Content uploaded by Claire Denise Wallace
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Claire Denise Wallace on Sep 10, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rpep20
Download by: [University of Aberdeen] Date: 13 February 2017, At: 02:02
Perspectives on European Politics and Society
ISSN: 1570-5854 (Print) 1568-0258 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpep20
Youth Policies in Europe: Towards a Classification
of Different Tendencies in Youth Policies in the
European Union
Claire Wallace & Rene Bendit
To cite this article: Claire Wallace & Rene Bendit (2009) Youth Policies in Europe: Towards a
Classification of Different Tendencies in Youth Policies in the European Union, Perspectives on
European Politics and Society, 10:3, 441-458, DOI: 10.1080/15705850903105868
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15705850903105868
Published online: 28 Sep 2009.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 337
View related articles
Citing articles: 4 View citing articles
Youth Policies in Europe: Towards a
Classification of Different Tendencies in
Youth Policies in the European Union
CLAIRE WALLACE* & RENE BENDIT**
*University of Aberdeen, UK
**German Youth Institute, Munich, Germany
ABSTRACT Drawing upon material from several research projects, this article attempts to
classify youth policies in the European Union according to a variety of dimensions: the
organisation of the youth sector, the target groups for youth policies, the definitions of youth and
the main purposes of youth policies. One problem in undertaking this exercise is that not only are
youth policies highly diverse between countries, but they are also diverse within countries, being
decentralised towards the regional/local level and the voluntary sector in many countries. The
paper goes on to look at aspects of the ‘Europeanisation’ of youth policies.
KEY WORDS: Youth policy, European policy, policy regimes, young people, European
comparison
Youth policy is generally a rather marginal field of social policy at a national level,
and in many countries the idea of youth as an object of social policy is hardly
acknowledged at all. At a European level however youth issues enjoy perhaps a higher
profile through the EU and the Council of Europe than they do in many (but not all)
national contexts. A unit for youth exists as a sub-unit within DG Education and
Culture and youth have been the focus of a number of the calls in the targeted
research framework programmes, which has generated a considerable body of
research over the last 20 years. In this paper we explore this paradox firstly by looking
at the types of youth policies that have emerged in Europe in different national
contexts and then we consider the initiatives in youth policy at a European level.
Although other fields of social policy such as that relating to women, family,
labour market and so on have been well documented in European perspective and
useful classifications of policies and countries drawn up, this has not happened with
respect to youth policies. Since there is little overall grasp of youth policies in
Correspondence Address: Claire Wallace, School of Social Sciences, Edward Wright Building, University
of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, AB24 3QY, UK; Rene Bendit, German Youth Institute, Nockherstr; 2, Munich,
8154, Germany.
Email: Claire.wallace@abdn.ac.uk; bendit@dji.de
Perspectives on European Politics and Society
Vol. 10, No. 3, 441–458, September 2009
ISSN 1570-5854 Print/1568-0258 Online Ó2009 Taylor & Francis
http://www.informaworld.com
DOI: 10.1080/15705850903105868
Europe, we begin with an exploratory descriptive typology in which we try to classify
youth policies along different dimensions to show the similarities and differences
between European regions. This is the first attempt to do so. Even the most recent
books about youth or books claiming to cover youth in Europe, tend to focus only
upon particular countries or upon issues that arise from particular country
perspectives (see for example Bradley & Hoof, 2005; Leccardi & Ruspini, 2006).
There is no real synthesis or approaches to youth and youth policies. One reason is
that youth policies in the European Union are highly variable, being embedded in
different welfare regimes, different traditions of youth policies and different concepts
of youth. Furthermore, there is often no consistent national youth policy because this
field of state regulation is frequently delegated to the local or regional level, depends
heavily upon the activities of the non-government sector (different NGOs, youth
organisations or churches each having their own regulations) or is divided between
different ministries that might themselves have different target groups, concepts and
definitions which are not necessarily consistent with one another. There are also different
actors and institutions involved across Europe. It is therefore no surprise that attempts
to analyse the patterns of youth policies in the same way that has been done for welfare
regimes (Esping-Andersen, 1990; Bonoli, 1997; Korpi & Palme, 1998), labour market
policies (Crompton et al., 1996; Gallie & Paugam, 1999) or family policies (Lewis, 1993;
Hantrais & Letablier, 1996; Pfau-Effinger, 2003) are lacking.
The study carried out by IARD
1
in 2000 as a contribution to the White Paper in
2001 A New Impetus for European Youth (CEC, 2001, p. 681) provides an opportunity
to attempt a first outline analysis of this kind (IARD, 2001). Despite the lack of
detailed information about some member states, enough material was collected to
enable an outline analysis, one from which typologies could be developed. In this
paper we describe the various youth policy regimes, the characteristics and principles
that distinguish them from one another. At the end of the paper we discuss the
Europeanisation of youth policies and the impact that this might have had.
Methods of Research
The paper is based upon a report carried out for the European Commission, DG
Education and Culture in the year 2000 (IARD, 2001). It is based upon reports
written by national youth experts in 18 countries, which includes the then 15 EU
countries (Ireland, the UK, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Luxembourg,
Belgium, the Netherlands, France, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Greece, Italy) plus the
European Economic Area countries (Liechtenstein, Iceland, Norway). National
experts were asked to consider the organisation of youth policies according to a
number of questions set by the co-ordinating committee. The reports themselves are
the property of DG Education and Culture, but the Executive Summary and
comparative report was published on the DG Education and Culture website. Whilst
based upon these reports, this paper reflects the views of the authors and not that of
the Commission or other colleagues involved in writing the reports.
