This paper examines how the tension between supranational integration and far-right nationalism shapes everyday working lives, focusing on the transposition of the European Union Work-Life Balance (WLB) Directive. It addresses a critical gap in Industrial Relations scholarship by exploring the role of social dialogue in mediating this geopolitical fault line during transposition. Through a comparative study of Denmark, Hungary and Italy, the paper investigates how specific WLB provisions - such as leave entitlements and flexible working arrangements - were negotiated. It draws on in-depth interviews with social partner representatives, supplemented by civil society perspectives, which indicate that the strength or weakness of national social dialogue determined how the European Union's vision was received. The robustness of the social dialogue process either tempered nationalist populist discourse or, through its weakness, allowed that discourse to successfully subvert the intended policy outcomes. The analysis reveals a fragmented and uneven implementation of the Directive, with outcomes ranging from WLB provisions above minimum standards in Denmark to active policy subversion in Hungary and Italy. By demonstrating how the WLB Directive became a core area for ideological rivalry, this paper confirms the workplace as not a sphere of 'low politics' but an important site of geopolitical struggle.

This critical commentary celebrates the major intellectual advances and evolution of labour geography over the last 25 years, as showcased through the pages of JEG. It also identifies some persistent blind spots, marginalized actors, and vital future directions through which labour geographers (as future authors, reviewers, and editors of JEG) should continue to push the boundaries of economic geography as a field of study through new and evolving engagements with labour.

This paper investigates the geographical implications of the post-COVID surge in remote working across Great Britain, contributing to the literature a new conceptual distinction between fully remote work and 'office-centric' versus 'remote-centric' hybrid roles. Drawing on the UK Labour Force Survey 2022 and 2025, it analyses relationships between different modalities of remote work and residential patterns, internal migration and regional economic disparities. The analysis reveals distinct residential and migration profiles based on the degree of locational flexibility permitted by each form of remote work. Fully remote work is associated with inter-regional migration and a measurable 'rural revival'. Remote-centric hybrid work (>= 50% remote) shows limited expansion into rural locales. In contrast, office-centred hybrid work (<50% remote) remains geographically indistinguishable from traditional on-site employment. Furthermore, remote working has not facilitated living in coastal areas. Across all modes of remote work, we find location patterns continue to mirror traditional core-periphery wage hierarchies, consolidating rather than mitigating existing regional disparities due to the persistent link to high wage areas. Because the most prevalent remote work arrangements - hybrid models - require proximity to the office, they are unlikely to drive a meaningful redistribution of human capital and wealth. Consequently, regional rebalancing strategies should focus on the specific infrastructure required to attract fully remote populations to peripheral regions or pursue alternative forms of structural investment.

Chapter 3 uses Bristol, England as a case study to explore how national austerity measures translate to local realities. Through interviews with city officials and community groups, the chapter examines geographical variations in responses to austerity, highlighting how these variations contribute to the policy’s uneven impact. Focusing on the disadvantaged neighbourhood of Lawrence Hill, the chapter demonstrates how marginalized communities are disproportionately affected by cuts. Furthermore, by comparing the present situation to policies of the past 20 years, the chapter argues that earlier initiatives promoting individual responsibility and community empowerment, while intended to improve lives, ultimately created conditions that facilitated state withdrawal and exacerbated existing challenges for marginalized communities. This historical perspective suggests that neoliberal policies predating austerity may have made these communities more susceptible to the current wave of budget cuts.

Chapter 6 explores the ongoing influence of austerity on society and policy, moving beyond its immediate effects. Building on the book’s analysis, it examines how temporal narratives shape public perceptions and limit political possibilities. The chapter dismantles the notion of a finite retrenchment period, initially envisioned, revealing a more permanent state of austerity. It analyses how governments frame austerity as a crisis response, potentially obfuscating its long-term consequences for life trajectories and social and geographical inequalities. This framing, the chapter argues, serves to deflect electoral punishment for austerity measures. Furthermore, the chapter highlights how recent events like Brexit and the COVID-19 pandemic have reshaped the discourse surrounding austerity in the UK, with pronouncements of austerity’s ‘end’ demonstrably misleading. These pronouncements obscure the reality of continued austerity, fuelling resentment in ‘left-behind places’ where residents face increasingly limited opportunities for advancement. The book’s critical examination of austerity’s narratives and long-term consequences thus provides a compelling rationale for prioritizing alternative policy approaches that invest in social wellbeing and geographical equity. Because the long-term consequences of austerity cannot be permanently obscured, a shift towards alternative approaches becomes increasingly imperative.

Chapter 4 focuses on the unequal impacts of austerity, particularly on women and minority groups. Using the example of welfare reform, the chapter explores how austerity measures like marketization and stricter eligibility requirements disproportionately affect these demographics. This is because women often rely on social services and public sector jobs, both of which are impacted by austerity. The chapter additionally examines how women frequently adapt to these changes by sacrificing basic needs or volunteering in their communities. Drawing on experiences in Bristol, the chapter argues that austerity exacerbates existing social inequalities by placing the burden of care on women and further marginalizing minority groups. By analysing the social and economic impacts of austerity, the chapter reveals how these inequalities become spatially manifest, underscoring how austerity’s impact intersects with factors like gender and race.

