"Fighting Youth Unemployment" - Policy Paper by the 8th Think Tank of the EYP

PoLicy PaPerBy the think tank 2014

“Fighting youth unemPLoyment”

oF the euroPean youth ParLiament

european youth Parliament Sophienstrasse 28-29 – 10178 Berlin – germany

the 8th think tank of the european youth Parliament

policy paper - think tank of the european youth parliament 3

“Fighting youthunemPLoyment”By the think tank 2014oF 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

PoLicy PaPer - think tank oF the euroPean youth ParLiament44

aBStractthe 8th think tank of the european youth Parliament (eyP) gathered 19 young people from 16 different eu-ropean countries – from both the eu and neighbour-ing 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, pro-mote and improve its freedom of mobility as a tool for fighting youth unemployment in a sustainable man-ner?”

after an intense preparation phase, including consul-tation with many experts and an online poll which was taken by 1 854 young people, this policy paper stress-es 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 inte-gration 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 la-bour 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 pro-vide a useful tool, yet they need to be strengthened in depth and reach. the variety in the current port-folio of measures should be continued. Smaller pro-grammes like eureS and the euro regions should reach out to a wider audience, whilst not taking fo-cus 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 implementa-tion. the recently launched youth guarantee shows that vague target agreements will undermine the ef-fect such measures can have in securing the future of young people in europe and thus of the union as such.

contentSintroductionWorking procedurea structural phenomenonharmonising the european labour marketinterconnected national labour marketsrestructuring financial supportimproving mobility programmesharmonising educational systemsgaining practical experience in educationidentifying brain draintaking first steps with a youth guarantee

56789101112131415

this think tank of the european youth Parliament is supported by


introduction

the european youth Parliament (eyP) is one of the largest european platforms for raising awareness of european issues, intercultural dialogue and the pro-motion of active democratic citizenship among high school students in the 16-20 age group.

the eyP not only includes member States of the eu-ropean union but also accession candidates, and as-sociated and neighbouring countries. the network of the eyP is currently spread over 41 european coun-tries. in november 2004, eyP became a project of the Schwarzkopf Foundation, based in Berlin, germany.

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 interna-tional, regional and national sessions all over europe.

in 2006, the eyP decided to create its own think tank series to offer its alumni, who are often outstanding students or successful young professionals in poli-

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 unem-ployment in europe.

one of the major issues that the european union is currently facing is the alarming rate of youth unem-ployment across the continent. While most unem-ployment 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 re-search 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 discus-sions and topics which have been raised during the think tank and the precursory three month prepara-tion phase preceding the event.

eyP think tank - aimS and oBJectiVeSStrengthen the dialogue between young people and european decision-makers;

enable alumni of the european youth Parliament to come together and to share and discuss their ideas on current issues of european politics;

give concrete policy recommendations to top political decision-makers.

a)

b)

c)

the ParticiPantS oF the think tankPanayiotis 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)

“how can the eu effectively use, promote and improve its freedom of mobil-ity as a tool for fighting youth unemployment in a sustainable manner?”

policy paper - think tank of the european youth parliament6

Working Procedure

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 lead-ing 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.

PreParation PhaSe

main eVentthe 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.

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 the whole group drafted the policy paper that is pre-sented below.

the think tank gathered external expertise and knowledge at four points during the weekend. First-ly, all initial agreements were immediately released to the public via an open source format, giving eyP alumni from all over europe the chance to contribute throughout the weekend. Secondly two young partici-pants of eu mobility programmes were invited to give their input. this allowed think tank participants to gain first-hand insight on the accessibility and aware-

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 after-noon. the visiting experts were dr. Werner eichhorst (iza, Bonn), dr. Wido geis (iW köln) and mr. tarrin khairi-taraki (iW köln). Lastly, on Saturday after-noon, an open video conference was organised with young people from all over europe, who were able to give input and raise additional questions.

