This comparative examination sheds light on the spatial scope of actors making youth-related claims in mainstream media. Drawing on the “political opportunity structure” approach, our main argument is that the spatial scope of political debates on youth-related issues are driven by institutional arrangements reflecting windows of opportunities for the representation of various youth interests. Methodologically, we draw on “claim-making” analysis of five newspapers for each of the nine countries of the EURYKA project, that is, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Our cross-national exploratory analysis aims to show, (a) how state configuration and youth regime contexts impact on the spatial scope of youth and nonyouth actors, and furthermore, on specific state, civil society, and interest group actors, as well as (b) whether this leads to a new clustering of countries across spatial divides in the age of youth precarity. Cross-national variation is especially considered by looking at how institutional arrangements vary in each country, based on their youth policy regimes, the specific state structure and the impact of recent economic crisis on youth welfare policies.
AndreottiA.MingioneE. (2016). Local welfare systems in Europe and the economic crisis. European Urban and Regional Studies, 23, 252-266.
2.
AstizM. F.WisemanA. W.BakerD. P. (2002). Slouching towards decentralization: Consequences of globalization for curricular control in national education systems. Comparative Education Review, 46, 66-88.
3.
BaczewskaE.CachonM. F.DanielY.SelimosE. D. (2018) Mapping the terrain of strategic politics among social change-oriented youth. Journal of Youth Studies, 21, 288-303. doi: 10.1080/13676261.2017.1366649
BengtssonE.RynerM. (2017). Why no wage solidarity writ large? Swedish trade unionism under conditions of European crisis. In LehndorffS.DribbuschH.SchultenT. (Eds), Rough waters: European trade unions in a time of crises (pp.171-188). Brussels: ETUI.
ChevalierT. (2016). Varieties of youth welfare citizenship: Towards a two-dimension typology. Journal of European Social Policy, 26, 3-19.
8.
CinalliM. (2004). Horizontal networks vs. vertical networks in multi-organisational alliances: A comparative study of the unemployment and asylum issue-Fields in Britain. EurPolCom, Institute of Communication Studies.
9.
CinalliM.El HaririA. (2010). Contentious Opportunities in the field of immigration in France and Italy. In CarmelE.CeramiA.PapadopoulosT. (Eds), Migration and Welfare in the `New’ Europe. Social Protection and the Challenges of Integration. Policy Press: Bristol.
10.
CinalliM.GiugniM. (2010). Welfare states, political opportunities, and the claim-making in the field of unemployment politics. In GiugniM. (Ed.), The contentious politics of unemployment in Europe: Welfare states and political opportunities (pp. 19-42). Houndmills, Basingstoke, England: Palgrave.
11.
CinalliM.GiugniM. (2011). Institutional opportunities, discursive opportunities, and the political participation of migrants. In MoralesL.GiugniM. (Eds.), Multicultural democracy and immigrants’ social capital in Europe (pp. 43-62). Houndmills, Basingstoke, England: Palgrave.
12.
CinalliM.GiugniM. (2013). New challenges for the welfare state: The emergence of youth unemployment regimes in Europe?International Journal of Social Welfare, 22, 290-299.
13.
CinalliM.GiugniM. (2016a). Collective responses to the economic crisis in the public domain: Myth or reality. Politics & Policy, 44, 427-446.
14.
CinalliM.GiugniM. (2016b). Electoral participation of Muslims in Europe: Assessing the impact of institutional and discursive opportunities. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 42, 309-324.
15.
DabrowskiM.BachtlerJ.BafoilF. (2014). Challenges of multi-level governance and partnership: Drawing lessons from European Union cohesion policy. European Urban and Regional Studies, 21, 355-363.
16.
DaviesJ. (2004). Conjuncture or disjuncture? An institutionalist analysis of local regeneration partnerships in the UK. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 28, 570-585.
17.
della PortaD. (2014). Democratization from below: Civil society versus social movements? In BeicheltT.Hahn-FuhrI.SchimmelfennigF.WorschechS. (Eds.), Civil society and democracy promotion (pp. 137-149). London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
18.
Esping-AndersenG. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Oxford, England: Polity Press.
GomółkaK. (2019). The youth in Polish legations and government. Regional Formation and Development Studies, 27(1), 25-35.
24.
HadjivassiliouK.TassinariA.EichhorstW.WoznyF. (2016). Assessing the performance of school-to-work transition regimes in the EU (IZA Discussion Paper No. 10301). Retrieved from http://ftp.iza.org/dp10301.pdf
25.