There are a number of problems associated with this methodology. In considering
so many countries, it is sometimes difficult to find the whole picture among a mass of
details (although this is a problem for comparative research more generally). The
reports were written by national correspondents according to a set of questions or
442 C. Wallace & R. Bendit
headings formulated by the authors, which to some extent reflect the organising
principles that we have set out in this paper. The template was revised several times
in iteration with the authors of country reports. However, national reports still
varied substantially since they depended upon the interpretations of the writers as
well as the ‘facts’ of youth policy. In the on-going dialogue between the report
writers and the collators of the reports some anomalies were straightened out, but
even then the interpretation and collation of these reports from 18 countries, which
were more or less detailed on various points, represented a serious challenge. The
results have been widely presented and reported but not written up as an academic
paper until now. The problem of how to carry out comparative policy analysis is an
acute one in the European context and this project was confronted with all the
problems of the comparability of assumptions and cultures that this implies.
One way to address this problem is to create typologies of policy regimes. Hence,
creating a classification or typology of youth policy regimes across Europe can serve a
useful purpose for understanding European policies and societies in comparative
perspective. Typologies should be regarded as a useful heuristic device for
international comparison and not a rigid classification. Rather, we see them in the
spirit of Max Weber’s concept of ideal types. Whilst some countries may fit well and
others less well into categories, we can see this as a loose set of categories based upon
historical and cultural developments that arise out of institutional variations such as
the role of civil society in the form of youth movements, the nature of family,
educational and labour market arrangements and the development of the welfare
state. The kinds of typologies that are developed depend upon the assumptions and
classifications underlying them. Here we have endeavoured to make clear these
assumptions before showing how they can be used to build a classification of youth
policies.
The typologising of welfare states has been an exercise that has challenged many
since the original publication of Esping-Andersen’s ‘Three Worlds of Welfare
Capitalism’ in 1990 (Esping-Andersen, 1990; Gelissen, 2002). The variations in these
classifications tend to reflect the organising principles that are used in the
classification – hence, when there is a different focus, a different classification
emerges. Sometimes countries may fall under several categories in the classification
or not fit neatly into the typology and this is certainly the case with youth policies.
Therefore it is important to make clear the principles upon which the typology is
built. There is some discussion as to whether there are indeed three worlds or more.
Many have argued for a Southern or Latin Rim group of countries and even for an
Eastern European cluster (Ferrera, 1996), even with respect to youth policies (Jones,
2005). However, even Esping-Andersen himself later rejected the idea of the
Southern cluster of countries (the Eastern cluster of countries is even more
heterogenous) (Esping-Andersen, 1999). As we shall see, however, with respect to
youth policies these Southern countries definitely do form a distinct cluster, since the
family patterns and orientations to youth are distinctive.
From our analysis of the various reports we were able to distinguish three general
organising principles of classification.
.Philosophies of intervention, including the dominant concept of youth and the
aims of the intervention and problems associated with young people.
Youth Policies in Europe 443
.Target groups, including which age groups are the focus of youth policies and
which sub-groups of youth are most targeted.
.The organisation of the youth sector as a field of social policy.
Therefore we start by describing the different dimensions in turn and then go on to
develop a typology of how at least some of them fit together. The different factors are
summarised in Table 1, on which we draw in the following description of youth
policy regimes.
We should bear in mind that not only the policies, but also the situation of young
people varies between different European countries. The numbers marginalised by
unemployment, the role of the family in caring for young people, the levels of
homelessness and so on are all variable and youth policies could be said to be
responding to these existing situations. Some good analyses of youth situations and
problems across Europe have emerged in recent years (Iacovou, 2002; Bradley & van
Hoof, 2005). However, here our focus is upon the youth policies as such and not
their impact or origins.
Philosophies of Intervention
Philosophies of intervention are important in understanding the different kinds of
youth policies because they influence their direction. Philosophies of intervention are
developed historically from different welfare contexts as well as from the different
traditions of youth movements and the different institutional histories of youth in
each country (Wallace & Kovatcheva, 1998). One particular factor that distinguishes
youth policies in different parts of Europe is the concept of youth – the extent to
which young people are seen as a problem or as a resource. In countries where young
people are seen as a problem, there is a focus upon issues such as unemployment,
homelessness, AIDS, drug abuse and prevention of youth delinquency. This is very
clearly the case in the UK and Ireland, for example, where youth policies are
discussed in the context of social exclusion at a national level. At a local level the
concern is often with the problem of preventing crime before it occurs.
In countries where young people are seen as a resource, there is a focus upon youth
policies helping to develop young people as a resource for themselves or as a resource
for society as a whole. In these countries there is therefore a strong emphasis upon
stimulating education, training and especially the participation of young people.
Hence, in these countries, the empowerment of young people plays an important
role. The best example of this approach can be found in the Nordic countries, so, for
example, in Denmark and Sweden youth is seen as a human and a societal resource,
defining youth broadly as encompassing the whole generation of youth.
However, many countries do not fall easily into these two categories. Thus, we can
find countries that draw upon both models of youth as a resource and as a problem.
