The Impact of Neoliberal Policies During the Great Recession on Youth Transition Regimes in Spain and the UK

López‐Andreu, Martí; Verd, Joan Miquel

doi:10.1177/0896920519897108

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Bulgaria being an outlier among the CEE EWR is clustered together with Western Mediterranean welfare regimes. Regarding the overall regime-theoretical literature, our analysis supported latest findings by Hacker (2009), Jørgensen et al (2019) and López-Andreu and Verd (2020) that former intact welfare regime clusters are becoming more diverse. Indeed, our findings suggest that there is no intact cluster of the “post-communist” welfare regime and CEE countries are today “on move”.…”

Section: Key Findings – the Youth Welfare Citizenship Regime Clusters...supporting

confidence: 81%

“…Jørgensen et al (2019) claim that youth transition policies in the Nordic welfare states have substantially altered; countries grow more diverse; and there is no such common universalistic Nordic regime as labelled earlier by Walther (2006). López-Andreu and Verd (2020) found that although neoliberal policies during the recession have not altered the basic features of the youth transition models and made the regime boundaries more blurred.…”

Section: Youth Welfare Citizenship Typology and The Ewrs In Central A...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Locating Central and Eastern European emerging welfare regimes: is the youth welfare citizenship typology useful?

Broka

Toots

2021

IJSSP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The authors’ aim is to establish the variance of youth welfare citizenship regimes in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and to revisit the applicability of the regime approach to the emerging welfare regimes (EWRs). Design/methodology/approach The empirical analysis follows the descriptive case study strategy aiming to discover diversity of youth welfare citizenship patterns. The case selection is made within the CEE country group, which includes countries in Central Europe, the Baltics, Eastern Europe and Southeast Europe, all sharing the communist past. The subdivision of these countries in reference to the welfare states can be made via the European Union (EU) membership based on the assumption that EU social policy frameworks and recommendations have an important effect on domestic policies. We included countries which are in the EU, i.e., with a similar political and economic transition path. There were three waves of accession to the EU in CEE countries. In the first wave (2004), all the Baltic countries, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary and Slovenia joined. In the second wave (2007), Romania and Bulgaria joined. Finally, Croatia joined the EU in 2013. Altogether 11 CEE countries are the EU members today, the remaining CEE countries are non-EU members and thus are excluded from the current research. Those countries which are part of the EU share similarities in social and economic reforms during the pre-accession period and after in order to reach a comparatively similar system with other member states. So, in terms of casing strategy these six countries can be named as emerging welfare regimes (EWRs) evolving transformations across different public policy areas. Handpicking of six countries out of 11 relies on the assumption that the Anglo-Saxon welfare system characteristics are more evident in the Baltic countries (Aidukaite, 2019; Aidukaite et al., 2020; Ainsaar et al., 2020; Rajevska and Rajevska, 2020) and Slovenia, while in Bulgaria and Croatia certain outcomes reflect the Bismarckian principles of social security (Hrast and Rakar, 2020; Stoilova and Krasteva, 2020; Dobrotić, 2020). This brings important variety into our analysis logic. Last but not least, we juxtapose six CEE EWR countries under analysis with six mature welfare regime countries representing different welfare regime types. Those mature welfare regime countries (Finland, Sweden, France, Germany, Italy, UK) are not an explicit object of the study but help to put analysed CEE EWR cases into larger context and thus, reflect upon theoretical claims of the welfare regime literature. Findings The authors can confirm that the EWR countries can be rather well explained by the welfare citizenship typology and complement the existing knowledge on youth welfare regime typology clusters in the Western Europe. Estonia is clustered close to the Nordic countries, whereas Latvia, Lithuania, Croatia and Slovenia are close to the Bismarckian welfare model despite rather flexible, non-restricted educational path, universal child and student support. Bulgaria is an outlier; however, it is clustered together with mature Mediterranean welfare regimes. Former intact welfare regime clusters are becoming more diverse. The authors’ findings confirm that there is no any intact cluster of the “post-communist” welfare regime and Eastern European countries are today “on move”. Research limitations/implications Altogether 11 CEE countries are the EU members today. The remaining CEE countries are non-EU members and thus are excluded from the current research. Those countries which are part of the EU share similarities in social and economic reforms during the pre-accession period and after in order to reach a comparatively similar system with other member states. At least one CEE country was chosen based on existing theoretical knowledge on the welfare regime typology (Anglo Saxon, Beveridgean, Bismarckian) for the Post-communist country groups. Practical implications In the social citizenship dimension we dropped social assistance schemes and tax-relief indices and included poverty risk and housing measures. Youth poverty together with housing showed rather clear distinction between familialized and individualised countries and thus, made the typology stronger. In the economic dimension the preliminary picture was much fuzzier, mainly due to the comprehensive education in the region and intervention of the EU in domestic ALMPs (and VET) reforms. The authors added a new indicator (pro-youth orientation of ALMP) in order better to capture youth-sensitivity of policy. Social implications The authors included a working poverty measure (in-work poverty rate) in order to reflect labour market insecurity as an increasing concern. Yet, the analysis results were still mixed and new indicators did not help locating the regime types. Originality/value In order to improve the validity of the youth welfare citizenship regime economic dimension, Chevalier's (2020) model may also be worth revisiting. The authors argue that this dichotomy is not sufficient, because inclusive type can have orientation towards general skills or occupational skills (i.e. monitored or enabling citizenship clusters), which is currently ignored. Chevalier (2020) furthermore associates inclusive economic citizenship with “coordinated market economies” (referring to Hall and Soskice, 2001), which seems hardly hold validity in the Nordic and at least some CEE countries.

