“Fighting Youth Unemployment” PoLicy paper By the Think tank 2014 of the european youth Parliament
The 8th Think Tank of the European Youth Parliament
European Youth Parliament Sophienstrasse 28-29 – 10178 Berlin – Germany
policy paper - think tank of the european youth parliament
“Fighting Youth Unemployment� by the Think Tank 2014 of the European Youth Parliament 10 - 13 April 2014, berlin For the attention of Mr Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, and mr Laszlo Andor, Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion
SUPPORTED BY
3
4
policy paper - think tank of the european youth parliament
Abstract The 8th Think Tank of the European Youth Parliament (EYP) gathered 19 young people from 16 different European countries – from both the EU and neighbouring countries – from the 10th to 13th of April 2014 in Berlin. With the support of the Vodafone Stiftung Deutschland, these senior EYP alumni discussed the following topic: “How can the EU effectively use, promote and improve its freedom of mobility as a tool for fighting youth unemployment in a sustainable manner?” After an intense preparation phase, including consultation with many experts and an online poll which was taken by 1 854 young people, this policy paper stresses the complexity of the topic. Youth unemployment is not simply a statistical challenge, instead deeper underlying issues, of which there are many across Europe, need to be addressed. The Think Tank believes that further European integration is a key step for solving the challenges that the topic highlights. Further harmonisation of the labour market and educational systems could help unleash the full potential offered by a common European labour market. The strategic scheme for such harmoni-
sation should be composed of the best practices that can be found throughout Europe nowadays. This may involve encompassing the early school education in Finland, the dual apprenticeship system in Germany or the strong labour rights in France. The Think Tank believes that the European Union as a whole has the power and ideas to provide the necessary framework for future productivity and employment. Existing programmes that foster mobility can provide a useful tool, yet they need to be strengthened in depth and reach. The variety in the current portfolio of measures should be continued. Smaller programmes like EURES and the EURO regions should reach out to a wider audience, whilst not taking focus from successful programmes such as Erasmus. The Think Tank believes all programmes should be monitored closely and constantly be adjusted to their initial goals. Engagement with such programmes should come with clear and binding demands for Member States to ensure successful implementation. The recently launched Youth Guarantee shows that vague target agreements will undermine the effect such measures can have in securing the future of young people in Europe and thus of the Union as such.
Contents 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Introduction Working procedure A structural phenomenon Harmonising the European labour market Interconnected national labour markets Restructuring financial support Improving mobility programmes Harmonising educational systems Gaining practical experience in education Identifying brain drain Taking first steps with a Youth Guarantee This Think Tank of the European Youth Parliament is supported by
policy paper - think tank of the european youth parliament
5
Introduction “How can the EU effectively use, promote and improve its freedom of mobility as a tool for fighting youth unemployment in a sustainable manner?” The European Youth Parliament (EYP) is one of the largest European platforms for raising awareness of European issues, intercultural dialogue and the promotion of active democratic citizenship among high school students in the 16-20 age group.
tics, business or academia, the opportunity to actively engage in topical discussions. This year a group of 19 alumni from 16 different countries came together to draft their policy recommendations on youth unemployment in Europe.
The EYP not only includes Member States of the European Union but also accession candidates, and associated and neighbouring countries. The network of the EYP is currently spread over 41 European countries. In November 2004, EYP became a project of the Schwarzkopf Foundation, based in Berlin, Germany.
One of the major issues that the European Union is currently facing is the alarming rate of youth unemployment across the continent. While most unemployment figures have risen universally, there are significant variations in youth unemployment rates between Member States.
This Think Tank analysed the issue of mobility for Europeans under the age of 25 by examining the research question: “How can the EU effectively use, promote and improve its freedom of mobility as a tool for fighting youth unemployment in a sustainable manner?” The following paper outlines the discussions and topics which have been raised during the In 2006, the EYP decided to create its own Think Tank Think Tank and the precursory three month preparaseries to offer its alumni, who are often outstanding tion phase preceding the event. students or successful young professionals in poli-
The EYP represents an educational project entirely tailored to the needs of young European citizens. Its activities are almost entirely dependent upon the work of active young volunteers. Every year, more than 27,000 young people participate in its international, regional and national sessions all over Europe.
