Diese Open-Access-Publikation untersucht die Akzeptanz der sächsischen Bevölkerung gegenüber Energie- und Rohstoffvorhaben sowie die Eignung von Kommunikationsmaßnahmen zur Verbesserung des Akzeptanzniveaus. Die Bürger:innen werden erstmals repräsentativ zu ihrer (In-)Akzeptanz gegenüber Anlagearten befragt. Dabei wird nachgewiesen, dass die Akzeptanz bei lokalen Projekten immer geringer ist als soziopolitisch. Bei den erneuerbaren Energieumwandlungsanlagen ist die Akzeptanz gegenüber Wasserkraft- und Solaranlagen am höchsten, gegenüber Biomasseanlagen am geringsten. Fossile Energieumwandlungsanlagen sind weniger akzeptiert und Tage- und Untertagebaue werden am schlechtesten bewertet. Eine vergleichende Befragung der Unternehmensvertreter:innen des Energie- und Rohstoffsektors ergibt eine Dissonanz der von ihnen angenommenen zur erfassten (In-)Akzeptanz der Bevölkerung: Das Akzeptanzniveau ist unabhängig von der Art des Vorhabens geringer, als es die Unternehmensvertreter:innen annehmen. Die Erkenntnisse werden genutzt, um eine Webapplikation zu entwickeln, die es insbesondere kleinen und mittleren Unternehmen ermöglicht, zur Akzeptanzsteigerung geeignete Kommunikationsmaßnahmen auszuwählen.

Stefanie Walter examines the visibility of European Union citizens in the mass mediated European public sphere and argues that it can help facilitate an exchange between decision-makers and ordinary citizens. The results show that in comparison to other actor groups, such as political parties or civil society organisations, the visibility of European Union citizens is not marginal. Yet, the image of the European Union citizenry that becomes visible via the news media remains nationally entrenched and references to a truly European citizenry are rare. The study also uses multilevel regressions to explain the visibility of European Union citizens in the news coverage. The empirical analyses are based on a large-scale content analysis of TV news and newspaper articles of the 2009 European Parliament election.p>

This is an open access title available under the terms of a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licence. It is free to read at Oxford Academic and offered as a free PDF download from OUP and selected open access locations. Why was the Eurozone crisis so difficult to resolve? Why was it resolved in a manner in which some countries bore a much larger share of the pain than other countries? Why did no country leave the Eurozone rather than implement unprecedented austerity? Who supported and opposed the different policy options in the crisis domestically, and how did the distributive struggles among these groups shape crisis politics? Building on macro-level statistical data, original survey data from interest groups, and qualitative comparative case studies, this book argues and shows that the answers to these questions revolve around distributive struggles about how the costs of the Eurozone crisis should be divided among countries, and within countries, among different socioeconomic groups. Together with divergent but strongly held ideas about the 'right way' to conduct economic policy and asymmetries in the distribution of power among actors, severe distributive concerns of important actors lie at the root of the difficulties of resolving the Eurozone crisis as well as the difficulties to substantially reform EMU. The book provides new insights into the politics of the Eurozone crisis by emphasizing three perspectives that have received scant attention in existing research: a comparative perspective on the Eurozone crisis by systematically comparing it to previous financial crises, an analysis of the whole range of policy options, including the ones not chosen, and a unified framework that examines crisis politics not just in deficit-debtor, but also in surplus-creditor countries.

When are policy makers willing to make costly adjustments to their macroeconomic policies to mitigate balance-of-payments problems? Which types of adjustment strategies do they choose? Under what circumstances do they delay reform, and when are such delays likely to result in financial crises? To answer these questions, this book examines how macroeconomic policy adjustments affect individual voters in financially open economies and argues that the anticipation of these distributional effects influences policy makers' decisions about the timing and the type of reform. Empirically, the book combines analyses of cross-national survey data of voters' and firms' policy evaluations with comparative case studies of national policy responses to the Asian financial crisis of 1997/8 and the recent global financial crisis in Eastern Europe. The book shows that variation in policy makers' willingness to implement reform can be traced back to differences in the vulnerability profiles of their countries' electorates.

When are policy makers willing to make costly adjustments to their macroeconomic policies to mitigate balance-of-payments problems? Which types of adjustment strategies do they choose? Under what circumstances do they delay reform, and when are such delays likely to result in financial crises? To answer these questions, this book examines how macroeconomic policy adjustments affect individual voters in financially open economies and argues that the anticipation of these distributional effects influences policy makers' decisions about the timing and the type of reform. Empirically, the book combines analyses of cross-national survey data of voters' and firms' policy evaluations with comparative case studies of national policy responses to the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997/8 and the recent Global Financial Crisis in Eastern Europe. The book shows that variation in policy makers' willingness to implement reform can be traced back to differences in the vulnerability profiles of their countries' electorates.