This article asks whether differences in local agricultural competitiveness help explain the growing political divide between rural and urban voters. The authors propose that where agriculture is uncompetitive, rural voters are more likely to support protectionist parties and policies because agriculture remains central to local economic and social life; where agriculture confers a comparative advantage, the rural–urban cleavage should be weaker. The paper reports cross-national and subnational analyses that test this comparative-advantage argument while qualifying its claims with multiple data sources and designs.
Harmonized survey evidence; Subnational U.S. variation after NAFTA; Comparative-advantage framing
Data and methods
The study uses a new harmonized dataset of surveys covering 123 countries and "extensive data on voting behavior in the European Union," according to the abstract. It also includes an additional subnational analysis in the United States that exploits post-NAFTA variation in agricultural competitiveness. The abstract does not detail specific variables, estimation models, or sample sizes beyond these sources.
Main findings
The authors report that their analyses provide "strong support" for the argument that comparative advantage in agriculture shapes rural voting: rural voters are more protectionist when local agriculture is uncompetitive, and the rural–urban political divide is pronounced in uncompetitive regions but negligible where agriculture has a comparative advantage. The abstract frames these results as consistent across their international survey harmonization, EU voting data, and the U.S. subnational test, while preserving qualifications implied by the multi-part design.
- Cross-national surveys (123 countries) and EU voting data are used to test the generality of the relationship.
- A U.S. subnational analysis leveraging post-NAFTA variation provides additional corroboration.