EYP THINK TANK - AIMS AND OBJECTIVES a)
Strengthen the dialogue between young people and European decision-makers;
b)
Enable alumni of the European Youth Parliament to come together and to share and discuss their ideas on current issues of European politics;
c)
Give concrete policy recommendations to top political decision-makers.
THE PARTICIPANTS OF THE THINK TANK Panayiotis Ataou (CY), Jasper Deschamps (BE), Arnolds Eizenšmits (LV), Konstantinos Emmanouil (GR), Jani Erkkilä (FI), Sebastian Hosu (RO), Besard Hoxha (AL), Jan Mareš (CZ), Theodora Markati (GR), Annika Mogensen (DK), Andreia Moraru (RO), Alexios Nompilakis (GR), Anna Pankowiec (PL), Malte Roßkopf (DE), Francisco Santos (PT), Tatjana Stamenkovska (MK), Anna Suprunenko (UA), Giorgi Tabagari (GE) Chairman of the Think Tank: Martin Hoffmann (DE)
6
policy paper - think tank of the european youth parliament
Working procedure Preparation phase The Think Tank participants put a strong emphasis on preparation, in order to use their relatively limited time in Berlin as efficiently as possible. Before the Think Tank gathered in Berlin, the chairperson provided participants with a topic overview, outlining the main aspects of the issue. During the three months leading up to the main event, the participants did exten-
sive research, formed working groups and prioritised the different sub-topics of the issue. Working groups were then tasked with writing a dossier and delivering a presentation on their respective areas of research. Additionally, external input was gathered by consulting 1 854 EYP alumni via an online ‘European Youth Poll’ on Youth Unemployment.
Main Event The Think Tank convened for three full working days from the 10th to the 13th of April 2014 in Berlin. As is common at events of the European Youth Parliament, the Think Tank worked on a completely consensual basis.
ness of youth of the existing infrastructure, as well as the methods available. Thirdly, three academic experts were invited to take part in several rounds of intensive round-table discussions on Friday afternoon. The visiting experts were Dr. Werner Eichhorst (IZA, Bonn), Dr. Wido Geis (IW Köln) and Mr. Tarrin Khairi-Taraki (IW Köln). Lastly, on Saturday afternoon, an open video conference was organised with young people from all over Europe, who were able to give input and raise additional questions.
The Think Tank started off with opening presentations on the main sub-topics. During the Think Tank, the majority of the discussion took place in one collective group, but at several times the participants were split into working groups. Every working group focused on a specific sub-topic that they developed, after which Overall, the interesting and fruitful debates that took the whole group drafted the policy paper that is pre- place in Berlin during these days were driven by the strong motivation of the Think Tank participants. sented below. Finding a balance between remaining academically The Think Tank gathered external expertise and consistent and applying creative solutions, the parknowledge at four points during the weekend. First- ticipants identified and addressed the problems head ly, all initial agreements were immediately released on. With the final results being based on a strong to the public via an open source format, giving EYP consensus, it is safe to say that this year’s Think Tank alumni from all over Europe the chance to contribute of the European Youth Parliament strengthened the throughout the weekend. Secondly two young partici- belief that young Europeans, from significantly differpants of EU mobility programmes were invited to give ent backgrounds, can work together effectively and their input. This allowed Think Tank participants to efficiently, discussing serious issues affecting the gain first-hand insight on the accessibility and aware- quality of life in Europe.
policy paper - think tank of the european youth parliament
7
A structural phenomenon In order to understand the general challenges of youth unemployment in Europe the Think Tank started by analysing the statistical data available to them.
