For 58.55% of voters in April’s French presidential election, the sight of a victorious Emmanuel Macron in front of the Eiffel Tower, speaking with hand on heart as he took up the post for another five years, will have been a relief. For 41.45% of voters – Marine Le Pen supporters mainly based outside France’s cities and in its rural heartlands – this was a worst-case scenario.

France is deeply divided between its cities and its rural areas. It is a trend that has been seen across the continent, from the UK to Hungary, Poland, Italy and Germany, among others.

A Cambridge University study carried out last year by Michael Kenny and Davide Luca, called The urban-rural polarisation of political disenchantment, sought to examine the extent of the political divide between the countryside and cities in 30 European countries, including all 27 EU nations, plus the UK, Norway and Switzerland. The study used data from the European Social Survey – which runs every two years – between 2002 and 2018, and analysed individual-level data across the nine surveys.

Luca says fears of a growing divide between the rural and urban populations across Europe loomed large in the reasoning behind undertaking the analysis. “As a social scientist, and as a person who grew up in the countryside, I’m deeply concerned about whether these divides may, in the long term, become highly divisive for society as a whole,” he explains. “In a way, a bit of urban/rural divide is expected, and has been a feature of human history. Too much division, however, can create worrisome societal cleavages.”

The study found there were striking differences between the populations of rural and urban Europe. Across western Europe, residents of rural areas were, on average, 33.5% more likely to vote than those in inner cities, but 16% less likely to report a one-unit increase in their trust of political parties on a scale of zero to 10.

People living in the countryside were far less likely to engage in political actions, such as protests and boycotts, than their city-dwelling counterparts, and were 55% more likely than people in cities to disagree with the idea that immigration enriches the national culture.

Europeans in rural places are an average of 57% more likely to feel one point closer to the right on the political spectrum when measured on a scale of zero to 10 ( 0 being left, 10 right).

Luca says the results show the urban/rural divide exists, although he stresses that other predictors of political values – such as age, income and partisanship – are also key predictors of political values.

“Without discrediting the key role played by these individual factors, our paper shows that geography matters too, and that a full understanding of the role of place in influencing political outcomes is key,” Luca maintains.
What could happen if the divide is not addressed? “The risk is that residents of remote and/or declining towns and the countryside will feel increasingly alienated,” says Luca. “Similarly, addressing climate change will require bold actions by governments and, often, the costs associated with the ‘green transition’ are not distributed equally. The gilets jaunes protest in France is a very interesting example, where the revolts against the ‘Paris elites’ were triggered by an environmental policy that many of us would consider sensible.”

Luca adds that reforms are needed to address the lack of economic opportunities in more marginal areas and to ameliorate the sense of resentment and growing divergence between those in cosmopolitan areas and those who live in more remote communities. This includes better access to public services and transport in rural areas.

“Governments need to think about measures that either offset higher costs in rural areas, or convince dwellers about the implementation of policies that, in the eyes of many, may not always sound very palatable,” he concludes.

This article is from the July 2022 edition of Impact magazine.