Download the document in Adobe Acrobat's Portable Document Format (PDF)
Contents
Foreword
Acknowledgements
1. The problem of youth unemployment
1.1 Some definitions
1.1.1
Who are the youth?
1.1.2
What is unemployment?
1.2 Characteristics of youth unemployment
1.3 Causes of youth unemployment
1.3.1
What are the main determinants of fluctuations in youth unemployment and why do they vary more than adult rates?
1.3.2
Who are that young unemployed?
1.4 Consequences of youth unemployment
1.5 Implications
2. The response: Government policy and youth unemployment
2.1 An example: the UK
2.1.1
Effects
2.1.2
Some explanations
2.2 An example: Germany
2.2.1
Strengths
2.2.2
Weaknesses
2.3 Some concluding observations and two further issues
3. Conclusions
Tables
Figures
Bibliography
Gek-Boo Ng
Chief
Employment and Labour Market Policies Branch
|
Non-employment
Population ratio 18-years old1 |
Non-employment
rate 18 years old2 |
Unemployment rate
15-19 years old | |||||
| Country | Ratio | Ranking | Rate | Ranking | Rate | Ranking | |
| Europe | Belgium | 13.0 | 9 | 59.9 | 14 | 9.5 | 2 |
| Denmark | 4.4 | 1 | 12.4 | 1 | 9.9 | 3 | |
| France | 10.7 | 6 | 53.1 | 13 | 21.9 | 11 | |
| Germany | 7.8 | 4 | 14.2 | 2 | 6.2 | 1 | |
| Greece | 10.8 | 7 | 35.0 | 8 | 12.8 | 5 | |
| Ireland | 16.8 | 11 | 41.3 | 9 | 31.8 | 12 | |
| Italy | 15.2 | 10 | 45.5 | 11 | 33.0 | 13 | |
| Netherlands | 5.3 | 2 | 21.0 | 4 | 12.1 | 4 | |
| Portugal | 7.2 | 3 | 17.9 | 3 | 15.53 | 6 | |
| Spain | 17.2 | 12 | 48.2 | 12 | 39.8 | 14 | |
| United | 23.5 | 14 | 34.4 | 7 | 21.1 | 10 | |
| Other | Australia | 17.4 | 13 | 29.9 | 5 | 19.2 | 8 |
| OECD | Canada | 10.2 | 5 | 42.5 | 10 | 20.9 | 9 |
| United States3 | 12.0 | 8 | 33.4 | 6 | 18.4 | 7 | |
|
Notes:
1) This is defined as: (unemployed not in school+inactive not in school)/total population of the age group. 2) This is defined as: (unemployed not in school+inactive not in school)/total population of the age group not in school. 3) Refer to 1993. Source: OECD Economic Outlook 1996, Table 4.8 and 4.9 and OECD Database. | |||||||
| Country |
Unemployment/
Population |
Ranking |
Unemployment
rates |
Ranking | |
| Europe | Belgium | 2.7 | 1 | 30.6 | 12 |
| Denmark | 5.1 | 6 | 7.3 | 1 | |
| France | 3.0 | 3 | 24.1 | 10 | |
| Germany | 2.7 | 2 | 7.9 | 2 | |
| Greece | 3.7 | 4 | 21.8 | 9 | |
| Ireland | 7.0 | 8 | 28.0 | 11 | |
| Italy | 7.4 | 9 | 31.5 | 13 | |
| Netherland | 6.3 | 7 | 14.1 | 4 | |
| Portugal | 3.9 | 5 | 14.0 | 3 | |
| Spain | 10.4 | 13 | 46.0 | 14 | |
| United Kingdom | 9.5 | 10 | 19.5 | 6 | |
| Other OECD | Australia | 10.9 | 14 | 19.7 | 7 |
| Canada | 9.8 | 11 | 19.8 | 8 | |
| United States | 10.1 | 12 | 18.4 | 5 | |
|
Source: OECD Database. | |||||
















































| 1) | What are the main determinants of fluctuations in youth unemployment? |
| 2) | Why do youth unemployment rates vary more, in absolute terms, than adult rates in response to changes in economic conditions? |
| 3) | For individuals, which characteristics increase or reduce the chances of being employed or unemployed? |






| 1) | Teenage wage rates in France are those of 18-20 years old. |
| 2) | Adult wage rates are those of 40-50 year olds in France, 25-64 year olds in Sweden and 40-49 year olds in United Kingdom. |





