Understanding UK farmers’ Brexit voting decision
A behavioural approach
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12092767 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Daniel May (0000-0002-4749-3637), Daniel E May (0000-0002-4269-5459, Harper Adams University, corresponding author), Sara Arancibia (Diego Portales University), Louise Manning (0000-0002-9900-7303, Royal Agricultural University) |
| Year | 2020 |
| Volume | 81 |
| Pages | 281-293 |
| Publication date | 2020-11-05 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Rural Studies (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0743-0167 • E-ISSN: 1873-1392 |
| Publisher | Elsevier BV (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.10.042 |
| OpenAlex | W3094974350 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 7 |
| References cited | 36 |
In spite of the potential negative effects that Brexit could bring to the United Kingdom (UK), the majority of the electorate voted to leave the European Union (EU). As a result of this paradoxical choice, a number of studies have been developed to understand the factors that triggered this voting decision. Most of them take into account factors related to immigration from East Europe, national identity, and sovereignty recovering, among others. However, these factors do not seem to reflect the reasons behind farmers' Brexit voting choice. Using a behavioural approach based on the theory of planned behaviour, the aim of the study was to contribute to the body of literature by undertaking an indicative study of UK farmers' Brexit voting decisions. The study found that for the sample group, voting choice was strongly influenced by farmers’ perceptions about EU legislation, their attitudes towards the EU, their perceived capacity to control factors that impact on the farm performance, their sense of self and their notions of autonomy within the confines of prescriptive agricultural policy and the influence of their social relationships
Autonomy · Brexit · Economics · European union · International trade · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Public economics · Sample (material · Voting · Agricultural Innovations and Practices · Agricultural risk and resilience · Law
The Brexit trajectory
The out-migration of young people from a region of the “Empty Spain”
Farmers’ perceived effect of the Covid-19 pandemic and its relationship to preparedness and risk perception
Examining the connection between resourcefulness and resilience
Quitter la PAC, comment et pour quoi faire
Transforming the food system
The Role of Personality Traits, Cooperative Behaviour and Trust in Governments on the Brexit Referendum Outcome
Who voted for Brexit? Individual and regional data combined
PLS path modeling
Mirror, mirror on the wall
The Relationship between the Brexit Vote and Individual Predictors of Prejudice
From Intentions to Actions
Using PLS path modeling in new technology research
Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error
Who voted for Brexit? A comprehensive district-level analysis
Facts or Feelings, Facts and Feelings? The Post‐Democracy Narrative in the Brexit Debate
Immobility and the Brexit vote
Brexit and the relevance of regional personality traits
How Brexit was made in England
Consequences of Brexit and options for a 'Global Britain’
UK trade and FDI
Brexit as a scandal
Farmer autonomy and the farming self
Applying partial least squares to model genetically modified food purchase intentions in southern Spain consumers
Preventing young farmers from leaving the farm
Identifying beliefs underlying successors’ intention to take over the farm
The mismatch between local voting and the local economic consequences of Brexit
Brexit
Political Psychology of European Integration
Why Britain Voted for Brexit
The Brexit vote
Sampling and Estimation in Hidden Populations Using Respondent-Driven Sampling
Neoliberal natures on the farm
Brexit
Psychological and Behavioral Predictors of Rural In-migration
| Unique citing works | 7 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1,4 |
| Citation span | 2021 - 2026 (6) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 7 |