much lower. In Spain, on the other hand, the youth unemployment rates are high, regardless of level of education of the youths themselves. In this way, Germany has been successful at providing employment for young graduates and vocational workers and this The economic and debt crises in the European Union may provide us with insight into potential solutions (EU) since 2008 have had a strong negative influence for countries like Spain. That said, the current ecoon the labour market. Decreases in investment, nomic conditions should definitely not be overlooked production and consumption caused a rise in unem- as the differences stem also from the varying labour ployment rates and youth unemployment rates were market structures, as well as educational and laparticularly affected. The EU-28 rate bour market policies. of youth unemployment grew sub- “Youth unemployment stantially from 15.8% in 2008 to 23% in rates are typically When analysing at poll results, it can 2013. Access to the labour market is be concluded that the language bardifficult for young people for a variety higher than overall rier is the primary impediment people of reasons which differ across the EU. unemployment rates, face when it comes to moving abroad A lack of sufficient training or neces- even in prosperous for work. Within the EU-28 there are sary qualifications can hinder access times.� 24 official languages while English, to the labour market. This is ampliwhich often seems to function as a fied in some countries by a minimum lingua franca, is not universally spowage that make the employment of young people an ken among the Member States’ citizens (99.2% UK, investment that is too high. The mobility of labour 14.5% Hungary). is potentially a solution to European unemployment, as well as an important pillar of the monetary union, Given the numerous existing mobility programmes, according to the Mundell Optimum Currency Area cross-border migration within the European Union theory. is low. Additionally, according to polls, there is a discrepancy between the stated willingness of citizens It is important to recognise that youth unemploy- to try living/working abroad (51% Denmark, 4% Italy) ment rates vary across Europe. In Germany or the and the actual numbers of people leaving. Netherlands youth unemployment is practically non-existent. At the same We would like to stress that when time, in Southern Europe the level analysing youth unemployment rates, is alarming and far from acceptable. it should be kept in mind that youth When comparing the situations of unemployment rates are typically Spain and Germany, to take a conhigher than overall unemployment crete example, we see that there is rates, even in prosperous times. Furnot only a substantial difference in thermore, there are numerous other the youth unemployment rate and impediments to migration which the ratio, but also when breaking up the researched data suggest. data, we see that most of the youth unemployment in Germany consists The Think Tank has strived to provide of people who had only completed prisolutions to persistent problems by mary education while the unemployanalysing and discussing different ment rates of those youngsters with aspects of youth unemployment and secondary and tertiary education are migration in detail.
8
policy paper - think tank of the european youth parliament
Harmonising the European labour market This Think Tank believes there is a need for a harmonisation of the EU labour market due to the fact that clear routes into host Member State professions allow migrants to understand how other Member State systems’ work. Subsequently, the Think Tank has concluded that a move towards a more harmonised EU labour market is essential for the true free movement of workers within the EU. Currently, in order for a migrant to move within the EU, their qualifications and knowledge must be assessed by the host Member State’s authority and compared to the host Member State qualifications. This system of mutual recognition of qualifications and knowledge heavily relies on non-protectionism and trust between Member States. Furthermore, given the different standards and functions for both regulated and non-regulated professions in each Member State, a non-national may have to learn further skills and functions of their profession. This can also result in certain profes- to converge with the aim of ensuring fewer issues sionals merely gaining partial access of their pro- for people who move abroad. Once this is achieved fession in the host Member State. EU citizens should not be majorly affected by crossborder barriers. In the short term, mobility must Another potential difficulty which can arise is the be made easier by optimising skill recognition proprobable existence of a language barrier; impeding cesses, as will be discussed further in this paper. efficient communication and also increasing difficulties in adapting to the culture and traditions of A move towards common regulated and non-regtheir host Member State. Other measures which can ulated professions within the Member States, i.e. be taken in order to have a more harmonised EU lathe gradual harmonisation of these bour market would be the increased professions, would in time nullify the coordination of education systems, “ G r a d u a l necessity of a mutual recognition of system, thus making mobility within well-established trans-European in- harmonisation frastructure and the achievement of [common regulated the EU easier. One way in which this equal rights for all employees. can be achieved would be to alloAs has been established, geographic mobility between EU countries is an essential element of decreasing youth unemployment on an EU-level. The Think Tank urges Member States
and non-regulated professions] would in time nullify the necessity of a mutual recognition system.”
