EMPLOYABILITY REVISITED. MAPPING THE ROLE OF YOUTH

11m ago
141 Views
10 Downloads
1.01 MB
76 Pages
Last View : 1d ago
Last Download : 5m ago
Upload by : Samir Mcswain
Transcription

EMPLOYABILITY REVISITED.MAPPING THE ROLE OF YOUTH WORKIN THE FIELD OF YOUTH EMPLOYABILITYAND ENTREPRENEURSHIPMaria-Carmen PanteaDunja PotočnikStudy on behalf of the [email protected] Strategic Partnershipon Youth Employability and Entrepreneurshipof Erasmus National Agencies

EMPLOYABILITY REVISITED.MAPPING THE ROLE OF YOUTH WORKIN THE FIELD OF YOUTH EMPLOYABILITYAND ENTREPRENEURSHIPMaria-Carmen PanteaDunja PotočnikStudy on behalf of the [email protected] Strategic Partnershipon Youth Employability and Entrepreneurshipof Erasmus National Agencies

content7 IntroductionThe opinions expressed in this book are the responsibility of the authors anddo not necessarily reflect the official views of the [email protected] Strategic Partnershipon Youth Employability and Entrepreneurship of Erasmus National Agenciesor the European Commission.Reproduction and use for non-commercial purposes are permitted providedthe source ‘Employability Revisited. Mapping the role of youth work in the fieldof youth employability and entrepreneurship – [email protected] Strategic Partnershipon Youth Employability and Entrepreneurship of Erasmus National Agencies”is mentioned and [email protected] is notified.PublicationJune 2019 by the Spanish and Turkish Erasmus National Agencies, and the Communityof Madrid (Comunidad de Madrid), on behalf of the [email protected] Strategic Partnershipon Youth Employability and Entrepreneurship of Erasmus National AgenciesContactsINJUVE - Instituto de la Juventud,Spanish Erasmus National Agency,calle José Ortega y Gasset 71Madrid SpainAuthorsMaria-Carmen PanteaMaria-Carmen Pantea is Associate Professor in Social Work at BBU, Romania.Her research interests focus on the relationship between young people and work in itsvarious forms, including entrepreneurship, graduates’ precarious employment, vocationaleducation and training. Evaluator for Horizon 2020, Marie Curie, Erasmus among others.Author of Precarity and Vocational Education and Training. Craftsmanship and Employabilityin Romania. (2019, Palgrave). Member of the Pool of European Youth Researchers ofthe EU-CoE Youth Partnership and member of the editorial board of the European TrainingFoundation. PhD in Sociology (BBU), MA with Merit in Gender Studies (Central EuropeanUniversity) and MSc in Evidence-Based Social Interventions (Oxford).Email: [email protected] PotočnikDunja Potočnik is a Higher Research Associate at the Institute for Social Researchin Zagreb, at the Centre for Youth and Gender Studies. She is a co-author of three booksand an author of around 40 scientific and policy papers, a majority of which concerneducation, digitalisation, employment, youth work, social structure and mobility.Her research, policy and evaluator expertise has been developed through cooperationwith national and international governmental and non-governmental organisations.Dunja is a member of the Pool of the European Youth Researchers at the Youth Partnershipbetween the European Commission and the Council of Europe since 2010.EditorRaluca DiroescuProofreaderYasmine EstaphanosGraphic designCristina Rico9 Chapter 1.The Changing Landscape of Work (M.C. Pantea)21 Chapter 2.Implications for Young People (M.C. Pantea)31 Chapter 3.Policy Approaches to Employment and Entrepreneurshipand their challenges (D. Potočnik)47 Chapter 4.Youth Work Actions in the Areas of Employmentand Entrepreneurship (D. Potočnik)57 Chapter 5.Survey among actors in the youth work field(D. Potočnik and M.C. Pantea)77 Conclusions and implications for action87 References99 Annex - Questionnaire103 Case Studies