| 1) | Northern Europe comprises Denmark,Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Sweden and United Kingdom. |
| 2) | Western Europe comprises Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Switzerland. |
| 3) | Eastern Europe comprises Belarus, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia and Ukrain. |
| 4) | Southern Europe comprises Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Spain, Greece, Italy, Macedonia, Malta, Portugal, Slovenia and Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. |
| Males | Females | Males | Females | |
| 15-19 | 15-19 | 20-24 | 20-24 | |
| Adult Unemployment |
.73
(29.6) |
.73
(21.1) |
.91
(42.1) |
.82
(34.2) |
| Youth/Adult Population Ratio |
.48
(5.0) |
.57
(4.3) |
.07
(0.8) |
-.05
(-0.5) |
| n | 344 | 344 | 344 | 344 |
| R2 | .94 | .91 | .96 | .95 |
|
Notes:
1) Coefficients which were statistically significant at 5% are reported in bold letters. 2) The countries included are: Australia (1970-95), Canada (1970-95), Finland (1970-95), France (1970-95), Germany (1970-95), Ireland (1971-95), Italy (1970-95), Japan (1970-95), Netherlands (1971-95), New Zealand (1986-95), Norway (1972-95), Portugal (1974-95), Spain (1972-95), Sweden (1970-95), UK (198795) and USA ). | ||||















|
Below upper
secondary |
Upper secondary
education |
Non-university
tertiary education |
University education | ||
| Europe | Austria | 4.9 | 2.8 | 1.3 | 1.8 |
| Belgium | 12.5 | 7.1 | 3.4 | 4.0 | |
| Denmark | 17.3 | 10.0 | 6.0 | 5.0 | |
| Finland | 22.7 | 16.4 | 11.1 | 6.6 | |
| France | 14.7 | 10.5 | 7.6 | 6.1 | |
| Germany | 14.2 | 9.0 | 6.1 | 5.0 | |
| Greece | 6.2 | 8.7 | 6.5 | 7.2 | |
| Ireland | 18.9 | 9.7 | 6.4 | 3.4 | |
| Italy | 8.4 | 7.5 | - | 6.4 | |
| Netherlands | 8.2 | 4.8 | - | 4.3 | |
| Norway | 6.5 | 4.7 | 3.6 | 1.5 | |
| Portugal* | 6.0 | 6.2 | 2.7 | 2.4 | |
| Spain | 21.3 | 19.4 | 18.5 | 13.8 | |
| Sweden | 8.8 | 7.6 | 3.9 | 3.4 | |
| Switzerland | 5.1 | 3.4 | 2.53 | 3.7 | |
| United Kingdom | 13.0 | 8.3 | 5.3 | 4.7 | |
| Other OECD | Australia | 10.2 | 6.9 | 5.4 | 3.9 |
| Canada | 14.3 | 9.0 | 8.5 | 5.2 | |
| United States | 12.6 | 6.2 | 8.5 | 5.2 | |
| Unweighted average | 111.9 | 8.3 | 6.3 | 4.9 | |
| Source: Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators, 1996. | |||||
| Country |
Youth unemployment
rates |
% Unemployed for more
than six months:youths |
% Unemployed for more
than six months: adults |
| Australia | 14.4 | 44.0 | 52.4 |
| Austria | 5.9 | 10.2 | 27.7 |
| Belgium | 21.5 | 70.7 | 78.5 |
| Canada | 15.6 | 14.9 | 29.3 |
| Czech Republic | 6.8 | 43.5 | 55.7 |
| Denmark | 9.9 | 22.6 | 47.2 |
| Finland | 27.2 | 22.9 | 53.3 |
| France | 25.9 | 57.0 | 70.3 |
| Germany | 8.5 | 46.9 | 62.0 |
| Greece | 27.9 | 73.9 | 72.4 |
| Iceland | 12.2 | 13.3 | 37.9 |
| Ireland | 23.0 | 70.3 | 80.1 |
| Italy | 32.8 | 80.9 | 79.6 |
| Japan | 6.1 | 24.5 | 37.7 |
| Mexico | 9.3 | 6.2 | 9.2 |
| Netherlands | 13.1 | 68.5 | 76.4 |
| New Zeland | 11.9 | 27.8 | 41.2 |
| Norway | 9.4 | 27.4 | 47.5 |
| Portugal | 16.0 | 46.4 | 68.2 |
| Spain | 42.5 | 66.6 | 74.2 |
| Sweden | 15.4 | 22.8 | 34.0 |
| Turkey | 14.9 | 61.7 | 65.2 |
| United Kingdom | 15.5 | 48.7 | 63.1 |
| United States | 12.1 | 10.7 | 19.0 |
|
Source: OECD database.
Note: The long-term unemployment rate is defined as the proportion of the unemployed who have been so for at least six months. | |||











