This thesis investigates an apparent paradox in contemporary urban policy in large European cities: the rise of transnational co-operation between city administrations at the same time as they engage in urban entrepreneurialism - the pursuit of growth policies driven by the perceived imperative of inter city competition. The thesis explores this development in two ways. First, by examining how and why this co-operation is undertaken in major cities, and the factors that shape this involvement. Second, by exploring the implications for wider relations between European cities and particularly the dynamics of urban competition at the transnational scale. These questions are approached through a multi-disciplinary framework that adopts a city-based perspective and is applied through a comparative case study analysis of Munich, Lille and Birmingham. The evidence highlights the important role that national contexts, local political cultures, economic circumstances and spatial considerations play in influencing the form and rationale of co-operation undertaken in these cities. It is evident that cooperation as adopted by city administrations does support entrepreneurial strategies and policies that are underpinned by competitive motivations. However, the nature of this support suggests that it is contributing to a more sustainable, less destructive form of urban competition. It is argued that co-operation can be seen as part of a collective ambition to "grow the market" for major cities in term of economic and related terms. In some respects, this may be associated with new dimensions of territorial competition between large cities and other types of places in Europe. Overall, the research suggests that relations between Europe's major cities, including inter-city competition, are more complex than is often portrayed, and that this is reflected in aspects of urban policy in these places. The thesis findings point to future avenues of research linking the territorial development of the European Union, transnational urban relations and the direction and form of urban policy undertaken by decision-makers in Europe's large cities.

The thesis explores the interplay between hegemonic discourses and domestic institutional arrangements. The purpose of the study is twofold. First, to use primary and comparative material in order to shed light on what is a hegemonic discourse, what it does, and how it does it. Second, to examine the role of different political economies and different domestic structures and institutional arrangements in the dissemination and materialisation of hegemonic discourses. To do so the thesis develops a theoretical framework, a 'hegemonic-discourse-communication model', that allows the questions about the nature and the function of hegemonic discourses to be addressed in the framework of comparative institutional analysis. For the purposes of the above research globalisation is taken as an instance of a hegemonic discourse, and Greece and Ireland are selected as countries belonging to different models of political economy (the Mediterranean/Continental and the Anglo- Saxon models respectively). Within this framework the thesis scrutinises the impact that globalisation had on the discourses and policies of key institutional actors, such as political parties, workers' unions, employers' associations, the press and the church, in the two countries, during the 1990s. The thesis concludes that understanding and studying hegemonic discourses entails moving beyond the general categories of models of political economy and institutional arrangements to case and spatiotemporally specific characteristics that affect the dynamics between the 'hegemonic' and the 'publics' of the 'international'. Furthermore, the thesis suggests and evaluates the potentials of a Hegemonic Discourse Approach (HDA) in the study of change and continuity in world politics and economics.

The Introduction – together with the conclusion – provides a framework for the three substantial contributions of this PhD project. It begins with sketching a puzzle that motivates research on the political economy of structural reforms in Europe, namely the inconsistency between the commitment of governments to reform and the actual reform track record across the countries. It discusses the nature and findings of the relevant multidisciplinary political economy literature. Paper One addresses the puzzle why the first major post-war overhaul of the German political economy – the ‘Agenda 2010’ reforms – was undertaken in 2003 by a social-democratic government and not by any of the conservative governments that preceded it. It finds that the lack of government cohesion, the federal legislative system and corporatist structures remain important determinants for institutional stability and change in Germany. Paper Two develops a theoretical argument as to why corporatist European economies may live through extended periods of economic underperformance without significant reform. Building on this argument, it presents a formal model, from which it derives a set of determinants for structural reforms, and finally illustrates these by exploring the causes for reform in Germany and Sweden. Paper Three uses a new database on labour market reform to show that corporatist structures have an intermediating effect on the determinants of structural reform policies. It finds evidence that the interests of employer organisations and trade unions matter for the labour market reform trajectories in countries with corporatist features. Political partisanship and economic crises matter more in pluralist countries. Finally, the Conclusion summarises the findings of the three papers. Subsequently, it outlines the limitations and draws up some wider implications for the theories of institutional change and for public policymaking.

Since the beginning of the economic and financial crisis of 2007/8 national-level contextual factors matter in different ways for individuals in EU member states when assessing support for the EU. Individuals hypothesise that EU member states economic affluence and quality of governance creates the salience of issues. This influences the criteria adopted by them when determining attitudinal factors towards the EU. When applied to individuals in less affluent EU member states individuals evaluate the EU on the basis of economic prospects, while in more affluent EU member states individuals rely on political criteria to evaluate the EU. In the least affluent EU member states individuals generalise their perceptions of national and personal economic conditions to the EU level believing that the EU does not represent their economic interests. In the most affluent EU member states individuals are equally critical of the EU but centre their judgements on the comparative quality of national governments and EU institutions. For individuals the assumption remains that further EU expansion implies continued market liberalisation. However since the beginning of the economic and financial crisis what individuals regard as excessive inequality may have little to do with inequality per se but whether the liberal-market economy as a whole provides high living standards and dynamic economic development. Inequality as a macro-political and economic determinant bridges the gap between economic and political systems at the national and EU level. Using data from European Election Study (EES) 2009 and Standard Eurobarometer data from 2009-2013 this inquiry examines individual-level effects on perceptions of inequality and how this plays a significant role when analysing mass public opinion support for the EU. By using a Binary Logit Regression model, Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) Multiple Regression analysis and Hierarchical Linear Modelling (HLM) the analysis demonstrates two predominant findings. Firstly, individuals believe that the EU has a positive role to play in addressing inequality since the onset of the economic crisis. Secondly, the role to be played by the EU in addressing inequality supersedes that of the EU member states’ governments and reinforces support for the European integration project. Overall, this demonstrates that individuals in the EU believe that the EU is best placed to address market-generated inequality since the onset of the economic and financial crisis of 2007/8 and as a result this produces increased support for the EU. These findings demonstrate a strong case for the inclusion of inequality as a determinant of mass public opinion support for the EU since the economic and financial crisis began in 2007/8.

Konjunktur nimmt wieder Fahrt auf

Konjunkturbericht Sachsen Sächsische Wirtschaft wieder mit optimistischer Geschäftserwartung

Konjunkturbericht Sachsen Industrie und Dienstleistungen bringen sächsische Konjunktur in Schwung

Konjunkturbericht Sachsen Konjunkturbelebung gewinnt an wirtschaftlicher Breite Unternehmen auch für die zweite Jahreshälfte zuversichtlich

Konjunkturbericht Sachsen Sächsische Wirtschaft mit kräftigem Wachstum

Konjunkturbericht Sachsen Konjunktur bleibt robust