overall, the interesting and fruitful debates that took place in Berlin during these days were driven by the strong motivation of the think tank participants. Finding a balance between remaining academically consistent and applying creative solutions, the par-ticipants identified and addressed the problems head on. With the final results being based on a strong consensus, it is safe to say that this year’s think tank of the european youth Parliament strengthened the belief that young europeans, from significantly differ-ent backgrounds, can work together effectively and efficiently, discussing serious issues affecting the quality of life in europe.


a StructuraL Phenomenonin order to understand the general challenges of youth unemployment in europe the think tank started by analysing the statistical data available to them.

the economic and debt crises in the european union (eu) since 2008 have had a strong negative influence on the labour market. decreases in investment, production and consumption caused a rise in unem-ployment rates and youth unemployment rates were particularly affected. the eu-28 rate of youth unemployment grew sub-stantially from 15.8% in 2008 to 23% in 2013. access to the labour market is difficult for young people for a variety of reasons which differ across the eu. a lack of sufficient training or neces-sary qualifications can hinder access to the labour market. this is ampli-fied in some countries by a minimum wage that make the employment of young people an investment that is too high. the mobility of labour is potentially a solution to european unemployment, as well as an important pillar of the monetary union, according to the mundell optimum currency area theory.

it is important to recognise that youth unemploy-ment rates vary across europe. in germany or the netherlands youth unemployment is practically non-existent. at the same time, in Southern europe the level is alarming and far from acceptable. When comparing the situations of Spain and germany, to take a con-crete example, we see that there is not only a substantial difference in the youth unemployment rate and ratio, but also when breaking up the data, we see that most of the youth unemployment in germany consists of people who had only completed pri-mary education while the unemploy-ment rates of those youngsters with secondary and tertiary education are

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, ger-many has been successful at providing employment for young graduates and vocational workers and this may provide us with insight into potential solutions for countries like Spain. that said, the current eco-nomic conditions should definitely not be overlooked as the differences stem also from the varying labour market structures, as well as educational and la-

bour market policies.

When analysing at poll results, it can be concluded that the language bar-rier is the primary impediment people face when it comes to moving abroad for work. Within the eu-28 there are 24 official languages while english, which often seems to function as a lingua franca, is not universally spo-

ken among the member States’ citizens (99.2% uk, 14.5% hungary).

given the numerous existing mobility programmes, cross-border migration within the european union is low. additionally, according to polls, there is a dis-crepancy between the stated willingness of citizens to try living/working abroad (51% denmark, 4% italy) and the actual numbers of people leaving.

We would like to stress that when analysing youth unemployment rates, it should be kept in mind that youth unemployment rates are typically higher than overall unemployment rates, even in prosperous times. Fur-thermore, there are numerous other impediments to migration which the researched data suggest.

the think tank has strived to provide solutions to persistent problems by analysing and discussing different aspects of youth unemployment and migration in detail.

“youth unemployment rates are typically higher than overall unemployment rates, even in prosperous times.”


harmoniSing the euroPean LaBour marketthis think tank believes there is a need for a harmo-nisation 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 harmo-nised 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 as-sessed 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 pro-fessions 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-sionals merely gaining partial access of their pro-fession in the host member State.

another potential difficulty which can arise is the probable existence of a language barrier; impeding efficient communication and also increasing diffi-culties in adapting to the culture and traditions of their host member State. other measures which can be taken in order to have a more harmonised eu la-bour market would be the increased coordination of education systems, well-established trans-european in-frastructure and the achievement of equal rights for all employees. as has been established, geograph-ic mobility between eu countries is an essential element of decreasing youth unemployment on an eu-level. the think tank urges member States

to converge with the aim of ensuring fewer issues for people who move abroad. once this is achieved eu citizens should not be majorly affected by cross-border barriers. in the short term, mobility must be made easier by optimising skill recognition pro-cesses, as will be discussed further in this paper.

a move towards common regulated and non-reg-ulated professions within the member States, i.e.

the gradual harmonisation of these professions, would in time nullify the necessity of a mutual recognition system, thus making mobility within the eu easier. one way in which this can be achieved would be to allo-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.

