Advertisement

Support and Success in Youth Transitions: A Comparative Analysis on the Relation Between Subjective and Systemic Factors

  • Andreas WaltherEmail author
  • Barbara Stauber
  • Axel Pohl
Chapter
Part of the Social Indicators Research Series book series (SINS, volume 49)

Abstract

Based on a series of EU-funded research projects, this chapter investigates constellations of interaction between young people’s subjective orientations and coping strategies with regard to transitions to work and family on the one hand and respective socio-economic and institutional frameworks on the other. First, it is argued that there are variations in the extent to which different notions of successful transitions can be actively negotiated between institutional and individual actors; the crucial concept here is biographical agency. The findings suggest that research which up to now has concentrated on input and output of young people’s agency needs to put more stress on analysing the complex interpretation and negotiation processes that underlie individual decision-making. Thereby it may contribute not only to a better understanding of young people’s agency but also to the analysis of social change and – through a reflection of what makes successful transitions – its implications for the status of adulthood. Second, these interrelations between structure and agency are interrelated with the modalities and conditions of support for young people in their transitions. These vary according to different constellations of socio-economic, institutional and cultural factors, so-called transition regimes, with particular meanings of work, family, youth, disadvantage or support which represent different regulatory frameworks of youth transitions. The combination of a biographical and a comparative perspective has a potential of contributing to theorising the relation between structure and agency in youth transitions.