This introductory chapter explores the concept of austerity in the context of Britain. Following a decade of austerity measures, the book questions the simplistic view of austerity as solely a means of reducing public spending. Instead, it argues that austerity is deeply rooted in neoliberalism, an ideology that prioritizes market solutions and individual responsibility over government intervention. The chapter examines the historical development of neoliberalism and its impact on the welfare state, particularly through local government. It also highlights the geographical dimensions of austerity, emphasizing how some regions have been disproportionately affected. Finally, the chapter considers the facility to contest austerity, laying the groundwork for a deeper exploration of the policy’s lasting social and political consequences.

This chapter explores the enduring effects of austerity policies on social mobility and life trajectories. Drawing on the concept of spatial opportunity structures – the local resources and services shaping life chances – it argues that austerity measures, particularly cuts to social programmes, dismantle these structures. This dismantling disproportionately impacts disadvantaged communities with already strained resources. Wealthier areas, conversely, possess a greater capacity to maintain these structures, thereby exacerbating geographical disparities. This creates a landscape of uneven opportunity for social mobility and life course development, potentially leading to the intergenerational transmission of (dis)advantage. The chapter concludes by emphasizing how these geographically varied outcomes, interwoven with social hierarchies, are likely to persist without progressive policies. This underscores how austerity’s effects become embedded in individual life courses, potentially reinforcing inequalities across generations and geographical areas.

Chapter 2 examines how austerity goes beyond simple budget cuts. It considers how budget cuts are accompanied by – and support – state restructuring, changing the nature of the state as an institutional ensemble. Building on the work of sociologist Bob Jessop, the chapter approaches the state as a complex set of institutions implementing austerity as a socioeconomic project and considers how the balance of economic and social forces shapes the way austerity is enacted in different places. The chapter then examines the multiple manifestations of austerity, focusing on how budget cuts are connected to state restructuring. This restructuring sees state functions transferred from central government to local authorities and even private entities. By highlighting the differences in the implementation of austerity, the chapter demonstrates that the experience of austerity varies geographically across the UK.

In the aftermath of a decade of austerity measures in Britain, this book offers a critical examination that dismantles simplistic views of austerity as mere fiscal restraint. It argues that austerity is not a temporary phenomenon, but a deeply embedded policy approach rooted in neoliberal ideology. This ideology prioritizes market solutions and individual responsibility over government intervention in the economy and social welfare. The book explores the multifaceted consequences of austerity, demonstrating how it has not only solidified social stratification but also led to lasting reforms that limit the state’s capacity to address inequalities. Furthermore, it reveals how austerity has weakened democratic processes by prioritizing fiscal consolidation over societal needs. Moving beyond documented individual hardships, the book sheds light on a critical aspect: the uneven geographical impacts of austerity. Disadvantaged communities have been disproportionately affected, not just by cuts in social spending, but also by transformations within the welfare state itself, which have entrenched pre-existing social and geographical divides. By examining this, the book aims to contribute to a more nuanced understanding of austerity’s enduring impact on British society, prompting reflection on how to prioritize social wellbeing alongside economic stewardship.

This book reflects on the spatially and socially uneven impacts of austerity and considers its future impacts on individuals, families and areas. In doing so, it offers a new critical analysis of the uneven geographies created by austerity in the post-welfare age.

This paper employs a longitudinal lens to examine the temporal dimensions of urban neighbourhood regeneration. Specifically, it focuses on four neighbourhoods in Bristol, UK, which were subject to the flagship New Deal for Communities programme from 2000 to 2010. By combining past research into the (then) emerging impact of the NDC with data from more recent enquiries into the daily lives and experiences of residents after the programme's end, the paper considers if and how these neighbourhoods were altered and whether the NDC programme continues to have impact beyond its funding period. The aim is not simply to evaluate the programme's success and legacy, but also to reflect on how past policies interact with present and future temporalities. As such, community perspectives of continuity and change are used as a basis for discussion of the ways in which the urban present is assembled. Within this discussion, the impact of the coronavirus emergency and austerity measures on these neighbourhoods is considered. Both crises underline that regeneration is a dynamic and vulnerable process that does not follow a predetermined or linear trajectory. For this reason, the paper emphasises the need to move beyond singular, snapshot inquiries and instead adopt a longitudinal approach that considers developments beyond the immediate and visible outcomes of urban policy.

In our first year as co-editors-in-chief, we reflect on Geoforum’s rich history and its pivotal role in advancing human geography. While the academic publishing landscape has evolved significantly, we remain committed to Geoforum’s core mission: publishing high-quality, interdisciplinary research spanning the breadth of human geography. We are mindful of the challenges confronting academic journals, such as increased competition and reviewer shortages. Nonetheless, by fostering a vibrant community, supporting early-career scholars through the Community Support Fund, and encouraging diverse perspectives, we aim to solidify Geoforum’s position as a leading platform for geographical scholarship.