“ g r a d u a l harmonisation of [common regulated and non-regulated professions] would in time nullify the necessity of a mutual recognition system.”


interconnected nationaL LaBour marketS

the european Job mobility Portal, eu-reS, 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 fa-cilitating labour flows and matching demand and supply of labour across the continent.

We believe that eureS can help to address people with non-academic backgrounds and limited interna-tional experience in particular. however, awareness of its existence among jobseekers and employers is minimal. therefore, career advisers should help to promote awareness among its target users. Fur-thermore, we emphasise the importance of english being eureS’ main language - even though jobs ad-vertised within it may require a basic knowledge of the local language. Furthermore the national eureS portals should be standardised and comprehensive in order to simplify navigation.

We believe that eureS can be an important institution in terms of in-coming labour and its integration into a new national context. this can be achieved by establishing a ‘one-stop shop’, either physically or online, where people can receive assistance for the platform. this ‘shop’ can also function as a place for basic informa-tion about social security rights and labour rights of the migrant in differ-ent countries. the shop should ideally

be available both before the migrant comes to the country and after they arrive. Some national eureS offices already offer the possibility for potential mi-grants to get advice in specially-created chat rooms, e.g. denmark and Sweden. We encourage all nation-al eureS offices to adopt this as a common practice.

another essential step towards a well-functioning single labour market is the standardisation of pro-fessional qualifications. currently, work is being un-dertaken to introduce a common european qualifi-cation 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 differ-ent country. thus we reiterate the importance of the role of eureS advisers as well as the existing euro-pean Qualification Framework.

“establishing a ‘one-stop shop’ where people can receive assistance for the [eureS] platform, [...] basic information about social security rights and labour rights.”


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 re-sources available, the issue of optimal and efficient al-location 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.

aLLocation and management oF the FundS

the cohesion Fund, the european So-cial Fund, and the european globalisa-tion adjustment Fund, along with other funds distributed to and by national agencies, ought to be restructured in a way that would allow the beneficiar-ies of these to apply directly to a european institution and not via national agencies of the member States. this would push for more decisions to be taken on a european level and further integration, as well as im-proved allocation of funds provided by the european coordination that should be more aware of the regional framework. this is an active step for the evolution of european community and coherent policy.

euroPean inVeStment Bank

the european investment Bank, which lends money through the european investment Fund to small and medium enterprises (Smes) through local financial in-stitutions, should increase its role in business develop-ment. this can be achieved by increasing its presence around europe and removing intermediaries, there-fore directly providing the regions with investment, while enhanced european coordination could improve the efficient use of the loans granted.

common agricuLturaL PoLicy

the think tank agreed that the common agricultur-al Policy should focus more on preserving the natu-ral 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

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 innova-tion directorate and its Programme for the competi-tiveness of enterprises and Smes with its €2.3 billion budget should focus on the creation of technologies and new industries so that it can create new sectors

and job opportunities for people, while improving the competitiveness of the eu. it should support technology devel-opment centres all over europe to boost the development of innovative business initiatives, and redirect the union to a global leader position in information and communication technology. With

the rise of developing economies such as china, india and Brazil, this strategy aims to move away from the classic employment processes where large compa-nies and institutions are expected to hire young people; towards self-employment and new business models.

the main advantage of the eu over other economies, both of the uS and emerging markets, is a better per-formance in social cohesion, thus creating a sustaina-ble and inclusive society. however, the eu falls behind the uS in the terms of smart economy. through alter-ing the focus of this directorate and its role simultane-ously, we aim to stimulate entrepreneurship and im-prove the business environment. considering the pace the uS is recovering from the crisis and its approach to fixing unemployment by stimulating market competi-tion and generating new job sectors, it is crucial that the eu reconsiders its steps towards empowering the infrastructure for business initiatives.