cate a set of minimum standards for all professions to which all Member States must comply. This, of course, is not a complete harmonisation but it is a step towards achieving this vast objective.
policy paper - think tank of the european youth parliament
9
InterconnectED national labour markets The European Job Mobility Portal, EURES, was re-launched on the 1st of January 2014. Both the online portal and the related adviser network are essential initiatives for achieving the single European labour market, by facilitating labour flows and matching demand and supply of labour across the continent.
“Establishing a ‘onestop shop’ where people can receive assistance for the [EURES] platform, [...] basic information about social security rights and labour rights.”
We believe that EURES can be an important institution in terms of incoming labour and its integration into a new national context. This can be achieved by establishing a ‘onestop shop’, either physically or online, where people can receive assistance for the platform. This ‘shop’ can also function as a place for basic information about social security rights and We believe that EURES can help to address people with non-academic labour rights of the migrant in different countries. The shop should ideally backgrounds and limited international experience in particular. However, awareness be available both before the migrant comes to the of its existence among jobseekers and employers country and after they arrive. Some national EURES is minimal. Therefore, career advisers should help offices already offer the possibility for potential mito promote awareness among its target users. Fur- grants to get advice in specially-created chat rooms, thermore, we emphasise the importance of English e.g. Denmark and Sweden. We encourage all nationbeing EURES’ main language - even though jobs ad- al EURES offices to adopt this as a common practice. vertised within it may require a basic knowledge of the local language. Furthermore the national EURES Another essential step towards a well-functioning portals should be standardised and comprehensive single labour market is the standardisation of professional qualifications. Currently, work is being unin order to simplify navigation. dertaken to introduce a common European qualification for certain professions. We strongly support this particular implementation. It can be challenging to demonstrate work skills and to write a CV while searching for a job in a different country. Thus we reiterate the importance of the role of EURES advisers as well as the existing European Qualification Framework.
10
policy paper - think tank of the european youth parliament
restructuring financial support Throughout the history of the EU, European funding has not always been efficiently spent, and there is a need to further improve the allocation process. Given the current imbalances and the finite financial resources available, the issue of optimal and efficient allocation is crucial. In our opinion, this can be achieved by transferring these responsibilities to a European level, thus facilitating the transition in less developed regions of the EU.
are mostly connected to underdeveloped regions, is a small step to improving living conditions in Europe.
Research and Innovation (RTD) Directorate
The European Commission’s Research and Innovation Directorate and its Programme for the Competitiveness of Enterprises and SMEs with its €2.3 billion should focus on the creation of technologies Allocation and Management of budget and new industries so that it can create new sectors the Funds and job opportunities for people, while “We aim to stimulate improving the competitiveness of the The Cohesion Fund, the European SoEU. It should support technology develcial Fund, and the European Globalisa- entrepreneurship and opment centres all over Europe to boost tion Adjustment Fund, along with other improve the business the development of innovative business funds distributed to and by National environment.” initiatives, and redirect the Union to a Agencies, ought to be restructured in global leader position in information a way that would allow the beneficiarand communication technology. With ies of these to apply directly to a European institution the rise of developing economies such as China, India and not via national agencies of the Member States. and Brazil, this strategy aims to move away from the This would push for more decisions to be taken on a classic employment processes where large compaEuropean level and further integration, as well as im- nies and institutions are expected to hire young people; proved allocation of funds provided by the European towards self-employment and new business models. coordination that should be more aware of the regional framework. This is an active step for the evolution of The main advantage of the EU over other economies, European community and coherent policy. both of the US and emerging markets, is a better performance in social cohesion, thus creating a sustainable and inclusive society. However, the EU falls behind European Investment Bank the US in the terms of smart economy. Through alterThe European Investment Bank, which lends money ing the focus of this directorate and its role simultanethrough the European Investment Fund to small and ously, we aim to stimulate entrepreneurship and immedium enterprises (SMEs) through local financial in- prove the business environment. Considering the pace stitutions, should increase its role in business develop- the US is recovering from the crisis and its approach to ment. This can be achieved by increasing its presence fixing unemployment by stimulating market competiaround Europe and removing intermediaries, there- tion and generating new job sectors, it is crucial that fore directly providing the regions with investment, the EU reconsiders its steps towards empowering the while enhanced European coordination could improve infrastructure for business initiatives. the efficient use of the loans granted.
