Active entrepreneurs and blue-collar workers. Cultural understandings mirrored in European youth unemployment policies

Abstract

Purpose – With a particular focus on cultural understandings and the concepts behind welfare policies, the purpose of this paper is to analyse commonalities and dissimilarities in the patterns of social policy, and more precisely youth unemployment policies, in Sweden and Germany. Design/methodology/approach – A document analysis of Swedish and German youth unemployment policies was conducted with regard to how the two welfare regimes’ policies define the underlying problem, the instruments through which this problem is tackled, and the aim of youth activation policies. Findings – The findings show congruency concerning the definitions of the problem of youth unemployment, in which the unemployed are regarded as lacking in discipline, as well as in the policies through which the problem is tackled: through conditionality and pastoral power as policy tools. The solution of the problem on the other hand, found in the notion of the ideal worker to be produced, diverges between active entrepreneurs in one country, and blue-collar workers in the other. The authors conclude that the introduction of supranational policy concepts is not a matter of mere implementation, and that concepts like activation are reinterpreted according to differing cultural ideologies and accommodated into the context of particular welfare states. Originality/value – This paper provides an innovative framework for the understanding of the influence of cultural understandings on policy making, but also on challenges facing activation governance on the one hand and European Union policy initiatives and transnational policy diffusion on the other.

Activation: a thematic and conceptual review

“…More recently, evaluative studies have become more common. Some have focused on labour market outcomes for particular groups, such as young unemployed people (Grimmer and Hobbins, 2014), lone parents (Millar and Crosse, 2018), or particular aspects of activation, such as benefit sanctions (e.g. Diop-Christensen, 2015;Ahmad et al, 2019).…”

“…More recently, evaluative studies have become more common. Some have focused on labour market outcomes for particular groups, such as young unemployed people (Grimmer and Hobbins, 2014), lone parents (Millar and Crosse, 2018) or particular aspects of activation, such as benefit sanctions (for example, Ahmad et al, 2019; Diop-Christensen, 2015). Others have concentrated on the performance of particular activation schemes, such as the Norwegian qualification programme (Ohls, 2017) or on regional approaches, such as in Lombardy (Trivellato et al, 2017).…”

Young Long-term Unemployed and the Individualization of Responsibility

“…At the same time, unemployment at a young age is assumed to lead to passivity and an inadequate level of motivation to find work, and further, that these consequences may be consolidated and lead to permanent social exclusion. In several European countries, such as Sweden and Germany, this assumption permeates the labor market legislation surrounding young and unemployed persons up to the age of 25 (see Grimmer & Hobbins, 2014). Thus, this is an example of how a discourse is materialized as an individual problem in state institutions and policy instruments such as legislation and rules and regulations (Junestav, 2009;see also Ostrom, 2005).…”

Between rights and obligations – rethinking youth participation at the margins

“…Thus, there is a politically formed, societal and also economic desire to get all young people to participate and practise their active citizenship. The term "active citizenship" implies that the alternativeinactive citizenshipis morally and economically detrimental (Hall et al, 1998;Grimmer and Hobbins, 2013).…”

“…Whenever these measures of responsibility are exploited without the opportunity to negotiate and without granting any actual power to the young people, the idea of free participation and partnership is illusory and may in turn decrease the autonomy of the participants (Määttä and Kalliomaa-Puha, 2006;Sulkunen, 2009; pp. 180-1; see also Grimmer and Hobbins, 2013).…”