show abstract

Section: Key Findings – the Youth Welfare Citizenship Regime Clusters...supporting

confidence: 81%

Section: Youth Welfare Citizenship Typology and The Ewrs In Central A...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Locating Central and Eastern European emerging welfare regimes: is the youth welfare citizenship typology useful?

Broka

Toots

2021

IJSSP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These transitions were already under pressure as western countries transformed into post-industrial economies and contracted their welfare systems (Ball et al, 2000;Silva, 2012). On top of that, the austerity regimes implemented in response to the 2008 financial crisis presented another wave of neoliberalisation (Peck, 2012), which, especially for working-class youth, placed such markers further out of reach (López-Andreu and Verd, 2020;McDowell, 2020). As austerity erects new barriers towards youth transitions, it transforms the meaning of growing up and the identities of youth that form during these transitions (Holdsworth, 2017;McDowell, 2014;Pimlott-Wilson, 2017).…”

Section: Austerity and Youth Transitionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Imagining a future in the austerity city: Anticipated futures and the formation of neoliberal subjectivities of youth in Ireland

Lanen

2021

Environ Plan A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores what anticipated futures of disadvantaged urban youth can reveal about the contemporary and future consequences of austerity. As austerity has disrupted several transitions associated with adulthood, such as finding work and moving out of the parental home, it affects how young adults imagine their future. Young adults living in neighbourhoods of concentrated deprivation were particularly vulnerable to such disruptions. Therefore, this paper builds on semi-structured interviews with youth from Knocknaheeny (Cork) and Ballymun (Dublin) in Ireland to present two vignettes reflecting dominant narratives on anticipated futures. First, a narrative that embraces neoliberal logic, where young adulthood is the basis for future success through dedicated hard work rather than a phase of exploration of possible futures. Second, a narrative of “acceptance” where youth imagines the future to “go on” from the present and becomes a source of anxiety or resignation. This paper shows that combining vignettes with interview data presents two benefits. First, they illuminate the complex and sometimes contradictory stories of youth making sense of their present, past and future. Second, comparing and contrasting the vignettes to multiple participant stories can disentangle roles of location, class, gender and other differentiations. In conclusion, the paper stresses the importance of imagined futures for understanding everyday geographies of austerity as anticipated futures surface in everyday practices, behaviour, and attitudes.

show abstract

Escaping the trap of temporary employment: Precariousness among young people before and after Spain's 2021 labour market reform act

Verd,

Godino,

González‐Heras

et al. 2024

Int J Soc Welfare

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Temporary employment has been the core dimension of employment precariousness in Spain for decades. In December 2021, a labour market reform aimed at reducing the use of fixed‐term contracts, which especially affected young people, was passed. This article compares the situation of young workers before and after this labour market reform, with the objective of identifying internal differences among this age group. The results show a substantial reduction in the prevalence of temporary employment after the reform, although they also show that temporary employment, as well as incipient forms of precariousness such as involuntary part‐time employment, are more concentrated than before among the most disadvantaged in this age group, following traditional patterns of segmentation in the labour market. This article, therefore, provides insights into which profiles of young workers were better off after the reform and which were not, offering valuable lessons for other countries with similar labour market challenges.

show abstract

The Impact of Neoliberal Policies During the Great Recession on Youth Transition Regimes in Spain and the UK

Cited by 4 publications

References 40 publications

Locating Central and Eastern European emerging welfare regimes: is the youth welfare citizenship typology useful?

Locating Central and Eastern European emerging welfare regimes: is the youth welfare citizenship typology useful?

Imagining a future in the austerity city: Anticipated futures and the formation of neoliberal subjectivities of youth in Ireland

Escaping the trap of temporary employment: Precariousness among young people before and after Spain's 2021 labour market reform act

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About