Keywords

Labour Market Young People Transition Regime Successful Transition Labour Market Policy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Alheit, P., & Dausien, B. (2000). ‘Biographicity’ as a basic resource of lifelong learning. In P. Alheit (Ed.), Lifelong learning inside and outside of schools (pp. 400–422). Roskilde: Roskilde University/Universität Bremen/Leeds University.Google Scholar
  2. Allmendinger, J. (1989). Educational systems and labour market outcomes. European Sociological Review, 5(3), 231–250.Google Scholar
  3. Bechmann Jensen, T., Weltz, C., & Jorgensen, L. (2005). Denmark. National report for the thematic study on policy measures for disadvantaged youth. Annex to the final report. Tübingen: IRIS.Google Scholar
  4. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society. Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Biesta, G., & Tedder, M. (2007). Agency and learning in the life course. Towards an ecological perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 39(2), 132–149.Google Scholar
  6. Biggart, A. (2005). Families and transitions in Europe. Final report of the research project FATE. Coleraine: University of Ulster.Google Scholar
  7. Biggart, A., & Kovacheva, S. (2006). Social change, family support, and young adults in Europe. New Directions, 113, 49–61.Google Scholar
  8. Blossfeld, H.-P., Klijzing, E. & Mills, M. (Eds.). (2005). Globalization, uncertainty and youth in society: The losers in a globalizing world. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? The American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Eurobarometer. (2007). Young Europeans. A survey among young people aged between 15–30 in the European Union. Analytical report. Brussels: Eurostat.Google Scholar
  12. European Commission. (2005). Addressing the concerns of young people in Europe – Implementing the European youth pact and promoting active citizenship. Communication from the Commission to the Council. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  13. Folbre, N. R. (1994). Who pays for the kids? Gender and the structures of constraint. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fraser, N. (1989). Unruly practices. Power, discourse and gender in contemporary social theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  15. Furlong, A., & Cartmel, F. (2006). Young people and social change. Individualization and risk in late modernity (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gallie, D., & Paugam, S. (Eds.). (2000). Welfare regimes and the experience of unemployment in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  18. Henderson, S., Holland, J., McGrellis, S., Sharpe, S., & Thomson, R. (2006). Inventing adulthoods – A biographical approach to youth transitions. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Harsløf, I. (2005). ‘Integrative’ or ‘Defensive’ youth activation in nine European welfare states. Journal of Youth Studies, 8(4), 461–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kohli, M. (2009). The world we forgot. A historical review of the life course. In W. R. Heinz (Ed.), The life course reader (pp. 64–91). Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
  21. Kovacheva, S. (2001). Flexibilisation of youth transitions in Central and Eastern Europe. Young, 9(1), 41–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leccardi, C. (2005). Facing uncertainty. Temporality and biographies in the new century. Young, 13(2), 123–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leccardi, C., & Rusmini, G. (2004). Life plans. In A. Biggart & D. Cairns (Eds.), Families and transitions in Europe. Comparative report of qualitative interviews. Coleraine: University of Ulster.Google Scholar
  24. Lewis, S., & Smithson, J. (2006). Gender, parenthood and the changing European workplace. Young adults negotiating the work-family boundary. Final report 5th framework program of the European Union. www.workliferesearch.org/transitions
  25. McNeish, W., & Loncle, P. (2003). State policy and youth unemployment in the EU. Rights, responsibilities and lifelong learning. In A. López Blasco, W. McNeish, & A. Walther (Eds.), Young people and contradictions of inclusion. Towards integrated transition policies in Europe (pp. 105–126). Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  26. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self & society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  27. Müller, W., & Gangl, M. (Eds.). (2003). Transitions from education to work in Europe. The integration of youth on EU labour markets. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Os, L. (2002). Denmark. National report for the families and transitions in Europe project (Working Paper). Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  29. Pascall, G., & Manning, N. (2000). Gender and social policy. Comparing welfare states in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Journal of European Social Policy, 10(3), 269–296.Google Scholar
  30. Phoenix, A. (2009). De-colonising practices. Negotiating narratives from racialised and gendered experiences of education. Race Ethnicity and Education, 12(1), 101–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sainsbury, D. (1999). Gender and welfare state regimes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schoon, I., & Silbereisen, R. (Eds.). (2009). Transitions from school to work. Globalisation, individualisation and patterns of diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Settersten, R. A., & Gannon, L. (2005). Structure, agency, and the space between. On the challenges and contradictions of a blended view of the life course. In R. Levy, P. Ghisletta, J.-M. LeGoff, D. Spini, & E. Widmer (Eds.), Towards an interdisciplinary perspective on the life course (pp. 37–57). London: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  34. Shavit, Y., & Müller, W. (1998). From school to work. A comparative study of educational qualifications and occupational destinations. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  35. Stauber, B. (2010). Transitions into parenthood. Expertise for the European family platform. Download from http.//www.familyplatform.eu/Google Scholar
  36. Stauber, B., & Du Bois-Reymond, M. (2006). Familienbeziehungen im Kontext verlängerter Übergänge. Eine intergenerative Studie aus neun europäischen Ländern. Zeitschrift für Soziologie der Erziehung und Sozialisation (ZSE), 26(2), 206–221.Google Scholar
  37. Van Berkel, R., & Hornemann, M. I. (Eds.). (2002). Active social policies in the EU. Inclusion through participation? Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  38. Walther, A. (2006). Regimes of youth transitions. Choice, flexibility and security in young people’s experiences across different European contexts. Young, 14(1), 119–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Walther, A., & Pohl, A. (2005). Thematic study on policies for disadvantaged youth in Europe. Final report to the European Commission. Tübingen: IRIS.Google Scholar
  40. Walther, A., du Bois-Reymond, M., & Biggart, A. (Eds.). (2006). Participation in transition. Motivation of young adults in Europe for learning and working. Frankfurt a. M: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  41. Walther, A., Stauber, B., & Pohl, A. (2009). UP2YOUTH. Youth – Actor of social change. Final report. Tübingen: IRIS. Download. http.//www.up2youth.org. 1 May 2011.Google Scholar
  42. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Learning, meaning, and identity. Learning in doing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Woodman, D. (2009). The mysterious case of the pervasive choice biography. Ulrich Beck, structure/agency, and the middling state of theory in the sociology of youth. Journal of Youth Studies, 12(3), 243–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute für Social Pedagogy and Adult EducationUniversity of FrankfurtFrankfurtGermany
  2. 2.Institute of EducationTübingen UniversityTübingenGermany
  3. 3.Institute for Regional Innovation and Social Research (IRIS)TubingenGermany

Personalised recommendations