Political efficacy and the perceived influence of urban and rural residents

IF 1.4 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Politics & Policy Pub Date : 2024-02-23 DOI:10.1111/polp.12589
Emily Rowland, Jeremy Duff, Juheon Lee
{"title":"Political efficacy and the perceived influence of urban and rural residents","authors":"Emily Rowland,&nbsp;Jeremy Duff,&nbsp;Juheon Lee","doi":"10.1111/polp.12589","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <p>While political scientists have long studied citizens' political efficacy as an important indicator of attitudes toward government, less attention has been devoted to the efficacy of rural or urban residents, which is important given the intensifying rural–urban divide in American society. This study fills this gap by analyzing the 2020 American National Election Studies. Using ordered logistic regression, this study finds that (1) city residents tend to believe that small towns and rural areas have too much influence on government; (2) residents of small towns and rural areas demonstrate lower levels of external efficacy than city residents; and (3) people who believe that small towns and rural areas have too much influence tend to demonstrate high external and internal efficacies, a tendency that is clearer in cities than in other community types. These findings reflect mutual in-group bias and place-based resentment between rural and urban residents in American society.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Related Articles</h3>\n \n <p>Peterson, Holly L., Mark K. McBeth, and Michael D. Jones. 2020. “Policy Process Theory for Rural Studies: Navigating Context and Generalization in Rural Policy.” <i>Politics &amp; Policy</i> 48(4): 576–617. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12366.</p>\n \n <p>Shortall, Sally, and Margaret Alston. 2016. “To Rural Proof or Not to Rural Proof: A Comparative Analysis.” <i>Politics &amp; Policy</i> 44(1): 35–55. https://doi-org.libproxy.usouthal.edu/10.1111/polp.12144.</p>\n \n <p>Smith-Walter, Aaron, Holly L. Peterson, Michael D. Jones, and Ashley Nicole Reynolds Marshall. 2016. “Gun Stories: How Evidence Shapes Firearm Policy in the United States.” <i>Politics &amp; Policy</i> 44(6): 1053–88. https://doi-org.libproxy.usouthal.edu/10.1111/polp.12187.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":51679,"journal":{"name":"Politics & Policy","volume":"52 2","pages":"331-348"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politics & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/polp.12589","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

While political scientists have long studied citizens' political efficacy as an important indicator of attitudes toward government, less attention has been devoted to the efficacy of rural or urban residents, which is important given the intensifying rural–urban divide in American society. This study fills this gap by analyzing the 2020 American National Election Studies. Using ordered logistic regression, this study finds that (1) city residents tend to believe that small towns and rural areas have too much influence on government; (2) residents of small towns and rural areas demonstrate lower levels of external efficacy than city residents; and (3) people who believe that small towns and rural areas have too much influence tend to demonstrate high external and internal efficacies, a tendency that is clearer in cities than in other community types. These findings reflect mutual in-group bias and place-based resentment between rural and urban residents in American society.

Related Articles

Peterson, Holly L., Mark K. McBeth, and Michael D. Jones. 2020. “Policy Process Theory for Rural Studies: Navigating Context and Generalization in Rural Policy.” Politics & Policy 48(4): 576–617. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12366.

Shortall, Sally, and Margaret Alston. 2016. “To Rural Proof or Not to Rural Proof: A Comparative Analysis.” Politics & Policy 44(1): 35–55. https://doi-org.libproxy.usouthal.edu/10.1111/polp.12144.

Smith-Walter, Aaron, Holly L. Peterson, Michael D. Jones, and Ashley Nicole Reynolds Marshall. 2016. “Gun Stories: How Evidence Shapes Firearm Policy in the United States.” Politics & Policy 44(6): 1053–88. https://doi-org.libproxy.usouthal.edu/10.1111/polp.12187.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
城乡居民的政治效能和感知影响力
长期以来,政治学家一直将公民的政治效能作为衡量对政府态度的一个重要指标来研究,但对农村或城市居民的效能却关注较少,而鉴于美国社会城乡差别的加剧,这一点非常重要。本研究通过分析 2020 年美国全国大选研究填补了这一空白。通过有序逻辑回归,本研究发现:(1)城市居民倾向于认为小城镇和农村地区对政府有太大的影响力;(2)小城镇和农村地区居民的外部效能水平低于城市居民;(3)认为小城镇和农村地区有太大影响力的人倾向于表现出较高的外部和内部效能,这种倾向在城市比在其他类型的社区更为明显。这些发现反映了美国社会中农村居民和城市居民之间相互的群体内偏见和基于地方的怨恨。2020."农村研究的政策过程理论:农村政策中的背景与概括"。Politics & Policy 48(4):https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12366.Shortall, Sally, and Margaret Alston.2016."To Rural Proof or Not to Rural Proof:A Comparative Analysis."政治与政策》44(1):https://doi-org.libproxy.usouthal.edu/10.1111/polp.12144.Smith-Walter, Aaron, Holly L. Peterson, Michael D. Jones, and Ashley Nicole Reynolds Marshall.2016."Gun Stories:证据如何塑造美国的枪支政策》。Politics & Policy 44(6):1053-88. https://doi-org.libproxy.usouthal.edu/10.1111/polp.12187.
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 去求助
来源期刊
Politics & Policy
Politics & Policy POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
23.10%
发文量
61
期刊最新文献
Issue Information “Where you stand depends on where you sit”: The politics of petroleum pricing in Ghana's election cycle Note from the Editor and Acknowledgment of Reviewers 2023–2024 A paradox of public engagement: The discursive politics of environmental justice in Canada's Chemical Valley Democratic interventionists versus pragmatic realists: Employing the advocacy coalition framework to explain Obama's shift in multilateralism with European allies
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1