine these issues, Part I sets out the electoral context and historical background in the run up to Brexit--and its implications for party competition in the UK. Drawing upon a larger book-length study, Part II sets out the arguments based on economic and cultural theories about the British electorate. Part III describes the evidence from the British Election Study panel surveys, which allows us to examine the factors dividing supporters in the Leave and Remain camps in the 2016 Brexit referendum, as well as those predicting support for UKIP from 2015-17. Part IV examines the impact of demographic control factors like age and sex, indicators of economic grievances, and the cultural profile of voters in their authoritarian and populist values, as well as their attitudes towards the Europe Union, immigration, and left-right ideology. The conclusion in Part V considers developments since Brexit and their implications for the future of populism in the UK. The main advocate of Brexit, UKIP, succeeded in attaining this goal, but then failed to achieve a decisive break through as a parliamentary party. Yet authoritarian-populism remains alive and well in post-Brexit Britain, absorbed into the bloodstream of the body politic, disrupting and dividing both major parties.
理解英国脱欧:文化怨恨与经济不满
这项研究考虑了“需求方”理论的证据,这些理论试图解释英国脱欧公投的结果和随后的英国政治分歧。经济学理论表明,脱欧决定主要是由工作或工资方面的“掉队者”推动的,比如那些生活在英格兰北部、中部和威尔士贫困社区的人。相比之下,文化报道强调的是政治态度和价值观,包括英国人对欧盟项目的长期怀疑,公众对威斯敏斯特政治阶层的厌恶,对难民危机和其他欧盟国家移民影响的焦虑,以及对政府紧缩开支的反对。这些理论也可以被视为互补而不是竞争,例如,如果经济剥夺催化了对移民的怨恨和对开放边界的拒绝。为了研究这些问题,第一部分阐述了英国脱欧前的选举背景和历史背景,以及它对英国政党竞争的影响。第二部分借鉴了一份篇幅更大的研究报告,阐述了基于经济和文化理论的关于英国选民的论点。第三部分描述了来自英国选举研究小组调查的证据,这使我们能够研究2016年英国脱欧公投中脱欧派和留欧派支持者之间的分歧因素,以及那些预测2015-17年支持英国独立党的因素。第四部分考察了人口控制因素的影响,如年龄和性别、经济不满的指标、选民在威权主义和民粹主义价值观中的文化形象,以及他们对欧盟、移民和左右意识形态的态度。第五部分的结论考虑了英国脱欧以来的事态发展及其对英国民粹主义未来的影响。英国脱欧的主要倡导者英国独立党(UKIP)成功地实现了这一目标,但随后未能实现作为议会政党的决定性突破。然而,在脱欧后的英国,威权民粹主义仍然存在,并被吸收到整个政治体系的血液中,扰乱和分裂了两个主要政党。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信