Among the partner countries that have a youth guarantee in place, the ‘Pact for a Youth-Unemployment-Free Zone’ in the Mid-Brabant region in the Netherlands is an example from which policy practitioners can draw inspiration as to the governance and delivery of interventions for STW transitions.
Innovative interventions
The innovative interventions examined imply significant changes in terms of policy formulation, policy content and governance. In countries with a higher inclination to inertia (see previous entry), the EU initiative for a Youth Guarantee and the European Alliance for Apprenticeship have fostered more or less structured networks and multi-agent partnerships that are conducive to (small-scale) experimentation and innovation, in specific localities and or policy sectors. Examples are the ‘National Project Community Centres’ in Slovakia targeted at disadvantaged Roma youth, or the piloting of dual VET in the automotive and tourism sectors in Slovakia and Greece, respectively. This effect is clearly stronger in some regions/localities in Belgium and Spain. Yet a systematic transfer of knowledge to other levels of government is limited in all these countries. Particularly in Greece, Spain and Slovakia, change and innovation are closely conditioned by the aims of EU programmes incorporated into the funding conditionalities of the European Social Fund (ESF) and other EU financial instruments. These can change the domestic opportunity structure.
In France, EU influence played a significant role in the past in the establishment of the Second Chance schools. Still, these schools exemplify a significant innovation in VET governance and policy tools. They epitomize a local/regional network-type mobilisation of relevant actors and a shift from the mainstream qualification-based approach to the acquisition of competences in a flexible learning process following the student’s progress.
Lessons drawn constitute major pathways of policy change and innovation in the other three countries with a more proactive inclination: In the UK, lessons are drawn (in a fragmented way) from previous domestic experience. In Denmark, policy learning takes place through a systematic interaction and feedback between different levels of government. And in the Netherlands, inspiration, emulation and adaptation of practices developed in other regions of the country constitute the main conduit of innovation diffusion. This is the case of the ‘Pact for a Youth-Unemployment-Free Zone’ in the Mid-Brabant region and of the VET innovative policies in Amsterdam
− both inspired by a partnership-based development model in another region of the country. In the latter two cases, new policy tools include a youth monitor database linking schools, public employment offices and local agencies, and a partnership-based mode of policy governance. The VET initiative also embeds vocational training in an integrated system of service provision embracing health, housing, family conditions and labour market integration.
What do the case studies tell us about policy learning?
In a nutshell, in all countries (with the exception of Turkey), we find the commitment to the youth guarantee linked to attempts at strengthening the dual vocational training
Youth employment
system, particularly by mobilising employers to play a more active role in it. The employer-driven initiative to set in motion a learning process on matching VET to the skill demands in Denmark, the coalition of stakeholders in the Amsterdam region for placing VET within an integrated system of service provision and adapting it to the skill demands of the 21st century, as well as the Apprenticeship Trailblazers in the UK are all significant examples of a shift in the design, delivery and knowledge content of VET systems. A similar tendency is also present in France (e.g., the Second Chance schools). In Greece, Slovakia and Spain, EU influence has been particularly crucial in creating ‘windows of opportunity’ for local policy entrepreneurs to experiment with novel practices that promote work-based learning. Nonetheless, these remain experiments of a limited range.
The case studies provide evidence of the significance of (more or less) systematic interaction, feedback and diffusion of policy knowledge between all levels of administration as a factor enabling policy learning and innovation. Equally important are partnership- and network-based initiatives at the regional level for policy experimentation (also see Verschraegen et al. 2011). Poor channels of sharing and diffusion of policy knowledge constitute major barriers to policy innovation. Over-centralised administrative structures, fragmentation/overlapping of competences and bureaucratic inertia are among the factors accounting for this.
References
Petmesidou, Maria, and María González Menéndez. 2016. Policy Learning and Innovation Processes.
STYLE Working Paper WP4.2 Policy learning and innovation processes drawing on EU and national policy frameworks on youth – Synthesis Report
Verschraegen Gert, Bart Vanhercke and Rika Verpoorten. 2011. ‘The European Social Fund and Domestic Activation Policies: Europeanization Mechanisms’. Journal of European Social Policy 21 (1): 55-72.
Acknowledgements
The research inputs of the partner institutions that participated in Work Package 4 of the STYLE project are greatly acknowledged. We truly appreciate the contributions by the following colleagues: Martin B.
Carstensen and Christian Lyhne Ibsen (Copenhagen Business School); Kari Hadjivassiliou, Arianna Tassinari, Sam Swift and Anna Fohrbeck (Institute of Employment Studies, United Kingdom); Sonja Bekker, Marc van der Meer and Ruud Muffels (Tilburg University); Mark Smith, Maria Laura Tolado and Vincent Pasquier (Grenoble École de Management); Marcela Veselkova (Slovak Governance Institute);
Elisa Martellucci, Gabriele Marconi and Karolien Lenaerts (Centre for European Policy Studies); and Fatoş Gökşen, Deniz Yükseker, Sinem Kuz and Ibrahim Öker ( ç University). Many thanks go also to our colleagues at Democritus University (Periklis Polyzoidis) and the University of Oviedo (Ana M.
Guillén, Begoña Cueto, Rodolfo Gutiérrez, Javier Mato, and Aroa Tejero) for their valuable help.
What can we learn about policy innovation?
Gender differences in youth labour markets exist across Europe, although with large variations between different countries. In 2015, almost one quarter (23%) of young women aged 20-34 in the EU28 were classified as NEETs (not in employment, education or training), while the corresponding share among young men was 8.1 percentage points lower, at 14.9%. The gender gap was larger among older individuals within this age group: the gender gap in NEET rates was only 1.7 percentage points for 20-24 year olds, but rose to nine points for those aged 25-29 and to 12.8 points for 30-34 year olds (Eurostat 2016).
Although gender differences in labour market outcomes – particularly wages and labour force participation – have been widely investigated, fewer studies have focused on early career patterns or the transition from school to work (see Plantenga, Remery and Samek 2013). It is crucial to understand whether these differences are mainly a result of women’s participation decisions or whether they reflect difficulties that women face on the labour market. A new perspective on the employment outcomes of women and men can improve our knowledge of how gender inequalities emerge and evolve during the early labour market experiences of young Europeans.
A new dynamic approach to youth employment outcomes
Using data that follows individuals over a number of years (in this case, EU-SILC from 2006 to 2012), we can investigate the evolution of gender inequalities. We can identify two phases of young people’s working life: first, their entry into the labour market and then a subsequent phase, around five years after leaving full-time education. For the first phase, we analyse gender differences in the type of monthly employment status trajectories that characterise the transition from school to the first relevant employment experience. For the second phase, we explore gender differences along various dimensions of employment quality, evaluated not at a single point in time but over an extended period. These dimensions of employment quality include employment security, income security, income success and a successful match between education and occupation.
Measuring the quality of school-to-work transitions and employment
We can consider the school-to-work trajectory to be the first three years after leaving full-time education and then identify successful trajectories on the basis of whether a young person gains an employment spell of at least six months (see Berloffa et al.
Gabriella Berloffa, Eleonora Matteazzi, Alina Şandor and Paola Villa