Urban–rural political divide

In political science, the urban–rural political divide is a phenomenon in which predominantly urban areas and predominantly rural areas within a country have sharply diverging political views.[1] It is a form of political polarization. Typically, urban areas exhibit more liberal, left-wing, cosmopolitan and/or multiculturalist political attitudes, while rural areas exhibit more conservative, right-wing, right-wing populist and/or nationalist political attitudes.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

An urban–rural political divide has been observed worldwide in many nations including the United States,[2][3][4][5] the United Kingdom,[6][7] France,[8] Australia,[10] Hungary,[4][11] Poland,[4][11] Belgium,[8] Italy,[8] the Netherlands,[9] Turkey,[4][11] Thailand,[4] and Malaysia.[4] Political divisions between urban and rural areas have been noted by political scientists and journalists to have intensified in the 21st century, and in particular since the Great Recession.[8] In Europe, the increasing urban-rural polarization has coincided with the decline of center-left parties and concomitant rise of far-left and far-right parties, a trend known as Pasokification.

United States

The history of urban-rural conflict in the American South has a complicated and diverse history, with numerous factors contributing to tensions between the two populations.[12] One of the main causes of this tension is the economic divide that has arisen between urban and rural areas. While towns have focused on railways, banking, trade, and absentee land owners, The few cities in the South were river or ocean ports, or textile manufacturing centers. The rural South has been agriculturally oriented regarding cotton, tobacco and other crops, resulting in economic and social disparities. Additionally, cultural and political differences have contributed to conflict, with rural areas often being more conservative and religious while urban areas tend to be more diverse and liberal. The legacy of racial inequality in the South has also played a significant role in this tension, with many rural areas still struggling with poverty, limited access to education and healthcare, and systemic racism. In the 1880-1940 era Southern demagogues appealed to a poor agrarian base that demanded respect from the much richer business-oriented small towns. [13] In the 20th century rural America, both North and South, used gerrymandering to maintain more power in Congress and state legislatures.[14]

1896 presidential election

In the 1896 United States presidential election, there was a significant divide in voting patterns between urban and rural areas. The Republican candidate, William McKinley, was supported by urban areas, particularly in the northeast and Midwest, where the manufacturing industry was hurt by the economic recession underway. McKinley's message of high tariffs and a gold-backed currency resonated with urban voters, who saw these policies as essential for restoring industrial growth and stability. Factory workers voted for McKinley because he promised jobs. On the other hand, the Democratic candidate, William Jennings Bryan, was supported by rural areas, particularly in the South and West. Bryan demanded rapid inflation in the price of wheat, cotton and other farm products through the use of free silver as money, His populist economic platform appealed to farmers, who were struggling with low crop prices and debt. Urban workers feared that free silver would raise prices but not wages.

Farmers versus industrial workers

The Bryan campaign appealed first of all to farmers. It told urban workers that their return to prosperity was possible only if the farmers prospered first. Bryan made the point bluntly in the "Cross of Gold" speech, delivered in Chicago just 25 years after that city had indeed burned down:

"Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again; but destroy our farms, and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country."[15]

Bryan's juxtaposing "our farms" and "your cities" did not go over well in cities; they voted 59% for McKinley. Among all the nation's industrial cities, Bryan carried only two (Troy, New York, and Fort Wayne, Indiana).[16] The main labor unions were reluctant to endorse Bryan because their members feared inflation.[17][18] Railroad workers especially worried that Bryan's silver programs would bankrupt the railroads, which were in a shaky financial condition in the depression and whose bonds were payable in gold. Factory workers saw no advantage in inflation to help miners and farmers, because their urban cost of living would shoot up and they would be hurt. The McKinley campaign gave special attention to skilled workers, especially in the Midwest and adjacent states.[19] Secret polls show that large majorities of railroad and factory workers voted for McKinley.[20]

Overall, McKinley won the election with 271 electoral votes to Bryan's 176, due in large part to his strong support in urban areas. [21]

China

The urban-rural conflict in China has been a complicated and long-standing problem, which results from the economic, social, and cultural disparities between these two areas. One of the major reasons for this conflict is the unequal distribution of wealth and resources between urban and rural regions, where urban areas experience rapid growth in population and wealth, and rural areas lose millions of migrants to the city. The rural economy lags behind, leading to a shortage of basic infrastructure such as water, electricity, and transportation. Additionally, rural-urban migration is another contributing factor that causes overcrowding, housing shortages, and increased job competition in urban areas. Furthermore, cultural and social differences between urban and rural communities can also lead to misunderstandings and conflicts. Despite recognizing the problem, the Chinese government has implemented several policies such as promoting rural development, improving rural infrastructure, and increasing access to education and healthcare to address the issue.[22]

