On the question of “what do we want to change”, one of this edition’s themes, we considered it interesting to take a broader view of the question. Besides discussing what the Cowork4YOUTH team wants to change, as a group or as individuals, it is also useful to take a look at what comes across in academic articles in general concerning youth unemployment.
The following article presents an overview of recent literature concerning the European Youth Guarantee and NEETs. Focusing on 15 publicly available articles/papers/reports published since 2020, the article does not attempt to be exhaustive, but simply to get a “feel” for what the literature on the subject has to say. What are the most commonly cited necessary changes?
It should be noted that the articles reviewed do not all take a European-wide perspective, but many focus on specific countries. Therefore, the observations found in each article are not necessarily generalisable and one should be careful not to assume that each of the categories mentioned below holds true for every European country. Still, this aggregation of various observations should help give a general idea of what is being discussed “out there”.
Issues concerning data
One big category of criticism concerns the data used in conjunction with the youth employment policies. On the one hand, this may concern the quality of the available data: Boeren et. al. (2020) stress the need for longer-term monitoring of specific groups to extract more meaningful data; while Pesquera Alonso et. al. (2021) note possible bias in data due to the collection methods, as well as a lack of analysis of data in favour of simple descriptive presentations. At the same time, Petrescu et. al. (2022), note the lack of disaggregated data that makes it difficult to get information about specific groups (e.g. NEETs in rural areas vs urban ones).
This last observation leads us to another prominent category that concerns data, namely the articles that mention lack of diversified data, especially qualitative and empirical data. Petrescu et. al. (2022), Madoń et. al. (2021) both note this lack and the Youth employment partnerSHIP (2021) policy brief calls for use of pilots and field experiments, as well as regular evaluations. All this discussion of problematic or insufficient data may also be related to complaints about the collaboration between different agencies and the comparability of their data [Petrescu et al (2022), Petrescu et. al. (2021), Boeren et al (2020)].
Reaching and supporting different NEET groups
The lack of quality data (statistical or empirical) is not unrelated to another major strain of criticism, which we tentatively named “lumping NEETs together”. Amendola (2021) calls for more tailored social support policies, similar to the Youth employment partnerSHIP (2021) policy brief that calls for more targeted and flexible interventions, as well as highlighting factors such as gender. Strecker et. al. (2021) notes that there is a disregard for individual differences of NEETs, while Focacci (2020) stresses the need to take into account the social stimuli and incentives of individuals and specific subcultures that may lead to a sense of exclusion.
One of the most commonly mentioned things that need to be changed is the effectiveness of outreach efforts and the need to focus even more on the most difficult-to-reach groups and individuals. There is a feeling that in many cases ALP programmes are content to reach their targets by turning to the easiest to reach NEETs, leaving the most vulnerable out of the picture. Recommendations in this direction can be found in Petrescu et. al. (2022); Petrescu et. al. (2021); Andersson et. al. (2021); Focacci (2020); and Kreko et. al. (2020); while Molina et. al. (2021) also emphasise the need to better research these marginalised groups.
Broadening the scope
A major criticism of current Active Labour Policies is that, by focusing on skills gaps and personal incentives, they often ignore structural factors such as labour market conditions, legislation, demographic factors etc. In various forms, such concerns are raised by: Jonsson et. al. (2022); Strecker et. al. (2021); Amendola (2021); Molina et. al. (2021); Cabases et. al. (2021). This is closely related to the arguments made for “looking beyond the dichotomy of employment/unemployment” [Molina et. al. (2021)] to include issues such as job precarity [Jonsson et. al. (2022)] and taking a broader approach to youth support (which might include educational support, preventive policies, social care etc) with a more long-term outlook [see Cabases et. al. (2021); Boeren et. al. (2020)].
In the same vein but with an even deeper critique, we have Mäkelä et. al. (2021) and Strecker et. al. (2021). Strecker et. al. (2021) take a critical view of the NEET concept itself, which they see as coming from a deficit perspective that places the burden on the individual, resulting in a stigmatisation. Mäkelä et. al. (2021) provide a critique of Finnish Outreach Youth Work programmes through the lens of psy-disciplines, decrying a system that views youths’ challenging life situations as “individual deficiencies and pathologies requiring interventions promoted by psy-knowledge”.
