Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T12:19:30.540Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Measuring the Rural Continuum in Political Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2021

Zoe Nemerever Open the ORCID record for Zoe Nemerever [Opens in a new window]  and
Melissa Rogers Open the ORCID record for Melissa Rogers [Opens in a new window]
Zoe Nemerever*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA. Email: [email protected]
Melissa Rogers
Affiliation:
Division of Politics and Economics, Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, CA, USA. Email: [email protected]
*
Corresponding author Zoe Nemerever
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent accounts of American politics focus heavily on urban–rural gaps in political behavior. Rural politics research is growing but may be stymied by difficulties defining and measuring which Americans qualify as “rural.” We discuss theoretical and empirical challenges to studying rurality. Much existing research has been inattentive to conceptualization and measurement of rural geography. We focus on improving estimation of different notions of rurality and provide a new dataset on urban–rural measurement of U.S. state legislative districts. We scrutinize construct validity and measurement in two studies of rural politics. First, we replicate Flavin and Franko (2020, Political Behavior, 845–864) to demonstrate empirical results may be sensitive to measurement of rural residents. Second, we use Mummolo and Nall’s (2017, The Journal of Politics, 45–59) survey data to show rural self-identification is not well-captured with objective, place-based classifications, suggesting a rethinking of theoretical and empirical accounts of rural identity. We conclude with strategies for operationalizing rurality using readily available tools.

Keywords

measurement validityruralitypolitical geographymodifiable areal unit problem
Type
Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 29 , Issue 3 , July 2021 , pp. 267 - 286
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Edited by Jeff Gill

