IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/bjposi/v52y2022i1p320-338_17.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Who Gets What: The Economy, Relative Gains and Brexit

Author

Listed:
  • Green, Jane
  • Hellwig, Timothy
  • Fieldhouse, Edward

Abstract

There has been a lively debate about the economic and cultural-based drivers of support for populism. This article argues that economic concerns matter, but that they are realized through the relative gains and losses of social groups. Using new survey items in a large representative survey administered in Britain, it shows that citizens' economic assessments of the ethnic minority out-group – in relation to the group's situation 12 months ago and to assessments of the economic conditions of the white British in-group – are a predictor of support for Brexit. The results, which are robust to prior referendum vote, immigration attitudes and cultural sentiment, extend across income groups and national identity strength. Extending the analysis to a comparison of geographic in- and out-groups between local communities and London lends additional support to the argument. The implications of relative group-based economics are important for understanding Brexit and the economic sources of support for populism more broadly.

Suggested Citation

  • Green, Jane & Hellwig, Timothy & Fieldhouse, Edward, 2022. "Who Gets What: The Economy, Relative Gains and Brexit," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 52(1), pages 320-338, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:bjposi:v:52:y:2022:i:1:p:320-338_17
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0007123420000551/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Stephen Drinkwater & Colin Jennings, 2022. "The Brexit referendum and three types of regret," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 193(3), pages 275-291, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:bjposi:v:52:y:2022:i:1:p:320-338_17. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jps .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.