How does rurality affect campaigning?

Abstract

In the UK, some constituencies are physically small and take in parts of densely populated cities, while others span huge geographic areas and may contain islands or hard to reach communities. These size variations have been shown to have important implications for the nature of electoral representation, but their impact on election campaigning is less discussed. In this paper we examine this relationship, using a mixed method approach to consider whether and how rurality affects campaign activity. First, conducting interviews with Scottish National Party campaigners and elected representatives from rural and urban constituencies, we identify a number of perceived challenges associated with rural campaigning. We then evaluate some of these perceptions at recent British general elections using data from the BES panel survey and from constituency election results. The perception that campaigns in rural constituencies take more time and effort, cost more to undertake, have different contact styles and are less effective in rural than in urban areas seems to be partly true for campaign contacts, but less so for campaign spending (a wider measure of campaign effort) or for campaign effectiveness. Campaigners’ perceptions of a rural disadvantage does not appear to be fully borne out in reality.