Common Agricultural Policy The Think Tank agreed that the Common Agricultural Policy should focus more on preserving the natural environment, improving food safety and cohesion, creating new green employment opportunities in this developing leading sectors and serving the needs of the people. Promoting these specific sectors, which
policy paper - think tank of the european youth parliament
11
Improving mobility programmes There is a wide range of programmes which promote mobility and employment on a European level. Within the Europe 2020 growth and jobs strategy such as Youth on the Move with the Youth Opportunities Initiative (YOI) or the European Job Mobility Portal (EURES), the usage of these tools has remained limited. The YOI, which includes Erasmus+, Erasmus for young entrepreneurs, Your First EURES Job, the Youth Guarantee and similar programmes, is notably funded by the European Social Fund, a fund already created in 1957 to support employment in the Member States.
programmes should be communicated, e.g. Western Europeans could take more advantage of it to invest and to offer new jobs. Erasmus+ programmes are sometimes too bureaucratic and not always well-organised, nor wellimplemented. Moreover, despite the fact that it is written in the agreement that the courses you take should be recognised in the sending universities, this is not always the case. Lastly, many students lack support from their universities when it comes to applying for jobs or internships within the Erasmus+ programme. All of the aforementioned factors clearly discourage potential applicants to get involved.
Thousands of young persons do not know what the possibilities are because of the lack of popularity of The programmes should reach out to those interested the current mobility programmes. Unfortunately, at people, rather than individuals having to discover inthe moment these programmes are more academi- formation on their own. When young people graducally-oriented and facilitating higher education gradu- ate from secondary school, they need to be provided ates rather than the groups of youths who are more with information on studying and job opportunities, as of more concern, e.g. long-term unemployed or un- well as Masters courses and additional job opportuniskilled young workers. There is also a problem of ties once they have graduated from university. There interconnections between educational systems, for should be advisers at the universities, highlighting stuinstance within the Leonardo programme, because dents’ possibilities after graduation. vocational training systems in the EU are too different in order to fully take “Thousands of young Mobility programmes should also priadvantage of the programmes’ possioritise the potential of offering trainbilities. The general awareness of these persons do not know ing programmes and/or employment programmes is usually limited to those what the possibilities outside the boundaries of the EU, but who already possess interest in Euro- are.” still within the continent and/or closely pean matters or who became aware of collaborating countries, so that Eurothe possibilities of learning, studying pean workers can get additional exand working abroad through multipliers. The Think perience and escape unemployment. Unemployment Tank also raised concerns about the equal access of programmes should also take into account people all institutions and agencies of Member States to these who currently do not have access to the existing proprogrammes. grammes, e.g. the agricultural sector, rural population and young people not enrolled in the universities. A striking example for not unleashing the full potential of mobility programmes is the one-sided usage of Existing mobility programmes under the Youth on the EURO region advantages between Austria on one side, Move umbrella should see the Erasmus, Leonardo and and Hungary and Slovakia on the other. While the in- Youth in Action programmes, which are now under the creased mobility is used by Hungarians and Slovakians Erasmus+ umbrella, as a best practice example. The to commute to Austria and find a job, the same is rarely Youth on the Move programmes need to become more done by Austrians in the opposite direction, as well as institutionalised. Together with the European Employby small and medium enterprises in terms of invest- ment Centre, which reports on job needs and job trends ment. More information about the potential of these in countries, the Youth on the Move programmes need