Countries where youth are seen as a mixture of resource and problem would include
Germany, the Netherlands and Greece. In these countries, the principal target group
is both youth in general and specific groups of youth who may be identified as
problems (or as having problems). In Germany and the Netherlands we find both of
these models because ‘youth’ covers a very wide age group. Hence for children (that
are included together with youth) there is a tendency to see them as in need of
444 C. Wallace & R. Bendit
Table 1. Typology of youth policies
Model of
youth policy
Philosophies of intervention Target groups
Countries
Dominant image
of youth Major aims Major problems Target social groups Target age groups Youth sector
Universalistic
model
Denmark
Finland
(Iceland)
Norway
Sweden
Youth as a
resource
Autonomy
Independence
Development
Political participation
Participation of
youth
Whole generation
of youth
13/15 to 25 years Minor or no
youth sector
Community
based model
Ireland
United
Kingdom
Youth as a
problem
Prevention of
social problems
Political participation
Prolonging of youth
Social exclusion
Participation
of youth
Disadvantaged
youth
Primary school
to 25 years
Minor or no
youth sector
Protective
model
Austria
Belgium
(France)
Germany
Liechtenstein
Luxemburg
Netherlands
Vulnerable youth
Youth as a
resource
Youth as a
problem
Integration
Prevention of social
problems
Political participation
Participation of youth
Social exclusion
Whole generation
of youth
Disadvantaged
youth
0 to 25/30 years Major youth
sector
Centralised
model
Greece
(Italy)
Portugal
Spain
Youth as a problem
Youth as a resource
Autonomy
Independence
Integration
Political participation
Prolonging of youth
Social exclusion
Specialised groups
of youth
15 to 25/30 years Major youth
sector
Youth Policies in Europe 445
protection, whilst for older younger people they are more likely to be viewed as a
resource and the focus as they grow older changes from employment concerns
towards housing and welfare.
An additional differentiating factor in the philosophies of intervention are the
major aims of youth policies. One major aim of youth policy in both the Nordic
countries and in the Southern European countries is the promotion of youth
autonomy. In the Nordic countries, young people are rather independent of their
families, since they tend to leave home and live independently relatively young
compared with other European regions (Iacovou, 2002). They are effectively ‘paid to
be young’ and supported as such by the welfare state. However, in the Southern
European countries concern with youth autonomy comes from a different direction.
In these countries there is a lengthy dependence upon the family and most young
people live at home. One way youth policies (especially in Spain) have tried in recent
years to counteract the long dependency of young people on their families was to
promote and to support the flexibilisation of certain segments of the labour market
in order to reduce youth unemployment. In Spain and Portugal there are also
measures to provide affordable housing for young people outside of the parental
home. Hence the extent of youth autonomy and what this actually means in practice
is relative depending upon which part of Europe we are starting from, and the
reasons for seeing it as important differ.
Another major aim to emerge from the comparative analysis of youth policies
was that of political and social participation. This was to a great extent the aim of
all the regions of Europe, but the actual extent of youth political participation is
highly variable, ranging from very high in the Nordic countries to very low in the
South and East. The extent to which, for example, Youth Councils were
developed and who becomes involved in them was quite variable. Again, whilst
the participation of youth in their societies as active citizens may be a general
policy goal, the development of civil society and political parties through which
they can be active is highly variable, as is the extent of their participation
(Spannring et al., 2000; Kovaceva, 2002). Whilst in some countries there is a well
established tradition of youth organisations (for example Germany and Austria),
in other countries such organisations hardly exist (as in the Southern European
countries). Even in those countries where they do exist, only some youth
become involved in them whilst many stay away. Youth participation could
be said to be something far broader than simply joining organisations. It can
also concern lifestyles and new social movements such as animal rights,
ecological movements, forms of consumer activism and so on. Increasingly, it
can mean electronic networking and mobilisation. Hence, the concept of social
and political participation needs to be broadened to include the variety of youth
activism.
An important aim of youth policies is that of the integration of young people into
adult society. Whilst this may be seen as a goal of youth policies in general, again it
takes different forms depending upon the social and political context. In the Central
European countries of Germany and Austria the idea of integration reflects a rather
paternalistic role of youth as citizens to be protected and promoted and is found
most often in the Central European regions such as Germany and Austria, where
youth policies are well established. However, it also more recently forms part of the
446 C. Wallace & R. Bendit
youth policies of the Southern European countries where large numbers of young
people are excluded from the regular labour market and unable to leave home.
Finally, we considered philosophies of intervention in terms of the issues and
problems that were seen as important in each country. In the Nordic countries the
main issue was the participation of youth in society and how to turn them into active
citizens as a resource for society. In most countries there is a concern about the
extension of the youth phase which as a result of increasing levels of education and
training, unemployment, the changing funding of education, the increasing costs of
leaving home, postponement of family transitions and so on has led to its
prolongation. The same trends are also visible elsewhere but in the UK this trend
runs counter to the expectations of many parents (especially working class ones)
leading to family tensions and sometimes homelessness (Jones, O’Sullivan & Rouse,
2006). In the Nordic countries the integration of policies for supporting families,
education and employment mean that this is no longer a problem for families but
rather something which the state supports. In family-centred European countries
such as Germany, Austria, the Netherlands or indeed the Mediterranean regions, the
continued support of young people by families leads to lengthening dependency too,
but this is more a problem for the young people who are not able to leave home
rather than for the families themselves. In the South, by contrast, social exclusion did
not necessarily only focus upon unemployment, but also upon problems of
homelessness, problematical transitions and so on (Leccardi & Ruspini, 2006).
Alternatively, in countries such as the Netherlands, where there was more or less no
youth unemployment at the time that the report was undertaken, casual employment
is often something that students do to finance their studies rather than a labour
market ghetto leading to social exclusion (Bradley & van Hoof, 2005). The social
exclusion of unemployed youth along with high levels of unemployment is an
emerging problem in countries such as Romania and Bulgaria as well as most of the
new member states. Therefore, although similar problems of unemployment, leaving
home, access to the labour market, social exclusion of ethnic minority youth and so
on are confronting all European countries to a greater or lesser extent, the
extensiveness of these problems and the amount of attention they attract from policy
makers is more variable.