Conclusions
The most common themes found in the literature reviewed in this article, are:
- Improve the data available regarding the NEET phenomenon (including more use of empirical and qualitative data);
- Not lumping NEETs together and improving efforts to reach out to the most vulnerable and isolated groups and individuals;
- The need to pay more attention to structural factors contributing to the NEET phenomenon, while moving the focus from short-term employment to quality, long-term support, and stability.
One thing is certain: implementation of the European Youth Guarantee is far from uniformly perfect. Of course this is not unexpected of such a complex and relatively recent project. Mistakes are to be expected, but – through evaluation, analysis, and critical assessment- also to be used as stepping stones for improvement.
Jonsson, F., Goicolea, I., Hjelte, J., & Linander, I. (2022), Representing a Fading Welfare System that Is Failing Young People in ‘NEET’ Situations: a WPR Analysis of Swedish Youth Policies, Journal of Applied Youth Studies (2022) 5, 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43151-022-00071-x.
Strecker, T., López, J., & Àngels Cabasés, M. (2021), Examining NEET situations in Spain: Labour Market, Discourses and Policies, Journal of Applied Youth Studies (2021)4:119–134,https://doi.org/10.1007/s43151-021-00048-2.
Petrescu, C., Ellena, A. M., Fernandes-Jesus, M., & Marta, E. (2022), Using Evidence in Policies Addressing Rural NEETs: Common Patterns and Differences in Various EU Countries, Youth & Society 2022, Vol. 54(2S)69S–88S, https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X211056361.
Petrescu, C., Negut, A., & Mihalache, F. (2021), Implementation of the Youth Guarantee Program in Romania, Calitatea Vieții, 32(4), 449–467. https://doi.org/10.46841/RCV.2021.04.07
Madoń, K., Magda, I., Palczyńska, M., & Smoter, M. (2021), What Works for Whom? Youth Labour Market Policy in Poland,IZA DP No. 14793.
Amendola, S. (2021), Trends in rates of NEET (not in education, employment, or training) subgroups among youth aged 15 to 24 in Italy, 2004 – 2019, Journal of Public Health: From Theory to Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-021-01484-3
Molina, O., & Godino, A. (2021), Scars that never heal: dualization and youth employment policies in Spain from the Great Recession to the Corona crisis, Sociologia del Lavoro, 159/2021, pp. 111-132, DOI:10.3280/SL2021-159006.
Andersson, L., & Minas, R. (2021), Reaching without outreaching: A comparative policy study of EU member states policy agenda on youth unemployment, International Journal of Social Welfare; 30:255–265, DOI: 10.1111/ijsw.12470.
Cabasés, M. A., & Úbeda, M. (2021), The Youth Guarantee in Spain: A worrying situation after its implementation, Economics and Sociology, 14(3), 89-104, doi:10.14254/2071-789X.2021/14-3/5.
Focacci, C. N. (2020), “You reap what you sow”: Do active labour market policies always increase job security? Evidence from the Youth Guarantee, European Journal of Law and Economics, 49,373–429, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-020-09654-6
Krekó, J. Molnár, T., & Scharle, A. (2020), Active Labour Market Instruments Targeting Young People and the Youth Guarantee Programme, The Hungarian Labour Market 2019. The Hungarian Labour Market, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies, Budapest, pp. 105-109
Youth employment partnerSHIP (2021), Policy lessons from the evaluation of youth employment policies in Spain, Hungary, Italy and Poland, http://yepartnership.ibs.org.pl/p/policy-lessons-from-the-evaluation-of-youth-employment-policies-in-spain-hungary-italy-and-poland
Pesquera Alonso, C., Muñoz Sánchez, P., & Iniesta Martínez, A. (2021),
Youth Guarantee: Looking for Explanations, Sustainability, 13, 5561.https://doi.org/10.3390/Su1310556
Boeren, E., Mackie, A., & Riddell, S. (2020), Employability pathways for young adults: lived experiences of learners and practitioners in Youth Guarantee programmes. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 39(1), pp. 119-131, doi: 10.1080/02601370.2020.1728405.
Mäkelä, K., Mertanen, K., & Brunila, K. (2021), Outreach youth work and employability in the ethos of vulnerability, Power and Education, Vol. 13(2) 100–115, DOI: 10.1177/17577438211021943.
