This comparative examination sheds light on the spatial scope of actors making youth-related claims in
mainstream media. Drawing upon 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 upon ‘claim-making’ analysis of five newspapers for each of the nine countries of the EURYKA
project, i.e. France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and 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.
(EL)
This comparative examination sheds light on the spatial scope of actors making youth-related claims in
mainstream media. Drawing upon 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 upon ‘claim-making’ analysis of five newspapers for each of the nine countries of the EURYKA
project, i.e. France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and 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.
(EN)