Target Groups
As we have already mentioned, the philosophies of youth intervention define who
should be included in youth policies. The target groups for youth intervention in turn
derive partly from the conceptualisation of youth as an age group. This varies
substantially through different countries, but again we can distinguish certain
patterns. Here we need to distinguish between target groups by age range and target
groups by specialised policy concerns.
Youth is an indeterminate category, one which to some extent reflects social
construction by historical processes (Wallace & Kovatcheva, 1998). The age group
identified for intervention in youth and social policies is quite variable. Here we can
distinguish between countries according to how wide or narrow is the age range by
which youth is defined. Countries with a wide age definition ranging from birth to
age 25 or 30 are Austria, Belgium, Germany and Finland. Countries with a medium
Youth Policies in Europe 447
age definition of youth ranging from early primary school to 25 years include
Ireland, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. Countries with a narrow age definition of
the youth age group, extending from 11 or 13 years to 25 years include France,
Iceland, Norway and the United Kingdom. Countries with a very narrow concept of
youth, meaning those between the end of lower secondary education and 25 or 30
years, are Denmark, Spain, Greece, Portugal and Sweden. We can see that there are
a variety of definitions of where youth begins and ends and classifications between
countries are contingent.
A second dimension of the wide and narrow concept of youth is in terms of
particular target groups within the age range – that is whether youth in general (i.e.
the whole generation of youth) are the targets of youth policies or only certain
groups. For example, in the UK and Ireland it is more often the problem groups or
disadvantaged youth that become the targets of intervention, whilst in Germany,
Austria, and France all youth are targeted, although there may be special
programmes for disadvantaged youth too. In the limited youth policy model
currently practised in Greece, Portugal and Spain, it is usually particular groups of
youth which are targeted, because they have particular problems that have been
identified.
In countries with a narrow age conception of youth, it is more likely that there will
be more homogenous models of youth policy. In countries where there is a wider age
definition of youth, there are necessarily much more heterogenous policies because
they apply to different sub-groups. For example, in the UK and Ireland it is a
relatively narrow age group of young people from 13 or 15 years to 25 that are seen
as the main targets of intervention (until the 1980s youth would have been seen
mainly as an age group only during their teens and this was extended later in
response to the prolongation of youth and the need to re-calibrate social policies).
However, the main targets of intervention are the disadvantaged youth, which
corresponds with the view of youth as a social problem. In the Central European
countries youth are defined as a group from the age of birth until they are 25, 27 or
30. This is partly why there is a more paternalistic, protective orientation towards
youth in youth policies. The targets of youth intervention include all of the young
people and children in these age ranges but there is also a focus on particular groups
of disadvantaged young people, such as ethnic minorities, girls and the unemployed.
With such a wide spectrum of people included in the definition of youth, youth
policies are necessarily more heterogenous.
In the Southern European countries, youth were seen as those young people aged
15 to 25, 28 or 30 and youth policy focuses upon specialised groups of youth such as
early school leavers or those leaving school without certificates, the unemployed,
homeless young people, etc. rather than upon the whole generation of youth. Youth
policies are therefore more homogenous again.
Hence, the target groups for youth policies can be either a small range of young
people or a wide range of young people and this tends to relate to the philosophies of
intervention and the dominant images of youth that we have discussed so far.
However, we should note that in many countries, different administrative parts of
the state define youth in different ways – there is not necessarily a consistent pattern
within each country. Hence, in the Criminal Justice Department we can find one
definition of youth that may not coincide with educational definitions. These
448 C. Wallace & R. Bendit
different departments might also have different views of youth – one seeing them as
people to be ‘protected’ and another seeing them as people to be ‘promoted’ or even
potentially dangerous. This is one of the problems of trying to develop a general
framework of youth policies, as we are attempting to do now – there are always
many exceptions because youth policies are in most countries not a coherent set of
concerns.
The issue of gender is seldom addressed directly in youth policies and that of
ethnic minorities even less so. In many countries ethnic minorities are seen as
‘foreigners’ and therefore not an aspect of national youth policy. It is possible that
this attitude is gradually being reassessed.
The Organisation of the Youth Sector
There are a number of variations in the way in which the youth sector is organised.
In some countries there is a dedicated youth ministry or directorate and in other
countries youth policies can be found scattered around a number of ministries or
agencies, with no special responsibility for youth. In some countries youth policies
are decentralised and in others more centralised. Countries in Europe can be
distinguished according to whether they have a major or minor youth sector.
Countries with a major youth sector, where youth policy is primarily concentrated
within the limits of a well defined and well organised set of institutions include
Austria, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Germany, Spain, Greece and Portugal. For
example, in Austria there is a youth Ministry (together with several other fields of
welfare – i.e. ‘Youth and generations’ covering families too). Furthermore, there is a
youth research institute responsible for carrying out youth research and maintaining
a library, which can be called upon to produce reports or comments for the
government on youth issues and policies. In addition to that there is an umbrella
organisation bringing together all the youth organisations and most of the youth
sector is de-centralised to the different federal regions. This is not dissimilar to
Germany, which has an even more extensive and better resourced structure including
a youth institute with large teams of researchers and regular surveys. Countries
where there is mainly a minor youth sector which is partly dispersed among a
number of traditional sectors such as education, employment, urban planning and
so on, include the Netherlands, Belgium, Ireland, Finland, Sweden and Norway.
This means that the responsibility for youth issues lies in different ministries and
organisations, although there may be transversal youth co-ordination of some
kind. Countries where there is no special youth sector at all, but where policy is
fractured into other administrative sectors without a co-ordinating centre would
be the UK, Iceland and Denmark. We should note that in the UK there is now
more co-ordination of youth policies due to initiatives from the Social Exclusion
Unit which has aimed to co-ordinate different areas of youth policy.