7IntroductionEstablished in January 2018, the [email protected] Strategic Partnership on YouthEmployability and Entrepreneurship is an institutional alliance of 11 Erasmus National Agencies (NAs), 4 SALTO-YOUTH Resource Centres (SALTOs), as wellas the Resource Centre for the European Solidarity Corps. Coming together under a joint strategy, supported by the Transnational Cooperation Activities (TCA)budget line of the Erasmus programme, means that NAs and SALTOs can follow a common vision, work collaboratively and increase the impact of their work.Its members are: Erasmus National Agencies from Turkey (the leading NA), Cyprus, France,Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta, North Macedonia, Poland, Spain, and the UK. SALTO-YOUTH Resource Centres representing Eastern Europe and theCaucasus (based in Poland), South East Europe (based in Slovenia), Euromed and Good Practices (based in France), and Training and Cooperation Resource Centres (based in Germany). Resource Centre for the European Solidarity Corps (based in Austria).The partnership organises a variety of knowledge-sharing, capacity-buildingand networking activities each year, creating new initiatives, as well as buildingon existing actions. All the activities of the member NAs and SALTOs that werepreviously linked to the themes of youth employability and entrepreneurship nowcome under the umbrella of [email protected], such as conferences, training courses, study visits, online courses or publications. This creates a coherent approachfor NAs, builds synergies and increases impact and dissemination. Importantly,it also establishes a stronger voice at European level to represent the contribution of youth work on these themes, and to enhance European policy visibility forthe work of the partnership and its member NAs. The NAs and SALTOs want todevelop and make visible the actions and impact of the Erasmus programme inthe areas of youth employability and entrepreneurship, and through [email protected] see the opportunity to create the weight and coherence of evidence neededto achieve this at both national and EU level.

8The objectives of [email protected] are to: Provide visibility and enhance the role of youth work in the youth employability and entrepreneurship ecosystems. Support the contribution of Erasmus towards the implementation of the EUYouth Strategy (2019-2027), and other European youth employability andentrepreneurship-related policies. Strengthen the cooperation and synergies between local, regional, nationaland EU initiatives on youth employability and entrepreneurship, and supportpeer learning. Increase the development of sustainable partnerships, good practice, quality projects and foster innovation. Reinforce the contribution of youth work and of Erasmus , particularly theacquisition of competences and recognition among our target groups. Enhance understanding and promote the use of EntreComp, DigComp andother European competence frameworks to be developed by the EuropeanCommission, as well as of Youthpass.For these objectives to be reached, [email protected] has identified detailed targetgroups which reflect the broad engagement needed for employability and entrepreneurship themes: non-profit, public and private sectors, as well as young people(with a special focus on those with fewer opportunities and special needs).In line with the above goals, [email protected] has devised the current study onyouth employability and entrepreneurship, which is intended to critically examineyoung people’s relationships with the world of work, public policies that addressyouth employment and entrepreneurship, and the contribution of youth work in thisprocess. In the first part, the study looks at the challenges faced by young people inthe labour market: from unemployment and precarious labour, to entrepreneurshipby necessity. It is followed by a review of policies in the area of youth employmentand entrepreneurship, coupled with an identification of the benefits of public policies, as well as the inadequacies and the tensions this generates. The literaturereviewed (from research to policy documents) informed an original survey, aimedat actors from the youth sector and based on quantitative and qualitative questions.The responses from over 400 participants served as a basis for imagining alternatives and possible ways forward in the actions of youth organisations.The study calls for youth organisations in general, and [email protected] in particular, to engage critically with the ‘employability’ discourse that permeates policyenvironments. It argues that employability is valuable, as it enables young peopleto exercise many social roles. However, youth work is wider in scope. The studyproposes revising the employability agenda in ways that are responsive to broadersocial purposes and to the wider personal goals that young people may have. Wehope readers will find the study worthwhile and the arguments engaging.1THE CHANGINGLANDSCAPEOF WORK

