Purpose -Using small-scale cross-border trade and smuggling as an example of an informal practice carried out in many post-socialist countries, the purpose of this paper is to explore which different meanings this activity possesses for the people being involved in it and in how far small-scale cross-border trade is being accepted and looked at by society. The authors hope to show the different connections between informal and formal activities and specificities of localities which people in the mentioned countries deploy when trying to secure their livelihood. Design/methodology/approach -The authors used a qualitative empirical research including group discussions with small-scale traders and small entrepreneurs, expert interviews with representatives of the border authorities and systematic observations at border crossing points and open-air markets at the Finnish-Russian, Polish-Ukrainian, Polish-Belarusian and Ukrainina-Romanian borders. Findings -The paper provides empirical insights about why people carry out smuggling and small-scale trade and how these informal activities are perceived in the local environment. It suggests that informal economic cross-border activities are often highly legitimized despite their illegal character. The border creates certain extra opportunities as it enables arbitrage dealings. Rather as a side effect though, the Schengen visa regime has evoked a decreasing profit margin of transborder economic activities. Therefore, it remains unclear whether the Eastern external EU border will serve as an informal economic resource in the future. Originality/value -Thanks to a multisited qualitative approach to a very sensitive research topic, the paper allows empirical insights into meanings and uses of smuggling and cross-border small-scale trade.

This chapter’s authors conduct a critical review of academic and policy engagements with the concept of territorial cohesion as the guiding principle for the European Union’s regional policies. The authors discuss the limitations of the idea of territorial cohesion and frame some conceptual and more policy-related benefits that could arise from the notion of spatial justice. The authors argue that paying more attention to the academic literature on spatial justice, human capabilities and agency might help to spatialise the European Union’s social model in more effective ways. The authors conclude that applying more plural and long-term conceptions of ‘development’, ‘well-being’ and ‘justice’ could help to formulate regional policies that contribute more directly to the well-being and welfare of people in various parts of Europe.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Based on the project “Discourse and practices in shrinking regions”, we analyse the subjective relevance of derogative discourses using the example of the district of Altenburger Land (Germany). The article combines three aspects: First, it focuses on how young people’s representations of practices of social differentiation are informed by regionalised discourses about and conditions of shrinkage. Second, it identifies two rhetoric strategies by which young people distance themselves from perceived deviance. Finally, it asks how perceptions and rhetoric strategies are connected to desires to out-migrate. We assume that stigmatisation is a powerful means of producing and circulating socio-spatial differentiation, especially under conditions of socio-economic crisis and deprivation. Our principal hypothesis is that socio-spatial stigmatisation is effective (and destructive) in terms of how people perceive themselves within their home region, in relation to other inhabitants and regarding their prospective future plans. In order to address this aspect methodologically, we compose an epistemological framework to grasp how socio-spatial stigmatisation is articulated and circulates in the light of specific socio-economic conditions. Here, we conceptually draw from social psychology and social geography. Our empirical findings, which stem from a series of focus groups, show that – while sharing some widely spread notions about the Altenburger Land – our respondents make use of two rhetoric strategies: They deflect derogative stigmas by, firstly, further specifying these groups in order to distinguish themselves from the stigmatised groups, and, secondly, by localising deviant behaviour within almost uncontested socio-spatial boundaries. Additionally, they construct causal connections between these aspects in order to re-affirm the validity of such stigmas.

No abstract