reStructuring FinanciaL SuPPort

“We aim to stimulate entrepreneurship and improve the business environment.”


imProVing moBiLity ProgrammeS

there is a wide range of programmes which promote mobility and employ-ment on a european level. Within the europe 2020 growth and jobs strat-egy 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 in-cludes erasmus+, erasmus for young entrepreneurs, your First eureS Job, the youth guarantee and similar pro-grammes, is notably funded by the eu-ropean Social Fund, a fund already cre-ated in 1957 to support employment in the member States.

thousands of young persons do not know what the possibilities are because of the lack of popularity of the current mobility programmes. unfortunately, at the moment these programmes are more academi-cally-oriented and facilitating higher education gradu-ates rather than the groups of youths who are more of more concern, e.g. long-term unemployed or un-skilled young workers. there is also a problem of interconnections between educational systems, for instance within the Leonardo programme, because vocational training systems in the eu are too different in order to fully take advantage of the programmes’ possi-bilities. the general awareness of these programmes is usually limited to those who already possess interest in euro-pean matters or who became aware of the possibilities of learning, studying and working abroad through multipliers. the think tank also raised concerns about the equal access of all institutions and agencies of member States to these programmes.

a striking example for not unleashing the full poten-tial of mobility programmes is the one-sided usage of euro region advantages between austria on one side, and hungary and Slovakia on the other. While the in-creased mobility is used by hungarians and Slovakians to commute to austria and find a job, the same is rarely done by austrians in the opposite direction, as well as by small and medium enterprises in terms of invest-ment. more information about the potential of these

programmes should be communicated, e.g. Western europeans could take more advantage of it to invest and to of-fer new jobs. erasmus+ programmes are sometimes too bureaucratic and not always well-organised, nor well-implemented. 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 uni-versities when it comes to applying for jobs or internships within the erasmus+ programme. all of the aforementioned factors clearly discourage potential ap-plicants to get involved.

the programmes should reach out to those interested people, rather than individuals having to discover in-formation on their own. When young people gradu-ate from secondary school, they need to be provided with information on studying and job opportunities, as well as masters courses and additional job opportuni-ties once they have graduated from university. there should be advisers at the universities, highlighting stu-dents’ possibilities after graduation.

mobility programmes should also pri-oritise the potential of offering train-ing programmes and/or employment outside the boundaries of the eu, but still within the continent and/or closely collaborating countries, so that euro-pean workers can get additional ex-

perience and escape unemployment. unemployment programmes should also take into account people who currently do not have access to the existing pro-grammes, e.g. the agricultural sector, rural population and young people not enrolled in the universities.

existing mobility programmes under the youth on the move umbrella should see the erasmus, Leonardo and youth in action programmes, which are now under the erasmus+ umbrella, as a best practice example. the youth on the move programmes need to become more institutionalised. together with the european employ-ment centre, which reports on job needs and job trends in countries, the youth on the move programmes need

“thousands of young persons do not know what the possibilities are.”


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 institu-tions 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 prob-lems on a smaller scale as well by making use of the subsidiarity principle, thus also supporting national strate-gies on mobility, by e.g. encouraging mobility programmes within national frameworks, such as the german aca-demic exchange Service (daad), and bilateral or transnational agreements on mobility. these successful appren-ticeship programmes should be seen

as best practices. For example, european metropoli-tan 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 den-mark 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 ini-tiatives that focus on regions with high youth unemployment.

this think tank believes that the cuts made in the multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020 concerning mo-bility programmes have not been effi-cient. the eu should avoid cutting long-term 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 advan-tage.

in order to use mobility as a tool to tackle youth un-employment in europe effectively, we believe that a harmonised education system could provide adequate preparation for work life; this harmonisation should thus be enhanced and further supported. it is both the most important and sustainable solu-tion which fully considers the long last-ing history of youth unemployment.

keeping that in mind, we regard the Bologna Process as an important step in the right direction. despite the prob-lems and criticism we strongly en-courage further steps to improve this harmonisation. in particular, we en-courage improvements in primary, sec-ondary and vocational levels of educa-tion, where we found a severe lack of harmonisation which is essential to increasing mobility.

moreover, we see the necessity to point out that edu-cation is not limited to schools and universities, but also takes place on an informal level. hence, we sup-port any movement to raise awareness and encour-age cooperation between different actors in the field of education.

taking into account the statistics, we realise that lan-guage barriers are the main obstacle preventing an effective use of mobility. We stress that learning lan-guages should be regarded as an opportunity to gain additional skills. therefore, we call for harmonised,

high quality and compulsory english courses starting at primary education-al level in all member States. in addi-tion to that, all programmes to support mobility must be tightly connected to easily affordable language courses in all countries. european awareness and an advanced understanding of europe and mobility could also be emphasised through education.

moreover it is necessary to stress the importance of harmonised vocational education, pro-vided by schools and universities, and expanded ex-change programmes on a vocational level. europe should not limit its focus to the academic level but incorporate the mobility aspect into all levels and all forms of education.

“We call for h a r m o n i s e d , high quality and compulsory english courses starting at primary educational level.”

harmoniSing educationaL SyStemS


gaining PracticaL exPerience in education

it is widely acknowledged that most employers are seeking employees with previous work experi-ence, ready to contribute to their company or busi-ness. however, there is a gap between education and obtaining professional experience; a gap that may slowly be narrowing, but exists nonetheless.

When talking about practical experience, we must consider both sides of the equation: providing and receiving. the providing end consists of teachers, professors, and the em-ployers, e.g. industry, while on the receiving end there are students and young professionals. interaction between these two groups can take various forms: from teachers identi-fying young students’ potential, to students having an industrial placement, to young professionals returning to their former professors for courses with immediate application to the labour market.

european mobility gives the chance for young peo-ple to exercise this in various eu member States, however, expanding the limits to a wider range of countries, and therefore possibilities, can only be beneficial. We believe that by expanding the network to a pan-european entity (including all members of the council of europe), we increase the range of potential programmes as well as cov-erage for the positions opened.

given the current situation of distribution of com-petences, we consider that the implementation of a pan-european programme to increase practi-cal experience and training should be regulated

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 bet-ter 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 frameworks, enabled and supported by european institutions, to accelerate the implementation

phase of such programmes. this could happen at the secondary edu-cational level to give a taste of the working environment to young peo-ple, at the university level to explore the practical application of the theo-retical knowledge provided, or at any

later level to accumulate more skills and bridge the gap between the academic and professional environments. it can take place in the form of ap-prenticeship schemes – for early school-leavers or for those seeking jobs in the technical sector, or graduate programmes designed to provide grad-uates the necessary supplies for better employ-ment opportunities.

the current employment situation presents a challenge; the supply seems to be higher than the demand. the additional cost to provide effec-tive placements – better quality, increased scope or quantity – can be combatted, in our opinion, through financial incentives to universities and in-dustry. a lack of national or institutional funding could potentially be covered through supplements provided by the eSF. Such measures will increase 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. al-though the europass cV exists, not all employers

“curricula should fo-cus more on develop-ing practical skills of all types.”


in member States require it. We believe that by highlighting particular differences between eu-ropean countries, potentially through the already existing eureS portal and the eureS-advisors guidance, the chances of a successful applica-tion will increase. this can be further enhanced through the Lifelong Learning Programme’s sup-port, 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 pursu-ing a higher degree and gaining skills that are not needed in the labour market. therefore, the ac-quisition 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 regu-lated 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 standard-ised framework for internship job placements should be explored as an option, as this would give potential employees an idea of the work per-formed, irrespective of the size or reputation of the company.

identiFying Brain drainBrain drain is a term describing the departure of ed-ucated or professional people from one country, eco-nomic 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 sub-jectivity 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 migra-tion 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.

By examining all parameters of this phenomenon we cannot ignore the fact that, except for the imbalances caused by brain circulation, there is an issue of brain waste. this term refers to the mismatch be-tween peoples’ qualifications and the kind of jobs they are practising; for example, someone with a master’s degree doing unskilled manual labour.

in order to address this issue thoroughly, it is important to stress the need of action on both the national and eu-

ropean level. a primordial example of what needs to be improved is the match between graduate skills and la-bour market needs. therefore, it is highly recommend-ed 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

correlation, it would be wise to point out the two aspects of the issue on which we, as europeans, should focus. on the one hand, by improving the conditions for mobility, we risk exacerbating the phenomenon of brain drain in certain european countries. on the other hand, facilitating pan-european mobility will help prevent a substantial outflow of eu-ropeans 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 be mostly considered as a brain gain for europe rather than a cause of worsen-ing unemployment rates. therefore the think tank recognises that, in general,

immigration from outside europe is beneficial for the continent in the long-run.

on a general note it is necessary to stress that, whilst we endorse mobility, ensuring high living standards and quality of life throughout europe should remain an im-portant focus.

“it is highly recom-mended that univer-sities actively monitor and respond to the trends of national la-bour markets.”

policy paper - think tank of the european youth parliament 15PoLicy 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 safe-ty 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 qualifica-tions to gain access into the labour market, the issue becomes more complex.

the global economic crisis is a pri-mary reason for high unemploy-ment. more than five million young people were unemployed in the eu in 2013. When bringing these com-mon european statistics into the de-bate, we also took into consideration the individual complexities of this is-sue.

When analysing youth unemployment from a eu-ropean perspective, we cannot neglect the fact that the eu is not yet a homogeneous political en-tity and is not the sole responsible actor in this area. education and employment issues do not fall under the full competence of the eu, which hinders the possibility of finding a common euro-pean solution for this problem. under the current treaty arrangement, the eu and its member States have a shared responsibility for pol-icy in the field of employment. thus, the eu only coordinates and moni-tors national policies, promotes best practices, passes laws and scruti-nises their implementation mainly in the areas such as rights at work and social security schemes.

reducing unemployment has been included in the wider europe 2020 growth strat-egy. the key initiative proposed by the european commission to specifically address youth unem-ployment is the “youth guarantee” initiative. this aims to ensure young people get reasonable of-

fers for employment, continued education train-eeship programmes or apprenticeship within four months of leaving formal education. the “youth guarantee” initiative has already been success-fully implemented in a number of member States:

austria, Sweden, netherlands and Finland. through the efficient func-tioning of public employment ser-vices youth unemployment was re-duced in these countries. therefore, there is a growing hope that this initiative will be able to tackle youth unemployment to a significant de-gree, 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 di-rectly linked to the effective implementation of the initiative, it is unclear how countries which are implementing austerity programmes at the moment will be able to afford to finance the pro-gramme. apart from the financial aspect, major structural reforms will be necessary in certain member States. the implementation of this ini-tiative will require the involvement of all major stakeholders, which will be a difficult process.

the aforementioned success of the initiative is mainly seen in countries where the youth unemployment has not been particularly high any-way, while those countries with the highest numbers of youth unem-ployment face tougher challenges. it is also unclear to what extent the rights of young employees will be respected with regard to minimum

wages across europe, and whether trainees will enjoy the benefits of social security. taking into account these challenges, the future success of the “youth guarantee” initiative can therefore be described as uncertain.

“major structural re-forms will be nec-essary [...]. the im-plementation of this initiative will require the involvement of all major stakeholders”

Documents

"Fighting Youth Unemployment" - Policy Paper by the 8th Think Tank of the EYP