Structural framework conditions and individual motivations for youth-mobility: A macro-micro level approach for different European country-types

Abstract

European youth mobility seems to be fostering Europe's unequal pace of integration, which sees certain countries benefit at the expense of others (Ohmacht et al., 2009;van Mol & Timmerman, 2014). Using a comparative approach, the paper aims to relate a macro-level country-typology focussing on human capital with individual mobility-motivations on the micro-level. Our methodological approach is based on a secondary macro-data analysis and analyses of mobility-motivations of young people (micro-data) deriving from qualitative (N=152) and quantitative data (N=5,499) collected in six European countries. In order to examine correspondence between macro-conditions and micro-aspects, we relate information on mobilitymotivations to the country-typology by allocating mobile youth to the respective types of their home country. The results show that the country-types compose different opportunity structures, which are reflected in individual motivations. Accordingly, different country-types can be seen as an example of the heterogeneity and inequality of European social and territorial mobility frames.

Capturing agency in different educational settings. A comparative study on youth perceptions of mobility-framing structures

“…The analysis concerning the first aim shows that young people from different fields deal with diverse institutional contexts. They do this in multifaceted, creative ways which show that economic considerations, but also peer and family encouragement, striving for autonomy, self-development, longing for adventure, and, not least, convenience, are powerful in mobilityrelated decision making (in line with quantitative results, see for example Cairns & Smyth, 2010;Hemming et al, 2018 in this issue). To account for the highly individual responses according to the vocational situation within which the mobility takes place, we propose the dynamic concept of context-sensitive mobility-related modes of action (MRMA).…”

Strategies and prospects for territorial mobility of environmental graduates with higher education

“…The results of this study show that the trend towards building a vector of territorial mobility of young people is aimed at large urban agglomerations and metropolitan regions. This situation is typical not only for the south of Russia, the Urals, but also noted in a number of foreign studies [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26].…”

Why is it so hard? And for whom? Obstacles to intra-European mobility

“…The financial aspect is directly linked to the socio-economic background, with the result that youth from well-off families have higher odds of realising international mobility/experiences. Similarly, participation in mobility differs between countries (see Hemming et al, 2019 in this special issue), in part because poorer countries may have less extensive government funding schemes to finance mobility (Chankseliani, 2016). In contrast to mobile HE students from Hungary, as shown in our data, for HE students from Luxembourg a stay abroad is not a problem, as they are supported with generous state allowances.…”