See also

References
  1. "Analysis | Why are urban and rural areas so politically divided?". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Archived from the original on 30 October 2020. Retrieved 10 October 2021.
  2. Badger, Emily (21 May 2019). "How the Rural-Urban Divide Became America's Political Fault Line". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 8 March 2021. Retrieved 9 April 2021.
  3. "The divide between us: Urban-rural political differences rooted in geography | The Source | Washington University in St. Louis". The Source. 18 February 2020. Archived from the original on 14 April 2021. Retrieved 9 April 2021.
  4. Rachman, Gideon (30 July 2018). "Urban-rural splits have become the great global divider". The Financial Times. Archived from the original on 26 February 2021. Retrieved 8 April 2021.
  5. "Biden's Win Shows Rural-Urban Divide Has Grown Since 2016". NPR.org. Archived from the original on 11 April 2021. Retrieved 9 April 2021.
  6. "Brexit and public opinion: cities and towns- the geography of discontent". UK in a changing Europe. 1 February 2019. Archived from the original on 20 September 2021. Retrieved 9 April 2021.
  7. "General election 2019: The towns and cities least likely to vote". BBC News. 25 November 2019. Archived from the original on 14 February 2021. Retrieved 9 April 2021.
  8. "Urban-rural chasm defines new political divide in the West". AP NEWS. 18 December 2018. Archived from the original on 4 February 2023. Retrieved 9 April 2021.
  9. "The Urban-Rural Divide in Political Attitudes in the Netherlands". www.europenowjournal.org. Archived from the original on 14 April 2021. Retrieved 9 April 2021.
  10. Wilkinson, George; Haslam Mckenzie, Fiona; Bolleter, Julian (2022). "Federalism and urban primacy: political dimensions that influence the city–country divide in Australia". International Journal of Urban Sciences. 26 (3): 438–462. doi:10.1080/12265934.2021.1997631. S2CID 243954460. Archived from the original on 25 January 2023. Retrieved 25 January 2023.
  11. "Analysis | The growing urban-rural divide in global politics". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Archived from the original on 27 May 2022. Retrieved 10 October 2021.
  12. Charles W. Eagles, "Urban‐Rural Conflict in the 1920s: A Historiographical Assessment." The Historian 49.1 (1986): 26-48.
  13. Raymond Arsenault, The Wild Ass of the Ozarks: Jeff Davis and the Social Bases of Southern Politics (Temple University Press, 1984).
  14. Charles W. Eagles, Democracy delayed: Congressional reapportionment and urban-rural conflict in the 1920s (University of Georgia Press, 2010), ch. 1.
  15. Kleppner, Paul (1970). The cross of culture: a social analysis of midwestern politics, 1850-1900. Free Press. p. 304.
  16. William Diamond, American Historical Review (1941) 46#2 pp. 281–305 at pp. 285, 297 in JSTOR
  17. Sanders, Elizabeth (1999). Roots of Reform: Farmers, Workers, and the American State, 1877-1917. U. of Chicago Press. p. 434. ISBN 9780226734774.
  18. Hild, Matthew (2007). Greenbackers, Knights of Labor, and Populists: Farmer-Labor Insurgency in the Late-Nineteenth-Century South. U. of Georgia Press. pp. 191–92. ISBN 9780820328973.
  19. Harpine, William D. (2006). From the Front Porch to the Front Page: McKinley and Bryan in the 1896 Presidential Campaign. Texas A&M University Press. p. 117. ISBN 9781585445592.
  20. Jensen, Richard J. (1971). The Winning of the Midwest: Social and Political Conflict, 1888–1896. U. of Chicago Press. pp. 55–56. ISBN 9780226398259.
  21. William Diamond, "Urban and rural voting in 1896." American Historical Review 46.2 (1941): 281-305.
  22. T.W. Ann, et al. "The key causes of urban-rural conflict in China." Habitat International 49 (2015): 65-73. online

Further reading
  • Ann, T. W., et al. "The key causes of urban-rural conflict in China." Habitat International 49 (2015): 65-73. online
  • Beesley, Kenneth B., ed. The rural-urban fringe in Canada: Conflict and controversy (Rural Development Institute, 2010) online.
  • Parthasarathy, D., and Eric C. Thompson. "Cleavage, connection and conflict in rural, urban and contemporary Asia' (Springer Netherlands, 2013) online.
  • Punjabi, Bharat, and Craig A. Johnson. "The politics of rural–urban water conflict in India: Untapping the power of institutional reform." World Development 120 (2019): 182-192. online
  • Scott, Alister, Alana Gilbert, and Ayele Gelan. The urban-rural divide: Myth or reality? (Aberdeen: Macaulay Institute, 2007); major study of Great Britain. online
  • Shan, Liping, T. W. Ann, and Yuzhe Wu. "Strategies for risk management in urban–rural conflict: Two case studies of land acquisition in urbanising China." Habitat international 59 (2017): 90-100. online

In United States
  • Arsenault, Raymond . The Wild Ass of the Ozarks: Jeff Davis and the Social Bases of Southern Politics (Temple University Press, 1984), argues that in United States 1880s-1940s Southern demagogues appealed to a poor agrarian base against the rich business-oriented small towns.
  • Diamond, William. "Urban and rural voting in 1896." American Historical Review 46.2 (1941): 281-305.
  • Goldfield, David R. "Urban-Rural Relations in the Old South: The Example of Virginia." Journal of Urban History 2.2 (1976): 146-168; relations were friendly befopre the Civil War. online
  • Eagles, Charles W. "Congressional voting in the 1920s: A test of urban-rural conflict." Journal of American History 76.2 (1989): 528-534. online
  • Eagles, Charles W. "Urban‐Rural Conflict in the 1920s: A Historiographical Assessment." The Historian 49.1 (1986): 26-48.
  • Eagles, Charles W. Democracy delayed: Congressional reapportionment and urban-rural conflict in the 1920s (University of Georgia Press, 2010).
  • Friedman, Robert S. "The urban-rural conflict revisited." Western Political Quarterly 14.2 (1961): 481-495.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.