References

Acharya, A., Blackwell, M., and Sen, M.. 2016. “The Political Legacy of American Slavery.” The Journal of Politics 78(3):621–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, M. M. 1992. “The Fruit of Difference: The Rural–Urban Continuum as a System of Identity 1.” Rural Sociology 57(1):65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broockman, D. E. 2013. “Black Politicians Are More Intrinsically Motivated to Advance Blacks’ Interests: A Field Experiment Manipulating Political Incentives.” American Journal of Political Science 57(3):521–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, A. C., Gelbach, J. B., and Miller, D. L.. 2011. “Robust Inference with Multiway Clustering.” Journal of Business & Economic Statistics 29(2):238–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cho, W. K. T. and Gimpel, J. G.. 2010. “Rough Terrain: Spatial Variation in Campaign Contributing and Volunteerism.” American Journal of Political Science 54(1):74–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cho, W. K. T. and Nicley, E. P.. 2008. Geographic Proximity Versus Institutions: Evaluating Borders as Real Political Boundaries.” American Politics Research 36(6):803–823.Google Scholar
Cramer, K. J. 2016. The Politics of Resentment: Rural Consciousness in Wisconsin and the Rise of Scott Walker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Benedictis-Kessner, J. and Warshaw, C.. 2020. “Politics in Forgotten Governments: The Partisan Composition of County Legislatures and County Fiscal Policies.” The Journal of Politics 82(2):460–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dimick, M., Rueda, D., and Stegmueller, D.. 2016. “The Altruistic Rich? Inequality and Other-Regarding Preferences for Redistribution.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 11(4):385–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flavin, P. and Franko, W. W.. 2020. “Economic Segregation and Unequal Policy Responsiveness.” Political Behavior 42(3):845–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gimpel, J. G. and Schuknecht, J. E.. 2003. “Political Participation and the Accessibility of the Ballot Box.” Political Geography 22(5):471–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gomez, B., Hansford, T. G., and Krause, G. A.. 2007. “The Republicans Should Pray for Rain: Weather, Turnout, and Voting in U.S. Presidential Elections.” The Journal of Politics 69(3):649—488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hersh, E. D. and Nall, C.. 2016. “The Primacy of Race in the Geography of Income-Based Voting: New Evidence from Public Voting Records.” American Journal of Political Science 60(2):289–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, N. F. and Munis, B. K.. 2018. “Place-Based Imagery and Voter Evaluations: Experimental Evidence on the Politics of Place.” Political Research Quarterly 72(2):263–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karp, J. A. and Banducci, S. A.. 2000. “Going Postal: How All-Mail Elections Influence Turnout.” Political Behavior 22(3):223–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kwan, M.-P. 2012. “The Uncertain Geographic Context Problem.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 102(5):958–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacombe, M. J. 2019. “The Political Weaponization of Gun Owners: The National Rifle Association’s Cultivation, Dissemination, and Use of a Group Social Identity.” The Journal of Politics 81(4):1342–1356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, D. W. and Rogers, M.. 2019. “Measuring Geographic Distribution for Political Research.” Political Analysis 27(3):263–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, D. W., Rogers, M., and Soifer, H.. 2019. “MAUP in Political Science.” Technical report.Google Scholar
Monogan, J. E. and Gill, J.. 2016. “Measuring State and District Ideology with Spatial Realignment.” Political Science Research and Methods 4(1):97–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrill, R., Knopp, L., and Brown, M.. 2007. “Anomalies in Red and Blue: Exceptionalism in American Electoral Geography.” Political Geography 26(5):525–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mummolo, J. and Nall, C.. 2017. “Why Partisans Do Not Sort: The Constraints on Political Segregation.” The Journal of Politics 79(1):45–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nall, C. 2015. “The Political Consequences of Spatial Policies: How Interstate Highways Facilitated Geographic Polarization.” The Journal of Politics 77(2):394–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nemerever, Z. 2019. “Contentious Federalism: Sheriffs, State Legislatures, and Political Violence in the American West.” Political Behavior:1–24.Google Scholar
Nemerever, Z. and Rogers, M.. 2020a. “Measuring the Rural Continuum in Political Science.” Code Ocean, V1.Google Scholar
Nemerever, Z. and Rogers, M.. 2020b. “Replication Data for: Measuring the Rural Continuum in Political Science”, https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/EACMTV, Harvard Dataverse, V1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Office of Management and Budget. 2010. “2010 Standards for Delineating Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas.” Federal Register 75(123):37246.Google Scholar
Parker, C. S. 2009. “When Politics Becomes Protest: Black Veterans and Political Activism in the Postwar South.” The Journal of Politics 71(1):113–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Primo, D. M. and Snyder, J. M. Jr. 2010. “Party Strength, The Personal Vote, and Government Spending.” American Journal of Political Science 54(2):354–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodden, J. A. 2019. Why Cities Lose: The Deep Roots of the Urban–Rural Political Divide. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Scala, D. J. and Johnson, K. M.. 2017. “Political Polarization Along the Rural–Urban Continuum? The Geography of the Presidential Vote, 2000–2016.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 672(1):162–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scala, D. J., Johnson, K. M., and Rogers, L. T.. 2015. “Red Rural, Blue Rural? Presidential Voting Patterns in a Changing Rural America.” Political Geography 48:108–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soifer, H. D. and Alvarez, A. M.. 2017. “Choosing Units of Analysis in Subnational Research: The Modifiable Areal Unit Problem and the Study of Local Violence During Civil War.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association (APSA), San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
Tausanovith, C., and Warshaw, C.. 2013. “Measuring Constituent Policy Preferences in Congress, State Legislatures, and Cities.” The Journal of Politics 75(2):330–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urban, C. and Niebler, S.. 2014. “Dollars on the Sidewalk: Should US Presidential Candidates Advertise in Uncontested States?” American Journal of Political Science 58(2):322–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warshaw, C. and Rodden, J.. 2012. “How Should We Measure District-Level Public Opinion on Individual Issues?” The Journal of Politics 74(1):203–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong, C., Bowers, J., Williams, T., and Simmons, K. D.. 2012. “Bringing the Person Back in: Boundaries, Perceptions, and the Measurement of Racial Context.” The Journal of Politics 74(4):1153–1170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong, D. 2009. “The Modifiable Areal Unit Problem (MAUP).” In The SAGE Handbook of Spatial Analysis, edited by Fotheringham, A. S. and Rogerson, P. A., 105–124. London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Nemerever and Rogers Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/EACMTV
Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Nemerever and Rogers supplementary material

Nemerever and Rogers supplementary material 1

Download Nemerever and Rogers supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 53 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Nemerever and Rogers supplementary material

Nemerever and Rogers supplementary material 2

Download Nemerever and Rogers supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 402.8 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Nemerever and Rogers supplementary material

Nemerever and Rogers supplementary material 3

Download Nemerever and Rogers supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 50.6 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Nemerever and Rogers supplementary material

Nemerever and Rogers supplementary material 4

Download Nemerever and Rogers supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 101.5 KB