12
policy paper - think tank of the european youth parliament
to be advertised better. In the meantime, Erasmus should be more effective, allowing an easier transfer of the credits which participants have earned and have their courses recognised at their home universities. Furthermore, it should be stressed to all the institutions that all students receive sufficient funding or a scholarship when departing to study abroad, since there have been reported cases of people who could not go on Erasmus exchange because they could not afford the travel costs and additional living expenses. The EU should deal with these problems on a smaller scale as well by making use of the subsidiarity principle, thus also supporting national strategies on mobility, by e.g. encouraging mobility programmes within national frameworks, such as the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), and bilateral or transnational agreements on mobility. These successful apprenticeship programmes should be seen
as best practices. For example, European metropolitan areas can play an important role in encouraging people to take their first step to move further away. Furthermore, programmes such as the project “Jobs and Education in the Öresund Region” between Denmark and Sweden under the Interreg IV A umbrella are a good example of cross-national cooperation between the bordering countries. The ESF remains available to national and transnational mobility initiatives that focus on regions with high youth unemployment. This Think Tank believes that the cuts made in the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020 concerning mobility programmes have not been efficient. The EU should avoid cutting longterm mobility allocations to adjust to short term economic cycles in the next multiannual framework. The future of Europe lies with its young people and their mobility can be their key advantage.
Harmonising educational systems In order to use mobility as a tool to tackle youth un- Taking into account the statistics, we realise that lanemployment in Europe effectively, we believe that a guage barriers are the main obstacle preventing an harmonised education system could provide adequate effective use of mobility. We stress that learning lanpreparation for work life; this harmonisation should guages should be regarded as an opportunity to gain thus be enhanced and further supported. It is both the additional skills. Therefore, we call for harmonised, most important and sustainable soluhigh quality and compulsory English tion which fully considers the long lastcourses starting at primary education“We call for al level in all Member States. In addiing history of youth unemployment. h a r m o n i s e d , tion to that, all programmes to support Keeping that in mind, we regard the high quality and mobility must be tightly connected to Bologna Process as an important step compulsory English easily affordable language courses in in the right direction. Despite the proball countries. European awareness and lems and criticism we strongly en- courses starting at an advanced understanding of Europe courage further steps to improve this primary educational and mobility could also be emphasised harmonisation. In particular, we en- level.” through education. courage improvements in primary, secondary and vocational levels of educaMoreover it is necessary to stress the tion, where we found a severe lack of harmonisation importance of harmonised vocational education, prowhich is essential to increasing mobility. vided by schools and universities, and expanded exchange programmes on a vocational level. Europe Moreover, we see the necessity to point out that edu- should not limit its focus to the academic level but cation is not limited to schools and universities, but incorporate the mobility aspect into all levels and all also takes place on an informal level. Hence, we sup- forms of education. port any movement to raise awareness and encourage cooperation between different actors in the field of education.
policy paper - think tank of the european youth parliament
13
Gaining practical experiencE in education It is widely acknowledged that most employers are seeking employees with previous work experience, ready to contribute to their company or business. However, there is a gap between education and obtaining professional experience; a gap that may slowly be narrowing, but exists nonetheless.
