Place-based explanations' of politics in the U.K. tell sweeping narratives about 'Two Englands', or of sizeable regions of the country that have been 'Left Behind', reinforcing popular accounts of a North-South or city-town divide. We introduce the concept of nested deprivationdeprivation that may occur in just one housing estate or even one row of flats within neighbourhoods that are otherwise affluent. We report on intensive fieldwork in 8 neighbourhoods varying in relative affluence and density of population (including urban, suburban/satellite, market town or rural village). Three key themes and consequences emerge for those living in nested deprivation in relatively affluent and geographically dispersed contexts: (a) either disconnection from or entrapment within the local economy; (b) social isolation and atomisation; and (c) powerlessness to affect politics. 'Place-based' explanations of rapid and radical changes to political participation in Britain need to take fine-grained geographical distinctions much more seriously. Our study provides evidence that the rising tides in affluent areas are drowning some residents rather than lifting all boats. Where deprivation is dispersed and then nested within mostly affluent constituencies it does not allow for the political mobilisation among communities of interest that is a necessary condition for pluralist representative democracies.
Facchini uses a behavioural approach to analyse the political beliefs of French people, who he believes are ‘more or less incompetent’ in economics. In this article I focus on his premise that the public are incompetent and that therefore their views, such as being opposed to the market in the case of the French people, should be interpreted as ‘perception bias’. Other economists may echo Facchini, claiming that people who voted Leave in the UK and for Trump in the USA did so because their lack of economic knowledge contributed to an ‘anti‐foreign bias’. However, I argue here that the existing empirical research showing that people lack economic knowledge is flawed. Many economists adopt a questionable approach to the interpretation of public knowledge and the evaluation of what knowledge is important.
The everyday economy approach has influenced key members of Labour's economic team, notably Rachel Reeves. One potential benefit of the everyday economy approach is that it advocates changing how voters perceive the economy by making it connect to social and environmental goals. Voters, many of whom feel alienated from the material economy measured by indicators like gross domestic product (GDP) that politicians tend to refer to, might find everyday economic language more appealing. However, analysis of qualitative research on how voters see the economy suggests Labour should be cautious about attempting to replace terms like 'economy' and 'growth' with everyday economy terms like 'liveability'. Instead, the party should fight the Conservatives on economic competence using conventional economic terms.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.