Personal Schedule
Change Preferences / Time Zone
Sign In
Search
Browse By Day
Browse By Time
Browse By Person
Browse By Mini-Conference
Browse By Division
Browse By Session or Event Type
Browse Sessions by Fields of Interest
Browse Papers by Fields of Interest
Search Tips
Location
About APSA
Bluesky
X (Twitter)
Rurality, isolation, and remoteness are core concepts in comparative politics broadly and, especially, in comparative health politics. Yet, these are slippery concepts which can be described by a number of features including population density, proximity to a population center, connectedness via roads or railway, and accessibility to key infrastructure like hospitals. Without clear definitions and consensus on the dimensions of these concepts, comparing countries using geographic variables can be difficult. This review attempts to synthesize existing conceptualizations of the geographic variables “rural”, “remote”, and “isolated” within comparative health politics literature. The paper offers a perspective on how to effectively wield the terms “rural”, “remote”, and “isolated” as variables when comparing Western democracies and challenges researchers to consider multiple dimensions of these terms in future work.