on a national level. However, we are concerned that not all states devote the same level of effort to such a programme. While placements are better advertised in some countries, other countries only perform the bare minimum creating a lower awareness of the role of practical experience in education. We encourage the creation of national When talking about practical experience, we must frameworks, enabled and supported by European consider both sides of the equation: providing and institutions, to accelerate the implementation receiving. The providing end consists phase of such programmes. This of teachers, professors, and the em- “Curricula should fo- could happen at the secondary eduployers, e.g. industry, while on the cus more on develop- cational level to give a taste of the receiving end there are students working environment to young peoing practical skills of and young professionals. Interaction ple, at the university level to explore all types.” between these two groups can take the practical application of the theovarious forms: from teachers identiretical knowledge provided, or at any fying young students’ potential, to students having later level to accumulate more skills and bridge an industrial placement, to young professionals the gap between the academic and professional returning to their former professors for courses environments. It can take place in the form of apwith immediate application to the labour market. prenticeship schemes – for early school-leavers or for those seeking jobs in the technical sector, or European mobility gives the chance for young peo- graduate programmes designed to provide gradple to exercise this in various EU Member States, uates the necessary supplies for better employhowever, expanding the limits to a wider range ment opportunities. of countries, and therefore possibilities, can only be beneficial. We believe that by expanding the The current employment situation presents a network to a pan-European entity (including all challenge; the supply seems to be higher than members of the Council of Europe), we increase the demand. The additional cost to provide effecthe range of potential programmes as well as cov- tive placements – better quality, increased scope erage for the positions opened. or quantity – can be combatted, in our opinion, through financial incentives to universities and inGiven the current situation of distribution of com- dustry. A lack of national or institutional funding petences, we consider that the implementation of could potentially be covered through supplements a pan-European programme to increase practi- provided by the ESF. Such measures will increase cal experience and training should be regulated awareness amongst industrial stakeholders and engage more partners in a scheme designed to benefit both worlds. A further hindrance to youth mobility is the lack of basic skills in applying for a job, such as writing a curriculum vitae or cover letter which emphasises their skills and potential experience. We definitely regard the introduction of such functions in the secondary education curricula as desirable. Although the Europass CV exists, not all employers
14
policy paper - think tank of the european youth parliament
in Member States require it. We believe that by highlighting particular differences between European countries, potentially through the already existing EURES portal and the EURES-advisors guidance, the chances of a successful application will increase. This can be further enhanced through the Lifelong Learning Programme’s support, where its advisors and helpful contact points can play a major role. The skill mismatch currently present in Europe is a consequence of a lot of young Europeans pursuing a higher degree and gaining skills that are not needed in the labour market. Therefore, the acquisition of certain skills from an earlier age could help people to realise their strengths and better utilise their potential.
We also believe that curricula should focus more on developing practical skills of all types, as a complement to theoretical knowledge which is not always useful in the labour market. In order to achieve this, the skills of the individuals could be identified with the help of the teachers. We believe that within the EU, these matters should be regulated through an EU recommendation, as the EU does not have an exclusive or shared competence on matters of education, vocational training and youth matters. Finally, the Think Tank believes that a standardised framework for internship job placements should be explored as an option, as this would give potential employees an idea of the work performed, irrespective of the size or reputation of the company.
Identifying brain drain Brain drain is a term describing the departure of educated or professional people from one country, economic sector, or field for another, usually for better pay or living conditions. The phenomenon is related to highly-skilled people, however, a certain degree of subjectivity exists regarding who can truly be considered ‘highly-skilled’. The Think Tank recognised several waves of brain drain in Europe since the 1960s. The most recent one, which is still ongoing, is characterised by migration from Southern Europe, especially Spain, Greece and Portugal, to Central and Northern Europe. Nevertheless, the extent to which this phenomenon is truly a problem remains questionable. While opinions differed, the Think Tank agreed that it would be problematic if many people emigrated and did not return to their country of origin in the long-run.
ropean level. A primordial example of what needs to be improved is the match between graduate skills and labour market needs. Therefore, it is highly recommended that universities actively monitor and respond to the trends of national labour markets.