Chapter 1. The changing landscape of work 11M.C. PanteaYouth unemploymentThis chapter will look at several of the challengesfaced by young people in the labour market:from unemployment and precarious work,to entrepreneurship by necessity. It argues thatyoung people’s situation in the world of work is shapedby structural limitations that call for policy interventions.Later, it is suggested that by concentrating effortson preparing young people to navigatean unfriendly labour market, youth work mayoverlook the very structural dysfunctions that causeunemployment or in-work poverty, for instance.This chapter lays the ground for proposals suggestingyouth work actors and National Agencies on Youthtake on board young people’s concerns and advocatefor youth-responsive policy-making processes.In the context of the economic recession (and its aftermath), young people represent one of the main riskgroups. In comparison with other age groups, youngpeople have been hit the hardest; their unemployment rates are still increasing, long after the economyhas started to grow again (Verick, 2009; ECB, 2014).Young people face disproportionately high labour market risks: from a higher likelihood of losing a job andlong-term unemployment, to higher employee turnoverand a growing number of precarious jobs (Verick 2009;O’Higgins 2010; Scarpetta et al. 2010; Kazjulja andRoosmaa, 2016). For instance, as of 2017, the globalyouth unemployment rate was at 13%, which is threetimes higher than the adult rate of 4.3% (ILO, 2018). Asa result of the financial and economic crisis, the rate ofyouth long-term unemployment (12 months or longer)has steadily grown in the EU, from 3.1% in 2008 to 7.1%in 2013 (Eurostat, 2018a). As of 2014, the average EUunemployment rate of young people, in the 15-29 agegroup, was 18.9%- more than twice as high as in the30-59 age group, where the rate was 8.7% (Kazjuljaand Roosmaa, 2016).Youth unemployment has always been there. However, there are several ways the current situation differsfrom the youth unemployment of previous generations.Research has identified an increase in long-term unemployment among young people whose parents experienced unemployment during previous recessions(O’Reilly, 2015). For those entering employment, therisk of precarious work is high. Moreover, many tend toremain at the lower end of the occupational spectrumfor longer than previous generations (Standing, 2011).Unemployment has different causes. Structuralunemployment occurs when workers have skills thatare no longer in demand by employers, because ofstructural changes in the economy, although unemployment and vacancies may co-exist (ETF, 2012).The restructuring of the economy changes the distribution of employment by sectors. In Ukraine, for instance, as of 2014, services represented the majority of the labour force (62.7%), followed by industry(20.2%) and agriculture (17.1%) (ETF, 2018a).Technological unemployment refers to the lossof jobs due to technological change (i.e. automationand other labour-saving technologies). Indeed, thedemand for skills is often interpreted as an effect oftechnological advancements alone. However, morerecent evidence shows that changing consumptiondemands and countries’ industrial structure (such asBritain’s large finance sector), also have skills implications (Green, 2016).Education matters, but schools alone cannot always ensure (quality) employment. In Georgia, for instance, undereducated young people are less likely toenter NEET situations, in comparison with their peerswith intermediate education (especially VET graduates) and university graduates, who face the highestrisk of being not in education, employment or training(ETF, 2018f). In Azerbaijan, every year, around 40% ofthose finishing secondary education enter the labourmarket without a specific qualification (ETF, 2018g).In Egypt, educated women may still be unemployedbecause of cultural barriers and their preference formore stable (but lower paid) jobs in the public sector(ETF, 2018e). Recent research (Rokicka et al., 2018)finds significant differences in unemployment rates byUnemployment has different causes:some skills are no longer in demand;different economic sectors emerge; automation;new consumer demands;countries’ industrial structures.