Furthermore, in Scotland and Wales there is a more developed strategy for
youth policy than in England.
Other factors in the organisation of youth policies are the public institutions that
are responsible for youth policies. Once again, we can distinguish several patterns.
First of all there are countries with a specialised youth ministry and youth
directorate (or similar administrative structure) and this group includes Germany,
Youth Policies in Europe 449
Austria, Luxembourg and Liechtenstein. Secondly, there are countries where youth
policy is allocated to one ministry and where youth matters are handled by a youth
directorate. This group comprises Sweden, Ireland, Portugal, Greece, Spain,
Belgium, Finland, Norway. Thirdly, there are countries with a youth directorate,
but where the responsibility for youth matters is shared among a number of
ministries. Only the Netherlands belongs to this group. Fourthly, there are countries
where youth policies are co-ordinated among several ministries, but where there is no
youth directorate (or similar authority). This is the situation in Denmark. Finally,
there are countries without a youth directorate and in which youth policies are not
co-ordinated among different ministries. This situation applies to the United
Kingdom and to Iceland.
Three out of five of the Nordic countries have youth ministries and directorates,
whilst Iceland and Denmark do not. In the UK and Ireland, youth policies are
mainly decentralised to the local level, but Ireland does have a youth ministry and a
youth directorate. In the Central European countries, such as Germany and Austria,
youth policies are well established, having existed for more than 100 years in some
cases and there is strong representation of Youth ministries at both local and
national levels as well as youth directorates. In the Southern European countries,
there are mostly youth ministries and youth directorates at a central level (with the
exception of Italy).
Youth Policy Regimes?
Youth policy regimes can be ordered according to the welfare regime clusters defined
by Esping-Andersen (1990) but there are also some important differences. Here we
would re-name and re-define these clusters in relation to youth policies. The overall
results are summarised in Table 1.
Universalistic Youth Policy Regime
The Nordic countries have some of the most comprehensive youth policies,
although they are relatively recent in origin. They form part of a universalistic
youth policy regime which offers rights and benefits to all young people and
where young people are effectively state subsidised. It also aims to help young
people live autonomously, which fits with the family models in those countries.
However, youth policies are a relatively new phenomenon and have been
introduced mainly in the last 10 to 25 years, partly in response to rising youth
unemployment.
These countries are characterised by a state-directed form of policy, but civil
society organisations are also highly involved. The policies are based upon a narrow
age definition of youth, that is youth aged between early teens and 25 years, but
within this group it is the whole generation of youth who are the objects of youth
policy. In these countries youth are seen as a resource that needs to be developed
through youth policies – both a resource for themselves and a resource for society as
a whole.
The participation of youth in the broader society is seen as an important factor
and in these countries the participation of youth is already at a high level.
450 C. Wallace & R. Bendit
Community Based Youth Policy Regimes
These countries correspond to the liberal/minimal welfare state regimes as defined by
Esping-Andersen and others. However, in terms of youth policies we can see these
regimes as ones where youth policies are delegated mainly to civil society (the
church, volunteers) rather than carried out directly by the state. Local authorities
and communities are seen as dominant actors. There tends to be a rather narrow age
definition of youth, one where young people are seen as from those leaving primary
school to those aged 25 and much of the provision is for the teenage group. In these
countries, youth policies are not seen as being directed at the whole range of youth,
but rather at youth who are seen as a problem. Therefore youth policies are directed
at young offenders, potential offenders, ethnic minorities, the homeless and so on.
The aim of the youth policies is problem containment.
Protective Youth Policy Regimes
What we have termed the protective youth policy regimes correspond with the
corporatist – employment based model of the welfare state. The countries covered
are Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg and the
Netherlands. In these countries there has been a long tradition of youth policies
and youth institutions (Wallace & Kovatcheva, 1998). The result is that well
established youth ministries or directorates have been introduced and in some
countries there is also a youth institute for carrying out research for the relevant
ministries. They are termed protective because they aim to promote and support
young people from birth upwards, so they have a wide age definition of youth,
including children and young families. These youth ministries cover issues such as
adoption and fostering, young people in care, leisure and so on. Therefore, they have
a much wider remit than, for example, the community based regimes where such
services are found elsewhere in the welfare state. Therefore there tends to be a rather
paternalistic view of state policies vis-a
`-vis young people.
The target groups are all youth within the given age range and the aim is to
‘promote’ youth generally as well as cope with problem youth.
In these countries, youth policy can be both centralised and de-centralised,
delegated to the federal regions, which might have their own youth directorates,
often developing different measures and even laws pertaining to youth. Civil society
in the form of churches, welfare institutions, youth associations, NGOs and other
organisations are heavily involved in the provision of youth services, although these
organisations are more or less incorporated into the state structure as institutiona-
lised vehicles of welfare rather than being independent of it.
Centralised Youth Policy Regimes
These correspond with the Southern European, Mediterranean or Latin Rim welfare
states. The countries referred to are Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy. The welfare
state does not provide general coverage and is sometimes seen as ‘sub-institutional’
because social policies are less extensive in their coverage than in Northern Europe
(Gallie & Paugam, 1999). In these countries (with the exception of Spain), youth
Youth Policies in Europe 451
policies are relatively recent in origin, often introduced as a response to European
initiatives, which we will discuss later. In these countries the central state has
developed a range of initiatives in a field that was previously the responsibility of
the church or the family, thus a private issue, rather than one of public
responsibility. In the past, as well as to a great extent now, young people lived in
their family of origin until they got married (late in the case of men, earlier in the
case of women) and then became a new family. Traditionally, the state was not
involved, although this is now changing. The concept of youth that has been
introduced is a rather narrow age definition of youth (from 15 to 25 or 30). Civil
society is little involved in youth policies, and civil society is rather under-
developed compared to other countries, a legacy of the years of authoritarian rule,
although there is evidence that there is some quite dynamic growth in this respect.