The connection between brain drain and mobility is rather obvious, however, before trying to analyse this it would be wise to point out “It is highly recom- correlation, the two aspects of the issue on which mended that univer- we, as Europeans, should focus. On the sities actively monitor one hand, by improving the conditions and respond to the for mobility, we risk exacerbating the phenomenon of brain drain in certain trends of national la- European countries. On the other hand, bour markets.” facilitating pan-European mobility will help prevent a substantial outflow of Europeans to other parts of the world.
Moreover, it is widely acknowledged that Europe has had a considerable inflow of non-Europeans recently, a fact that can By examining all parameters of this be mostly considered as a brain gain for Europe rather than a cause of worsenphenomenon we cannot ignore the fact ing unemployment rates. Therefore the that, except for the imbalances caused by brain circulation, there is an issue Think Tank recognises that, in general, of brain waste. This term refers to the mismatch be- immigration from outside Europe is beneficial for the tween peoples’ qualifications and the kind of jobs they continent in the long-run. are practising; for example, someone with a Master’s On a general note it is necessary to stress that, whilst degree doing unskilled manual labour. we endorse mobility, ensuring high living standards and In order to address this issue thoroughly, it is important quality of life throughout Europe should remain an imto stress the need of action on both the national and Eu- portant focus.
policy paper - think tank of the european youth parliament
15
Taking first steps with a youth guarantee Every EU citizen has certain minimum rights which fall within four categories: health and safety at work, equal opportunities regarding gender, protection against discrimination, and labour law. However, these rights mainly apply to individuals who are already employed. When we consider young citizens who lack the necessary experience and qualifications to gain access into the labour market, the issue becomes more complex. The global economic crisis is a primary reason for high unemployment. More than five million young people were unemployed in the EU in 2013. When bringing these common European statistics into the debate, we also took into consideration the individual complexities of this issue.
fers for employment, continued education traineeship programmes or apprenticeship within four months of leaving formal education. The “Youth Guarantee” initiative has already been successfully implemented in a number of Member States: Austria, Sweden, Netherlands and Finland. Through the efficient functioning of public employment services youth unemployment was reduced in these countries. Therefore, there is a growing hope that this initiative will be able to tackle youth unemployment to a significant degree, particularly in Member States with more vulnerable economies.
The working costs of the “Youth Guarantee” initiative amount to €21 billion a year; however, only €6 billion have been allocated through the ESF and the Youth Employment Initiative thus far. As funding is diWhen analysing youth unemployment from a Eu- rectly linked to the effective implementation of ropean perspective, we cannot neglect the fact the initiative, it is unclear how countries which that the EU is not yet a homogeneous political en- are implementing austerity programmes at the tity and is not the sole responsible actor in this moment will be able to afford to finance the proarea. Education and employment issues do not gramme. Apart from the financial aspect, major fall under the full competence of the EU, which structural reforms will be necessary in certain hinders the possibility of finding a common Euro- Member States. The implementation of this inipean solution for this problem. Under the current tiative will require the involvement of all major treaty arrangement, the EU and its Member States stakeholders, which will be a difficult process. have a shared responsibility for polThe aforementioned success of the icy in the field of employment. Thus, “Major structural re- initiative is mainly seen in countries the EU only coordinates and moni- forms will be nec- where the youth unemployment tors national policies, promotes best essary [...]. The im- has not been particularly high anypractices, passes laws and scruti- plementation of this way, while those countries with the nises their implementation mainly highest numbers of youth uneminitiative will require in the areas such as rights at work ployment face tougher challenges. the involvement of all and social security schemes. It is also unclear to what extent the major stakeholders” rights of young employees will be Reducing unemployment has been respected with regard to minimum included in the wider Europe 2020 growth strat- wages across Europe, and whether trainees will egy. The key initiative proposed by the European enjoy the benefits of social security. Taking into Commission to specifically address youth unem- account these challenges, the future success of ployment is the “Youth Guarantee” initiative. This the “Youth Guarantee” initiative can therefore be aims to ensure young people get reasonable of- described as uncertain.