12 Chapter 1. The changing landscape of workChapter 1. The changing landscape of work 13Young people (aged 20-34) neither in employment nor education and trainig, 2018Education matters, but schools alonecannot always provide a safety netagainst unemployment. Cultural barriersmay prevent women’s employmentin many North African countries.%3530252015In-work povertyYouth employment is generally perceived as an important indicator of a healthy economic climate. Yet, itis not necessarily a way out of poverty: many (youngpeople) can hardly make a living, even though theyare working. The concept of ‘in-work poverty’ incorporates a definition of work and a definition of poverty.According to the EU-SILC, people are at risk of inwork poverty if they work for over half the year andtheir annual disposable household income is below60% of the national household median income level(Eurofound, 2017).As of 2016, the EU average was 9.6% for the entire working age population, with a percentage of over12% for young workers (18-24) (Eurostat, 2018b). InSpain and Romania, the share of young workers at riskof poverty was over 20% (ILO, 2016). Greece, Italy,Bulgaria, Portugal and Poland also had higher thanEU average rates of in-work poverty (Eurostat, 2018b).The lowest rates1 were in Finland (3.1%), the CzechRepublic (3.8%), Belgium (4.7%) and Ireland (4.8%)1Data is for the general population of active age.Employment is not necessarilya way out of poverty.Political calls for ‘more jobs’need to take into accountthe quality of IEEEUKCZPLBELVFRCYHUSKESHRITELBGRO0-28(Eurostat, 2018b). With very few exceptions (CzechRepublic, Germany, Cyprus, Hungary), men have aslightly higher risk of experiencing in-work povertythan women (in general, by 1-2%). The discrepancywas the highest in Romania: 6% in 2106: men (21.5%)and women 15.2%).Some research suggests that, although unacknowledged in policy, there is a significant demandfor workers prepared to undertake ‘flexible’, low-paid,low-skilled work, requiring few or no qualifications(Ecclestone, 2002; Keep and James, 2010; Atkins,2013). The political demand for ‘more jobs’ has totake into account the actual quality of employment.According to Şenyuva (2014), policies aimed atreducing unemployment must also look at issuessuch as work-life balance, freedom from all forms ofdiscrimination, precarious working conditions, selffulfilment, social and personal development. Whilstmany young people face difficult economic and socialconditions, some young people are more vulnerablethan others (i.e. young people leaving care, ethnicminorities, LGBT, migrants and refugees, young people from the criminal justice system, young peoplewith disabilities).EUeducational attainment in a majority of CEE countries:a moderate variation in Baltic states, while the effectof education on young people’s labour market situationis much greater in Poland, Slovakia and Bulgaria. InBulgaria, Hungary and Lithuania, for instance, the relative duration of time spent being employed was twiceas low among young people with a lower educationalattainment, in comparison to those with a medium levelof education.Source: Eurostat (online data code: edat lfse 20).Young people in NEET situationsThe World Bank estimates that worldwide, 40.7% ofyoung people between 15 and 29 years of age are inNEET2 situations, mainly due to three risk factors: (i)low education, (ii) living in remote areas and (iii) gender(ETF, 2018e). Despite efforts made, in the EU, as of2015, both the youth long-term unemployment rate andthe NEET indicators were still worse than the 2007 prerecession levels: 12%, after a 2007 average of 11%(see Graphic 1). The only improvements in the rateof young people in NEET situations were registeredin Germany, Latvia, Malta, Sweden and the UK (TheEuropean Committee of the Regions, 2017). Eurostatdata indicates a large variation in the NEET rate acrossEurope, with higher rates in southern and eastern regions. Also, some countries have a rather homogenousNEET rate within their borders (Denmark, Germany,Greece, and Italy) whilst others have large regionaldifferences (France, Romania, Spain, UK).Young people in NEET situations do not form ahomogenous group. Close to half take care of children or other family members; less than one-tenth2Not in education, employment or training.are inactive due to illness or disability and a similar number have given up a job search or work inthe informal economy (Kazjulja and Roosma, 2016).Young women between 25-29 years of age have thehighest rate of NEET representation (ETUC/ ETUI,2014). On the positive side, however, since 2007,the rate of early school leaving has decreased atEU level (The European Committee of the Regions,2017). The level of vulnerability among young people in NEET situations is very high for those leavingcare (Brown, 2015) and the criminal justice system,for migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers trying tosecure a workplace in Europe. Many face difficultiesin accessing the labour market due to the level ofeducation, discrimination, poor language proficiency,an unfavourable economic climate or a combinationof the above.In Maghreb countries, the evolution and percentage of young people in NEET situations differs considerably. In Algeria, the proportion of young people(15-24) not in employment, education or training ishigh (27.6%), with a disproportionate representationof girls (36.3%) (ETF, 2018b). Egypt has a similar proportion of young people in NEET situations (27.6%in 2016). Although there is progress in women’s em-

