Voting for Your Pocketbook, but against Your Pocketbook? A Study of Brexit at the Local Level

IF 4.1 2区社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE

Politics & Society Pub Date : 2021-02-25 DOI:10.1177/0032329221992198

Kira Gartzou-Katsouyanni, Max Kiefel, Javier José Olivas Osuna

{"title":"Voting for Your Pocketbook, but against Your Pocketbook? A Study of Brexit at the Local Level","authors":"Kira Gartzou-Katsouyanni, Max Kiefel, Javier José Olivas Osuna","doi":"10.1177/0032329221992198","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In explaining the outcome of the 2016 EU referendum in the United Kingdom, can theories emphasizing the importance of economic factors be reconciled with the fact that many people appeared to vote against their economic self-interest? This article approaches this puzzle through case study research that draws on fieldwork and a process of reciprocal knowledge exchange with local communities in five local authorities in England and Wales. It argues that the Leave vote can be attributed partly to political discontent associated with trajectories of relative economic decline and deindustrialization. Building on the growing literature about the role of narratives and discourses in navigating uncertainty, it contends that these localized economic experiences, interpreted through local-level narratives, paved the way for local-level discourses of resilience and nationwide optimistic messaging about the economic impacts of Brexit to resonate. Local and national-level discourses discounting the potential economic costs of leaving the European Union played a crucial role in giving precise, somewhat paradoxical, political content to the sense of discontent. The article contributes to the growing focus on place and community in understanding political behavior and invites further research on local discourses linking macro-level trajectories and micro-level voting decisions.","PeriodicalId":47847,"journal":{"name":"Politics & Society","volume":"50 1","pages":"3 - 43"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0032329221992198","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politics & Society","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329221992198","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 6

Abstract

In explaining the outcome of the 2016 EU referendum in the United Kingdom, can theories emphasizing the importance of economic factors be reconciled with the fact that many people appeared to vote against their economic self-interest? This article approaches this puzzle through case study research that draws on fieldwork and a process of reciprocal knowledge exchange with local communities in five local authorities in England and Wales. It argues that the Leave vote can be attributed partly to political discontent associated with trajectories of relative economic decline and deindustrialization. Building on the growing literature about the role of narratives and discourses in navigating uncertainty, it contends that these localized economic experiences, interpreted through local-level narratives, paved the way for local-level discourses of resilience and nationwide optimistic messaging about the economic impacts of Brexit to resonate. Local and national-level discourses discounting the potential economic costs of leaving the European Union played a crucial role in giving precise, somewhat paradoxical, political content to the sense of discontent. The article contributes to the growing focus on place and community in understanding political behavior and invites further research on local discourses linking macro-level trajectories and micro-level voting decisions.

查看原文本刊更多论文

为你的钱包投票，但反对你的钱包?英国脱欧在地方层面的研究

在解释2016年英国脱欧公投的结果时，强调经济因素重要性的理论能否与许多人投票反对自身经济利益的事实相协调?本文通过与英格兰和威尔士五个地方当局的当地社区进行实地考察和知识交流的案例研究来解决这一难题。它认为，脱欧投票可以部分归因于与相对经济衰退和去工业化轨迹相关的政治不满。基于越来越多的关于叙事和话语在驾驭不确定性中的作用的文献，它认为，通过地方层面的叙事来解释这些地方性的经济经验，为地方层面的弹性话语和关于英国脱欧经济影响的全国性乐观信息的共鸣铺平了道路。地方和国家层面的话语低估了脱离欧盟的潜在经济成本，在为不满情绪提供精确的、有些矛盾的政治内容方面发挥了关键作用。这篇文章有助于在理解政治行为中越来越多地关注地点和社区，并邀请进一步研究将宏观层面的轨迹与微观层面的投票决策联系起来的地方话语。

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

Politics & Society Multiple-

CiteScore

5.00

自引率

4.20%

发文量

期刊介绍： Politics & Society is a peer-reviewed journal. All submitted papers are read by a rotating editorial board member. If a paper is deemed potentially publishable, it is sent to another board member, who, if agreeing that it is potentially publishable, sends it to a third board member. If and only if all three agree, the paper is sent to the entire editorial board for consideration at board meetings. The editorial board meets three times a year, and the board members who are present (usually between 9 and 14) make decisions through a deliberative process that also considers written reports from absent members. Unlike many journals which rely on 1–3 individual blind referee reports and a single editor with final say, the peers who decide whether to accept submitted work are thus the full editorial board of the journal, comprised of scholars from various disciplines, who discuss papers openly, with author names known, at meetings. Editors are required to disclose potential conflicts of interest when evaluating manuscripts and to recuse themselves from voting if such a potential exists.