HermannC. (2014). Structural adjustment and neoliberal convergence in labour markets and welfare: The impact of the crisis and austerity measures on European economic and social models. Competition & Change, 18, 111-113.
26.
JonesK.TraianouA. (2019) Introduction. In TraianouA.JonesK. (eds.) Austerity and the Remaking of European Education, 1-4. Bloomsbury: London.
27.
KazepovY.BarberisE. (2013). Social assistance governance in Europe: Towards a multilevel perspective. In MarxI.NelsonK. (Eds.), Minimum income protection in flux (pp. 217-248). London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
28.
LahusenC.KousisM.KiessJ.PaschouM. (2016). Political claims and discourse formations: A comparative account on Germany and Greece in the Eurozone crisis. Politics & Policy, 44, 525-552.
29.
LehndorffS.DribbuschH.SchultenT. (Eds.). (2017). Rough waters: European trade unions in a time of crises. European Trade Union Institute.
30.
LoughlinJ. (2008). Federalism, regionalism and local government: Comparative perspectives on transforming the nation-state. European Political Science, 7, 472-482.
31.
McAdamD.TarrowS. (2018). The political context of social movements. In SnowD. A.SouleS. A.KriesiH.McCammonH. J. (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell companion to social movements (pp. 17-42). New York, NY: John Wiley.
32.
MejiasS.BanajiS. (2018): Backed into a corner: Challenging media and policy representations of youth citizenship in the UK. Information, Communication & Society, 22, 1714-1732. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2018.1450436
33.
MeuthM.WarthA.WaltherA. (2014). No crisis but a paradigm shift? German youth policy between continuity and change. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 19, 79-92. doi:10.1080/02673843.2013.813860
34.
MichalskiA. (2012). Social welfare and levels of democratic government in the EU. Journal of European Integration, 34, 397-418. doi:10.1080/07036337.2011.638066
35.
NormanL.UbaK.TempleL. (2015). Austerity measures across Europe. In FosterI.BruntonA.DeemingC.HauxT. (Eds.), In defense of welfare 2 (pp. 55-59). London, England: Social Policy Association.
PickardS. (2014). French youth policy in an age of austerity: Plus ça change?International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 19(Suppl. 1), 48-61. doi:10.1080/02673843.2013.863732
38.
RobertsonS. L. (2011). The new spatial politics of (re)bordering and (re)ordering the state-education-citizen relation. International Review of Education, 57, 277-297. doi:10.1007/s11159-011-9216-x
39.
SchildtA.SiegfriedD. (Eds.). (2016). European cities, youth and the public sphere in the twentieth century. New York, NY: Routledge.
40.
SchmidtW.MüllerA.Ramos-VielbaI.ThörnquistA.ThörnqvistC. (2019). Austerity and public sector trade union power: Before and after the crisis. European Journal of Industrial Relations, 25(2), 129-145.
41.
SelbyJ. (2019). Labour in need of revolutionary vision. Labour: Journal of Canadian Labour Studies/Le Travail: revue d’Études Ouvrières Canadiennes, 83, 233-246.
42.
SommerM. (2019). Blame-shifting in times of permanent austerity: Evidence from Spain and Greece in the Eurozone Crisis. Advance online publication. Journal of Common Market Studies. doi:10.1111/jcms.12926
43.
SwendenW. (2006). Federalism and regionalism in Western Europe: A comparative and thematic analysis. Hampshire, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
TillyC. (2005). An opportunity to speak. In KousisM.TillyC. (Eds.), Economic and political contention in comparative perspective (pp. 226-230). New York, NY: Routledge.
46.
UbaK.KousisM. (2018). Constituency groups of alternative action organizations during hard times: A comparison at the solidarity orientation and country levels. American Behavioral Scientist, 62, 816-836.
47.
VandaeleK. (2019). How can trade unions in Europe connect with young workers? In O’ReillyJ.LeschkeJ.OrtliebR.Seeleib-KaiserM.VillaP. (Eds.), Youth labor in transition (pp. 660-688). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
48.
VogelJ. (2002). European welfare regimes and the transition to adulthood: A comparative and longitudinal perspective. Social Indicators Research, 59, 275-299.
49.
WallaceC.BenditR. (2009). Youth policies in Europe: Towards a classification of different tendencies in youth policies in the European Union. Perspectives on European Politics and Society, 10, 441-458.
50.
WaltherA. (2006). Regimes of youth transitions: Choice, flexibility and security in young people’s experiences across different European contexts. Young, 14, 119-139.
51.
WeissertC. S.UttermarkM. J. (2017). Glass half full: Decentralization in health policy. State and Local Government Review, 49, 199-214.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