There is generally a low level of participation in youth organisations and youth
policies are targeted at special groups of youth. The general aim of youth policies
in these countries, however, is to promote the associative life of young people in
order to make a contribution to the development of civil society at this level. The
late development of youth policies in these countries also mean, however, that they
have a rather dynamic trajectory of change.
Table 1 summarises the different trends and policies, and we can see that they
do fall into the familiar welfare typology schemes, but we need to re-label the
various elements. The universalistic model refers to a policy that promotes the
independence and autonomy of young people and their contribution to society,
but only for a relatively narrow group. Iceland is included in brackets, since it
does not fit very comfortably with this group and there are important internal
differences within the group as well. The community based model corresponds
with the Anglo-Saxon liberal welfare states and in these countries youth issues are
devolved to community level, whilst the state is mostly concerned with youth as
problems or potential problems. We should remember that there are important
differences within this group as well. The protective model corresponds with the
continental welfare systems and are usually countries with youth ministries at a
central level and a long tradition of youth policies – but ones that are concerned
with a wide age range and therefore encompass a broad range of problems.
Although France is usually included in this group, it does not fit so well with
respect to youth policies. Furthermore, Germany and Austria have a range of
regional variations in legislation regarding youth. What we have termed the
centralised model refers to the Southern European countries, and whilst in
traditional welfare discussion it is argued that these do not represent a distinct
group, with respect to youth policies they do. In many of them youth policies
were introduced recently, as a result of stimulation from the EU – youth were
traditionally defined as part of the family and not an object of state policy.
Where policies have been introduced they are centralised and focused on the
particular problems of young people in these countries.
These different forms and traditions of youth policies have arisen from different
historical circumstances in European countries. However, more recently we can see a
greater trend towards a more common understanding on youth issues across Europe,
partly on account of the Europeanisation of youth policies in recent decades. It is to
this issue that we now turn.
452 C. Wallace & R. Bendit
The Europeanisation of Youth Policies
A number of initiatives to Europeanise youth policies have gathered force over the
last 15 years, reflecting the consolidation of European level social policies. Both the
European Commission and the Council of Europe have been concerned with youth
issues, often developing programmes in parallel (Williamson, 2007). Beginning with
consultations with youth ministries in 1988, the European Commission published a
Memorandum examining the feasibility of a European Youth Policy, with goals such
as promotion of creativity and self-initiative, mobility and exchange, training of
youth workers, access to information, creation of Youth Forums and associations
and relationships with international organisations. This formed the basis of a report
at the European Parliament and European youth ministers met together in 1991 at a
conference which approved priority measures concerning youth that were later
known under the name of ‘youth policy’. However, European youth policies could
only act as complementary measures to national youth policy and this principle of
subsidiarity was corroborated in the Amsterdam Treaty of 1997 which also provided
the legal basis for European action programmes in the field of youth under Article
149.
Another plank of European Youth Policy was the Youth for Europe programme
implemented by DG XX11 (Education and Culture) in 1988 followed by a second
phase in 1995. This programme was designed to implement exchange and youth
initiatives outside of formal education, as a third educational pillar complementing
the Leonardo and Socrates programmes, which were concerned with formal
education. The aims of the Youth for Europe programme were to promote
intercultural experiences, intercultural competencies (such as tolerance, putting own
beliefs and concepts into perspective, promoting language skills) which were
considered a necessary condition of European citizenship and identity-building. It
also enabled member states to share information and experience in the field of youth.
However, the programme was criticised by member states for interference at a local
level which was seen as going beyond the scope of the European Commission. A
recurring problem has been how to address the needs of young people in Europe,
with problems that are increasingly common to all European countries, but not to
interfere with the policy integrity of member states.
At the end of 1999, the European Commission, Parliament and Council declared
the necessity of a global, transparent and coherent European Youth Policy
reinforced by the Social Agenda 2000, emphasising the central role of the promotion
of knowledge, education and vocational training. The result was the Youth
programme superseding Youth for Europe. This programme went further than its
predecessors in giving more importance to training and education outside of school,
including non-formal education. It also aimed to strengthen the co-operation
between member states in the field of youth policy. However, a coherent European
youth policy was still lacking and indeed was handicapped by the scepticism of
member states regarding the need for a policy initiative of this kind at European
level. A response to this was the publication of the White Paper on European Youth
Policy A New Impetus for European Youth (CEC, 2001) which aimed to lay down the
framework for co-operation between member states and the Commission through an
extensive consultation process.
Youth Policies in Europe 453
It is important to remember that the European Commission has no mandate to
create a European youth policy replacing national policies – it can only complement
them. Youth policy remains essentially a national task. Other treaties do provide the
EC with a basis to intervene directly or indirectly in fields such as European
citizenship, discrimination, education and employment. However, youth policy at a
European level has tended to focus upon measures to encourage mobility,
intercultural exchange, co-operation, citizenship and voluntary work. These policy
concerns have been criticised as not being the most pressing ones facing young
people, many of whom have difficulty securing a place within the labour market,
leaving home or finding accommodation (Williamson, 2007). However, their very
vagueness may be the reason why they are the focus of European policy – they are
not likely to cause any serious conflict with national policy priorities.
The White Book which emerged from the White Paper covers fields such as
participation, voluntary service, information and greater understanding of youth –
all traditional fields of national youth policy as well as representing a continuity with
previous European-level programmes. Although there have been attempts to pull
together youth policies in the past (Chisholm & Bergeret, 1992), the White Paper on
youth represents the most ambitious attempt to develop an instrument of youth
policy at a European level. Following the principles of the Open Method of Co-
ordination there are a series of rather vaguely formulated aims or benchmarks, such
as ‘youth participation’, and countries are asked to respond to this. The EU member
states were obliged to present to the Commission their reports on action lines
associated with participation and information by the end of 2005, with similar
procedures planned for ‘Voluntary service among young people’ and ‘Greater
understanding and more knowledge of youth’.
A further impact of the White Paper has been to encourage awareness of youth in
other social policy fields and the encouragement of inter-sectoral or transversal co-
operation. Given the wide range of ways in which youth policy is situated in member
states, this represents a considerable challenge. However, the wide ranging scope of
the White Paper means that inevitably it has disappointed many people and the Open
Method of Co-ordination means that it can be implemented in very variable ways.
The most recent initiative by the French, German, Spanish and Swedish
governments is to create a European Pact for Youth agreed by all 25 member
states in the context of the mid-term evaluation of the Lisbon strategy. As a response
to continuing high youth unemployment in some countries, it aims to enhance
the professional integration of young people into the labour market, strengthen
the coherence of European measures and policies aimed at ameliorating the life
conditions of young people (i.e. professional training, education, research, mobility,
culture, entrepreneurialism, etc.), and develop new measures to improve the
compatibility of professional development and family life. We see here therefore a
shift towards more ‘productivist’ social policies, or ones that are concerned with
labour market and employment, reflecting the priorities of the Lisbon Agenda.
The enlargement of the EU to include 12 additional countries in 2004/2007,
most of them being Eastern European ones, changes the situation once more. In
those countries the strong forms of intervention characteristic of the communist
years (Wallace & Kovatcheva, 1998) have been replaced by a relative neglect
of youth, although some countries, such as Slovakia, continue to have a strong
454 C. Wallace & R. Bendit
state-dominated youth policy. However, the goals of such policies have changed.
They are now focused more upon participation and the involvement of civil
society type institutions. In all, we could say that developments in youth policy
represent a ‘levelling up’ rather than a form of ‘social dumping’ (Deacon, 2000)
and countries that previously did not have youth policies, such as Greece, now
try to conform to the European norm. Therefore, there has been a certain
harmonisation in youth policies through European initiatives though indirectly,
by way of comparison. Before initiatives of the European Commission such as
the one that gave birth to this research project and therefore this paper, there was
no comparison of youth policy regimes in Europe and no data from which to do
it. This in itself has had some effect.
A parallel set of European policy initiatives have been developed by the Council of
Europe over the same period of time. The Council of Europe represents a far wider
range of countries and has less legislative power and far less resources than the European
Commission. Its activities are focused upon the themes of promoting democracy, human
rights, solidarity and tolerance among its members. At the Council of Ministers
Conference in 1998 it was decided to develop a youth policy. The Council of Europe has
consequently set up two European youth centres – first one in Strasbourg and later one
in Budapest – within a Youth Directorate. Since 1996 it is has carried out a number of
reviews of youth policy in member countries in order to build up an understanding of
principles, policies and practices regarding young people in different countries
(Williamson, 2002). The aim has been to create standards of youth policy and to
monitor progress in different countries. However, not all countries have been reviewed
to date (the Council of Europe consists of 47 member states in comparison with the 27 of
the EU so reviewing all countries is a drawn-out process).
The Council of Europe and the European Commission have been increasingly co-
operating in their actions for youth in recent years, although they still represent
parallel activities. It remains to be seen whether their policy strategies actually come
together in the end. The promotion of youth exchange and youth participation as
well as concern over ethnic minority youth (such as Roma), have been common
elements in their programme.
We might ask why European youth policies do not focus upon the main problems
facing young people such as lack of access to regular jobs or lack of housing? One
answer is that these issues are tackled by other branches of the European
Commission and are not within the remit of the Council of Europe anyway.
Another answer might be that by promoting vague yet positive-sounding ideals such
as ‘participation’ and ‘communication’ the European Commission as well as the
Council of Europe can avoid accusations of overstepping the limits of their powers
and interfering in national fields of policy. Indeed, it might be for this very reason
that the whole field of ‘youth’ has been allowed to develop at a European level –
precisely because it is not very important at a national level in most countries.
Conclusions
Youth policy regimes do tend to fall into distinct clusters, which are similar to, but
not precisely the same as, the welfare regimes identified elsewhere. The criteria for
distinguishing different youth policy regimes are first of all what we have termed
Youth Policies in Europe 455
philosophies of intervention, including images of youth, the aims of intervention
and the major problems identified. Secondly, there is the target groups of young
people, which relate to the definition of youth and here we can distinguish
policies according to whether a narrow or wide concept of youth is employed (in
terms of both age and social groups). Thirdly, there is the organisation of the
youth sector itself which can include a youth ministry, may have transversal
agencies responsible for youth or may have no particular policy institution
responsible for youth at all.
Whilst it is heuristically helpful to classify youth policies in the same way as other
aspects of welfare policies, we should bear in mind that in many ways they do not fit
other aspects of the welfare state. Youth policies are especially difficult to classify
because they are often scattered around different institutions and ministries who
themselves do not have consistent models of youth and frequently they are
decentralised to a regional or local level. Even within each cluster of countries we
find important differences – for example between Denmark and other Nordic
countries with which it has been classified.
