Progressive cities: Urban–rural polarisation of social values and economic development around the world

Abstract

In contrast to the conservative values of rural populations, cities are often seen as bulwarks of more tolerant, liberal and progressive values. This urban–rural divide in values has become one of the major fault lines in Western democracies, underpinning major political events of the last decade, not least the election of Donald Trump. Yet, beyond a small number of countries, there is little evidence that cities really are more liberal than rural areas. Evolutionary modernisation theory suggests that socio-economic development may lead to the spread of progressive, self-expression values but provides little guidance on the role of cities in this process. Has an urban–rural split in values developed across the world? And does this gap depend on the economic development of a country? We answer these questions using a large cross-sectional dataset covering 66 countries. Despite the inherent challenges in identifying and operationalising a globally-consistent definition of what is ‘urban’, we show that there are marked and significant urban–rural differences in progressive values, defined as tolerant attitudes to immigration, gender rights and family life. These differences exist even when controlling for observable compositional effects, suggesting that cities do play a role in the spread of progressive values. Yet, these results only apply at higher levels of economic development suggesting that, for cities to leave behind rural areas in terms of liberal values, the satisfying of certain material needs is a prerequisite.

Electoral Dynamics, Nationalist Ideology, and Party Positions on Syrian Refugees in Turkey

“…We maintain that urbanization leads to the rise of contradictory forms of nationalism in cities: civic-liberal and ethnic-nativist, thereby affecting the strategies of nationalist parties' elites. On the one hand, it leads to more liberal and secular values due to better access to education, higher economic prospects, and exposure to diversity (Wilkinson 2019, andLuca et al 2023). On the other hand, it motivates nativist and nationalist attitudes toward immigrants and refugees due to economic competition, cultural differentiation, and political polarization.…”

The Development of the Urban-Rural Cleavage in Anglo-American Democracies

“…Social and economic milieux and localized patterns of social interaction, institutions and rules, social identities, and cultural schemas shape the political preferences of the people who live there. Considerable recent research has shown that such place effects are an important component of contemporary urban-rural divides in the United States and elsewhere (Cantoni & Pons, 2022;Huijsmans et al, 2021;Luca et al, 2023;Martin & Webster, 2020). As Gimpel et al (2020) have argued:…”

Exploring the Relationship between the Dynamics of the Urban–Rural Interface and Regional Development in a Post-Socialist Transition

“…Hiner [21], as a synthesis of the above, considers that the rural-urban interface has two categories of elements, as follows: the first represents the place with all its characteristics, while the second is the social-political environment. In addition to these, the new cleavage that appeared between urban and rural, in relation to the tolerance towards the progressive values promoted by the city [22], calls for a permanent update of urban and regional development policies.…”