14 Chapter 1. The changing landscape of workployment, gender and urban/rural residency accountfor a major difference: two out of three young womenin rural Egypt (69.7%) and more than half of youngwomen in urban areas (60.4%) are NEET. Yet, as fewas one in eight young men in urban areas (13.2%)and a tenth of young men in rural Egypt (10.5%) areNEET (ETF, 2018e). In Tunisia, the rate of young people in NEET situations is increasing annually, reaching 51.6% in 2015 for those in the 18-24 age bracket(ETF, 2018d).Countries in the Caucasus have a different profile: in Georgia, there are no major gender disparitiesin youth unemployment, yet, young females are moreprone to be in NEET situations (not in employmenteducation or training): 33.2% vs. 23.2% for youngmales (ETF, 2015). Interestingly, however, it is not theless educated young people who are more likely tobe in NEET situations, but those with an intermediateeducation (especially VET) and university graduates(ETF, 2015).It is not only genderthat influences the riskof being in NEET situations,but also the way genderintersects with regionsand urban/ rural residency.The relationship between the level of schoolingand NEET situations is not straightforward. High literacy rates may be necessary, but not sufficient foryouth employment. With a youth literacy rate of 96.8%among the 15 to 24 age group, Tunisia has made significant improvements in literacy and schooling (ETF,2018d). Yet, the rate of young people in NEET situations is high. Ukraine too has almost universal (99.2%)enrolment rates in secondary education (UNESCO,2014 cf. ETF, 2018a). However, over 40% of firms inUkraine have declared that they face problems relatedto employees’ education (ETF, 2012). Croatia, Geor-Chapter 1. The changing landscape of work 15gia and Turkey faced below average, but still severe,problems with workforce skills. At the other end of thespectrum, probably because of the high expansion ofuniversity education and a perceived level of over-education, fewer companies in Montenegro had difficultiesfinding skilled employees (Sisevic, 2011; ETF, 2012).The demographic structure of the population andthe recent refugee crisis pose challenges in tacklingthe situation of young people in NEET situations. Withover 60% of its population under 30 years old, Jordan faces strong demographic pressure in education,health, employment, housing and infrastructure (ETF,2014). The Syrian refugee crisis has added to thiscomplexity. 60% of Syrian refugees over the age of 15have never completed basic schooling, and only about15% have completed secondary education, comparedto 42% of Jordanians over the age of 15 (ILO, 2015).Under-employment as precarious workRecent years have witnessed a departure from fulltime, stable work. There are several ways of describing this process. There is the concept of under-employment, which denotes situations where employeespossess skills beyond the level of qualification neededto perform the job, where they do temporary/part-timework involuntarily or they remain idle. Eurofound andILO use ‘non-standard employment’ as an umbrellaterm, in order to denote: i) temporary employment;ii) part-time and on-call work; iii) temporary agencywork and other forms of employment involving multiple parties; iv) disguised employment relationshipsand dependent self-employment (ILO, 2017).Whilst people have always started low and climbed up the occupational ladder to reach the top, atpresent, young people face a higher risk of remainingat the bottom of the occupational hierarchy for longerthan previous generations did (despite being moreeducated). Moreover, they expect a life of unstable labour and unstable living (Standing, 2011). The conceptof ‘precarious labour’ reflects such situations. According to Standing (2014), those doing precarious labour(‘the Precariat’) have class characteristics, namely: (i)distinctive labour relations (i.e. insecure employment,agency work, incomplete contracts); (ii) distinctive relations of distribution (that is: income is money only,with few if any other benefits, such as paid leave); (iii)distinctive relations with the State: fewer and weakercivil, cultural, social, political and economic rights (i.e.unionisation; the right to vote in their companies). Workacross the entire employment spectrum (from manualwork to the highly skilled IT specialists and consultants)carries the risk of becoming precarious.Temporary employment is a non-standard employment form where young people are overrepresented, especially in Europe, where half of young workers were in temporary employment in 2015 (CICOPA,2018). The border between temporary employment asa choice, and temporary employment as a precariousform of work is hard to draw. Often, temporary employment is a solution of choice: it enables young people toexperience different working environments, to develop competences, to combine work with education. Arecent European study on young people in the labourmarket (EXCEPT, 2017) indicates there are severaladvantages that temporary employment brings. First,it can address poverty or deprivation in the short term,despite being associated with lower wages than permanent employment. Second, in the medium term, itmay act as a ‘stepping stone’ into continuous, permanent employment. However, the benefits of temporaryemployment are fragile, unless supported by strongpolicies that regulate fixed-term employment in a similar way to permanent employment (EXCEPT, 2017).Such policies need to protect temporary employeesfrom an ‘excessive flexibilisation of their contracts’ byopportunistic employers who seek to use fixed-termcontracts as a ‘flexibilised secondary labour market’(EXCEPT, 2017:8). Strong policy regulation is neededin order to prevent harmful socio-economic consequences in the long term, notably major economicrisks in old age due to poor pension contributions.Zero hours contracts are a type of employer-employee relationship without the employer having anyobligation to provide continuous work or pay. Theyare used in northern Europe and in the UK, where2.8% of all people in employment have ‘zero hourscontracts’ as their main job, with 33.8% of them aged16-24 (CICOPA, 2018).The benefits of temporaryemployment are fragile,unless supported bystrong policies that regulatefixed-term employmentin a similar way to permanentemployment (EXCEPT, 2017).Over-education3 is a form of under-employmentand an unprecedented feature of a precarious labour market (Standing, 2011). Recent, large scaleresearch looked for patterns in over-education amongEuropean countries, based on as many as 30 factors(McGuinness et al., 2015). Whilst the structural forcesinfluencing over-education are very complex (from migration to the use of temporary workers), it emergedthat over-education increases in peripheral countries and remains lower in new European states. Noevidence was found of particular country groupings(old, new, peripheral countries). Some states (Poland,Romania, Cyprus and Bulgaria) have over-educationindependently of all other countries (McGuinness etal., 2015). Labour market turbulence that increasesthe risk of precarisation is higher in countries withlow labour market regulation and weak social security systems (Gangl, 2004) and in the Anglo-Saxoncountries, more so than in parts of continental Europe (Bassanini, 2010). Even higher instability hasbeen witnessed in the transition economies, wherepreviously subsidised industries disappeared (ETF,2012). The conflicts in the Western Balkans and thecreation of new states brought about increased labour market turbulence (Bartlett, 2008 cf. ETF, 2012).Labour market turbulence that increases the risk ofprecarisation is higher in countries with low labourBy and large, defined as ‘the extent to which an individual possesses a level of education in excess of that which is required for their particular job’ (McGuinness et al., 2015).3

