![]() Indeed, while the NEET statistical construct emerged to capture an elusive or even “missing” population, we now know that it has also contributed to casting a shadow of invisibility on some groups within this young population and their forms of existence and resistance (Ferreira 2016 Gaspani 2018). Little research, though, has gone beyond the criticism of the NEET construct, exploring the new youth experiences and realities that gave rise to the initial concern-the fact that some young people fly under the statistical and/or institutional radars (Furlong 2006). In sum, research has systematically revealed this indicator’s shortcomings, and a considerable amount of literature has pointed out its weaknesses (Cuzzocrea 2014 Follesø 2015 Holte 2017). ![]() Moreover, the indicator produces a moral judgement since it presents NEETs as being in social deficit: they do not meet (“not in…”) the standard pattern for the social integration of youth-being either in school or at work-nor do they fit into the dichotomous statistical category of the unemployed or inactive. It covers a broad range of trajectories and situations, too heterogeneous to represent a truly common experience. the official NEET definition in Japan differs from that used in Europe) so that youth realities are non-comparable. In fact, the indicator takes on different meanings according to each country’s cultural specificity (e.g. The NEET rate raises a number of problems, some of which have been pointed out in recent academic literature (Guénard et al. Having emerged as an indicator aimed at estimating the prevalence of both schooling and labour market vulnerability among young people (Eurofound 2012) and consequently at underpinning public policy and government actions, it has been widely disseminated in recent years. In this context, the NEET rate-a statistical construct “made in Europe” in the late 1990s to capture the share of young people Not in Employment, Education or Training-gained new relevance. Unemployment has risen significantly all over Europe since the COVID-19 pandemic (in the 4th quarter of 2020 youth unemployment reached 17.1% and NEET rates, which had fallen continuously in recent years, reached 11%), but this was not the only problem, as educational and mental health issues, for example, are also of concern (Eurofound 2020). The pandemic crisis, however, has abruptly cut off this trend, bringing young people’s problems again onto the public and political agenda, underlining their structural nature, as the literature has systematically pointed out. The world, and Europe in particular, has since then experienced a short period of prosperity, which temporarily lowered unemployment rates among young people and also eased the social alarm around youth in general. From 2014 onwards, the EU authorities launched the largest financial package specifically targeted at the youth population (Europe 2020 flagship initiative Youth on the Move), as it aimed to enhance the performance of education systems, boost job creation and facilitate the entry of young people into the labour market. A peak of 24.4% average unemployment was observed in the EU27 in 2013, but in some Member States, the rate reached 50% and addressing youth unemployment became a top political priority. In Europe, unemployment has hit the young population hard. More recently, the high level of youth unemployment rates observed during the economic crisis became a matter of deep concern for political authorities at the global level (Bendit and Miranda 2015 Eurofound 2012 Inui 2005 Longo and Gallant 2016 Longle 2016 Henderson et al. In recent decades, a considerable amount of research on youth transitions (Brooks 2009 du Bois-Reymond and Chisholm 2006 Pais and Ferreira 2010) has pointed to the complexity of contemporary young people’s lives, as progression into adulthood has become increasingly prolonged, fragmented and largely unpredictable.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |