Who Voted for Brexit? A Comprehensive District-Level Analysis

Abstract

On 23 June 2016, the British electorate voted to leave the European Union. We analyse vote and turnout shares across 380 local authority areas in the United Kingdom. We find that exposure to the EU in terms of immigration and trade provides relatively little explanatory power for the referendum vote. Instead, we find that fundamental characteristics of the voting population were key drivers of the Vote Leave share, in particular their education profiles, their historical dependence on manufacturing employment as well as low income and high unemployment. At the much finer level of wards within cities, we find that areas with deprivation in terms of education, income and employment were more likely to vote Leave. Our results indicate that a higher turnout of younger voters, who were more likely to vote Remain, would not have overturned the referendum result.

Urbanisation and the shifting conditions of the state as a territorial‐political community: A study of the geographies of political efficacy

“…In this section, we empirically examine the association between political efficacy and certain regional factors commonly used in studies on the geographies of discontent (Becker et al, 2017; Dijkstra et al, 2019). These explanatory factors describe the macroeconomic characteristics of a region (regional GDP relative to national GDP; change in relative regional GDP from 2008 to 2016; share of manufacturing sector) and the demographic conditions of a region (population density and population change from 2008 to 2016).…”

“…Second, the existing literature on “geographies of discontent” has already produced a rich body of evidence on the regional characteristics associated with the largest proportion of populist votes (Becker et al, 2017; Dijkstra et al, 2019). However, the studies have not thoroughly examined the important subjective sentiments that drive voter decisions: the decay of political agency and a sense of not having a voice in political procedures or political efficacy (Shore, 2020).…”

“The grass is greener on the other side”: The relationship between the Brexit referendum results and spatial inequalities at the local level

“…This alternative perspective claims that variables accounting for the economic conditions of citizens and the economic geography of UK regions are at least as important as culture and identity in determining individual attitudes towards the EU and voting patterns in the 2016 referendum (Crescenzi et al, 2017). Indeed, empirical analyses performing comprehensive investigations of the Brexit vote and considering not only demographic and political variables but also proxy variables for local economic structure and “economic exposure” to the rest of the European Union all seem to suggest that economic factors played a significant role (see Arnorrsson & Zoega, 2016; Becker et al, 2017; or Hobolt, 2016). Additionally, Darvas (2016) claims that wage inequality and poverty were two crucial drivers of Brexit.…”

“…Clarke et al (2016) show how labour market conditions are crucial in conditioning voters' choices. Higher employment levels are associated with a lower propensity to vote Leave, suggesting that unemployed people were more prone to support Brexit than those with safe salaries and jobs (see Becker et al, 2017 or Alabrese et al, 2019; Clarke et al, 2017; Goodwin & Heath, 2016; Goodwin & Milazzo, 2017). Los et al (2017, p. 788) summarize the conclusions of the empirical work to date, stating that econometric studies “all suggest that local economic conditions were the single most important factor driving the pattern of voting, interacting with the characteristics of the individuals making up that locality.” Harris and Charlton (2017, p. 2127) read the general context very well: “Ultimately, the story is perhaps less about the EU itself but one of industrial decline and growing social and economic inequality, overlapping with nationalism and political beliefs.”…”

Economic shocks and clinging

“…As tides of populism have recently risen in various parts of the world, discussions of how globalization, both in terms of trade and immigration, might have led to such changes in political and social trends have become more prevalent. 5 Studies show that the sudden increase in Chinese imports have increased the popularity of the more extreme and nationalistic political parties, policies, and candidates in the US and Western Europe, 6 possibly due to the fact that -as Becker et al (2017), Mayda and Rodrik (2005) and Di Tella and Rodrik (2020) demonstrate -individuals working in import-competing industries are more likely to oppose trade liberalization. Rodrik (2021) summarizes the burgeoning literature on the effects of globalization on populism and outlines a framework for why globalization influences both the supply of populist policies from politicians and the demand for populist policies from citizens, highlighting the various mechanisms at work here.…”