With the Europeanisation of youth policies we are finding a greater
homogeneity, especially as countries in the South and East try to ‘catch up’ with
developed countries such as Central European and Nordic ones where there has
been a strong tradition of actions for youth and identifying youth as an object of
intervention. However, we can identify two major trends in this process:
Europeanisation and transversalism. The former trend reflects the increasing shift
towards Europeanisation of social policies more generally through the exchange of
information, examples of good practice and use of European Commission
guidelines and benchmarks. The second tendency is to try to bring together
initiatives and policies that affect youth across different ministries and policy areas
as well as levels of government.
At a European level youth have been identified in a range of policy initiatives by
both the European Commission and the Council of Europe. These have tended to
stay away from intervention in labour market or other aspects of social policy and
focus instead upon rather vague and lofty ideals such as promoting youth
participation, communication and understanding using ‘soft’ policy instruments
such as reporting through the Open Method of Co-ordination and various
consultation exercises. Whilst not offending any established interests this has also
meant that European youth policy remains unspecific and ineffectual.
We have not much discussed the role of the new member states, or how they fit this
classification. That is because they were not part of the original project and we lack
sufficient information to be able to include them. We would hope that these lacunae
will be filled by other researchers and other reports and the Council of Europe has
been carrying out a range of country-by-country reviews of youth policies. Here we
have made only a preliminary attempt to bring together youth policies within the
general field of welfare policies.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the European Commission DG Education and Culture for
funding this research and our collaborators on the project, especially IARD for their
456 C. Wallace & R. Bendit
help. Some information here is drawn from the project ‘Families and Transitions in
Europe’ (FATE) HPSCE-CT2001-00079.
Note
1
IARD research institute, Milan, co-ordinated the study with a number of team members, including these
authors.
References
Bonoli, G. (1997) Classifying welfare states: A two dimensional approach, Journal of Social Policy, 26(3),
pp. 351–372.
Bradley, H. & van Hoof, J. J. B. M. (2005) Young People in Europe: Labour Markets and Citizenship
(Bristol: Policy Press).
CEC (2001) White Paper: A New Impetus for European Youth. Brussels, Commission of the European
Communities COM (2001) 681 final.
Chisholm, L. & Bergeret, J.M. (1992) Young People in the European Community: Towards an Agenda for
Research and Policy (Brussels, European Community: Youth Task Force).
Crompton, R., Gallie, D. & Purcell, K. (Eds) (1996) Changing Forms of Employment. Organisations, Skills,
Gender (London: Routledge).
Deacon, B. (2000) Eastern European welfare states. The impact of the politics of globalisation, Journal of
European Social Policy, 10(2), pp. 146–161.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism (Oxford: Polity Press).
Esping-Andersen, G. (1999) Social Foundations of Post-Industrial Economies (Oxford: Oxford University
Press).
Ferrera, M. (1996) The ‘Southern’ model of welfare in Social Europe, Journal of European Social Policy,
6(1), pp. 17–37.
Gallie, D. & Paugam, S. (Eds) (1999) Welfare Regimes and the Experience of Unemployment in Europe
(Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Gelissen, J. (2002) Three worlds of welfare capitalism or more? A state-of-the-art report, Journal of
European Social Policy, 12(2), pp. 137–158.
Hantrais, L. & Letablier, M.-T. (1996) Families and Family Policies in Europe (Harlow and New York:
Addison, Wesley, Longman).
Iacovou, M. (2002) Regional differences in the transition to adulthood, The Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, 580(March), pp. 40–69.
IARD (2001) Study on the State of Young People and Youth Policy in Europe. Report to the European
Commission, DG Education and Culture, Milan.
Jones, G. (2005) Social protection policies for young people: A cross-national comparison, in: H.
Bradley & J. J. B. M. van Hoof (Eds) Young People in Europe (Bristol: Policy Press).
Jones, G., O’Sullivan, A. & Rouse, J. (2006) Young adults, partners and parents: Individual agency and
problems of support, Journal of Youth Studies, 9(4), pp. 375–392.
Korpi, W. & Palme, J. (1998) The paradox of redistribution strategies of equality: Welfare state
institutions, inequality and poverty in Western countries, American Sociological Review, 63(5), pp. 661–
687.
Kovaceva, S. (2002) The development of young people’s civic participation in East-Central Europe,
Sociologia, 34(1), pp. 47–58.
Leccardi, C. & Ruspini, E. (Eds) (2006) A New Youth? Young People, Generations and Family Life
(Aldershot: Ashgate).
Lewis, J. (Ed.) (1993) Women and Social Policies in Europe. Work, Family and the State (Aldershot: Edward
Elgar).
Pfau-Effinger, B. (2003) Transformation of social policies in the socio-cultural context of European
societies, European Societies, 7(2), pp. 321–348.
Spannring, R., Wallace, C., et al. (2000) Civic participation among young people in Europe, in: H. Helve &
C. Wallace (Eds) Youth, Citizenship and Empowerment (Basingstoke, Sydney and Singapore: Ashgate
Gower).
Youth Policies in Europe 457
Wallace, C. & Kovatcheva, S. (1998) Youth in Society. The Construction and Deconstruction of Youth in
East and West Europe (London: Macmillan).
Williamson, H. (2002) Supporting Young People in Europe: Principles, Policy and Practice. The Council of
Europe International Reviews of National Youth Policy 1997–2001: A Synthesis Report (Strasbourg:
Council of Europe).
Williamson, H. (2007) A complex but increasingly coherent journey? The emergence of ‘youth policy’ in
Europe, Youth and Policy, 95(Spring), pp. 57–72.
458 C. Wallace & R. Bendit