16 Chapter 1. The changing landscape of workmarket regulation and weak social security systems(Gangl, 2004).For the post-Communist countries, transition involved an additional layer of instability, which produceda reconfiguration of social positions and prestige. According to Pollock (2010), in the South Caucasus (Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan), young people experience a ‘feeling of precariousness’ created by a majordrop in the formerly high status and wealth of certainprofessions. The large size of the informal sector in thetransition economies of the Eastern European partnership countries adds to the complexity (ETF, 2012).This has been linked to: (i) the reduction of the publicsector, previously a source of secure employment; (ii)privatisation and the restructuring of state enterprises;(iii) land reform and subsistence agriculture; (iv) the increased bargaining position of employers, which hasenabled them to enforce informal arrangements (ETF,2011: 18).Whilst ‘precarious work’ is a useful concept in theGlobal North and in the wealthier countries of the South,it may be that the concept of informal work is morepertinent in the global South, where the absence/ lackof implementation of standard laws and social benefitsis more pervasive (Evans and Tilly, 2016). Indeed, thehighest incidence of informal work is in developing andemerging countries, where it affects 96.8% and 83.0%of employed youth respectively. Again, young peopleare overrepresented. Worldwide, three out of four employed young people work in the informal economy, incomparison with three out of five employed adults (ILO,2017). Informality is relevant (although less extensive)in developed countries, where slightly less than 20%of working young people are in the informal economy(ILO, 2017).In some countries, the reasons for under-employment are cultural. Despite some improvements, in several Maghreb countries, women’s labour market participation remains low. In Algeria, for instance, maleemployment reached 61.2% in 2016, but women’s employment is as low as 13.3%. Young women (16-24) aredisproportionately affected, with an unemployment rate increasing to 49.9% in 2016 (up from 38.1 in 2011).Importantly, because of family obligations and a morevulnerable labour market position, their participationChapter 1. The changing landscape of work 17peaks at age 25 to 29 and then gradually reduces withage (ETF, 2018b). In Lebanon, a youth unemploymentrate of 18% for males and 20.4% for females is accompanied by a high influx of foreign workers and alarge number of skilled Lebanese seeking employmentabroad (ETF, 2018c).Digitisation and the labour marketMany of the changes that have occurred in the labourmarket are being attributed to digital technologies (seetechnological unemployment, above). Online platformsallow companies to hire part-time or temporary workersas ‘independent contractors’ or ‘freelancers’, in waysthat externalise the social risks. For many young people, the ‘gig economy’ (or ‘crowd work’) has the advantage of being a secondary source of income, flexibleand self-organised. Yet, for many others, its unpredictability and absence of progression are major deterrents. The ‘gig’ economy creates an environment whereyoung people are faced with insecure contracts and alack of career progression (Pollock and Hind, 2017).Over 1.5 billion people com-pete for highly mobile jobs,many of which are temporary (Beynon, 2016). Theyare rapidly growing in high-income countries and havea disproportionate impact on young people (CICOPA,2018). On the one hand, digitisation brings increasedopportunities for self-e

The opinions expressed in this book are the responsibility of the authors and . Publication June 2019 by the Spanish and Turkish Erasmus National Agencies, and the Community . enter NEET situations, in comparison with their