| Effect | ||
| YTS Effects : | ||
| Main & Shelly 1990 | .11 | |
| Whitfield & Bourlakis (1991) | .05 | |
| O'Higgins (1994) | .09 | |
| Effects of other characteristics: | ||
| Early employment experience | -.18 | |
| Girl | -.13 | |
| Ethnic minority | -.13 | |
| Disabled | -.47 | |
|
Note:
The first three rows of the table report the shift in the probability of finding work brought about by participation on the Youth Training Scheme as estimated by the three authors. In order to maintain comparability, the effects are my re-estimates using the same base probability representing an "average"male individual who did not participate on the scheme. The base probability used is .77. That is, an "average" individual would have a 77% chance of finding work. The last four rows report the effects on an otherwise "average" individual of the addition of one further characteristic. Thus, for example an otherwise "average" female would have a probability of being in employment of 65% (= .77 - .12). These are based on the reported coefficients in O'Higgins (1994). | ||
| 1) | Variation over time: In Britain the success of the scheme seems to have varied much over time and individuals. Over time the scheme seems to have been most successful in placing participants when the labour market was relatively buoyant. Certainly the proportion of participants moving into jobs rather than unemployment following the scheme increased over the period 1986-1989 which corresponded to a period of relative decline in aggregate unemployment (Dolton et al.,1994a). |
| 2) |
Variation over individuals: It was noted above that, at least some disadvantaged groups appear to have gained less out of the scheme. Mealli et al. (1994b) found young people from ethnic minorities and also those with low educational qualifications were more likely to move from Youth Training to unemployment whilst those with disabilities were more likely to leave the labour force. In part, this may be explained by the association between non-completion of the programme and low employment probabilities (Mealli et al. 1994a). Peronaci (1995) confirms the relationship between low completion rates and belonging to an ethnic minority or possessing a serious disability, although she finds a non-linear relationship between educational level and completion of Youth Training. The implication being that low educational performers were more likely to leave the scheme early and become unemployed whilst those with relatively high levels of educational qualifications were more likely to leave the scheme early because they found a "proper" job.
A complementary explanation of this type of effect lies in differing qualities of the scheme. Dolton et al. (1994b) note that the scheme seems to have varied in its effects on the duration of post-programme unemployment duration according to whether the scheme was incorporated into a formal apprenticeship or not. Participants on those schemes which were incorporated into formal apprenticeships seem to have gained out of YTS with shorter post-programme unemployment durations, whilst those which were not incorporated into apprenticeships, if anything, faced longer unemployment durations than those who did not participate at all on the programme. The differential impact of the scheme is reflected also in research carried out in other countries. In particular, Try (1996) in an analysis of the Vocational Training Programme (VTP) in Norway, finds, at least for females, a significant programme duration effect at least up to a point. That is, young women gained positive benefits from staying longer on the VTP up to 22 weeks. Schröder (1996) analysing job creation programmes for young people in Sweden, found that the effectiveness of subsidised temporary jobs were largely dependent on the extent to which participants qualifications were strengthened during the supported period, and emphasises the importance of providing young people with work experience in areas in which they wish ultimately to work in. |
| 1) | Definition of the nature of the problem: In the UK, the youth labour market "Problem" has, since at least the early 1980s, been identified as one of inadequate skills and excessive entry wages. In this view, young people are unemployed because they are not sufficiently skilled or, given their lack of skills and work experience, their wage expectations are too high. While it is true that skills requirements have been rising in the UK as elsewhere, such a focus tends to direct attention away from the importance of labour market conditions in general and place the responsibility for the problem on the individual's shoulder. In designing schemes one needs to bear in mind the constraints imposed by macroeconomic conditions. |
| 2) | Lack of scheme monitoring: At least initially, the levels of monitoring of schemes was very low. The emphasis being on getting young people out of unemployment and providing some sort of work socialisation(55) in the absence of adequate job opportunities. This meant that schemes varied very much in their quality and therefore their usefulness. |
| 3) | Lack of universally accepted qualifications: A related point is that, at least initially, little or no emphasis was placed on the certification of skills obtained. This has now changed, with the introduction of National Vocational Qualifications (NVQ). However, even here there are problems. Heavy reliance on employers in the certification of employee skills provides an incentive to certify low quality training as high quality (Ryan, 1994). Certainly, these qualifications have not been universally accepted. Robinson (1996) shows that the NVQs have by no means replaced traditional means of certification and have not lead to an increase in the overall level of training available to individuals. Again, insufficient attention has been paid to the quality of provision. |
| 4) | Lack of integration of the educational system with youth employment policy: The development of youth employment policy in the UK in the 1980s ran in parallel and sometimes in competition with the formal educational system(56). Some steps have now been made to rectify this with the introduction of General National Vocational Qualifications and Youth Credits although again these seem to have done little to increase the amount of education and/or training available although they have increased the number of educational and training alternatives (Robinson, 1996, Croxford et al., 1996) . |
| 5) | Lack of involvement of the social partners: Youth employment policy in the UK has been developed very much with employer's requirements in mind with little or no involvement of trade unions. Workers organisations have, consequently, had an ambivalent attitude to the scheme(57). Experience in Germany has showed the importance of the involvement of all the social partners in programme development and implementation(58). |
| 6) | Lack of targeting: This relates to who gains and who doesn't. Youth employment policy seems to have done little or nothing to aid the integration of disadvantaged young people into the labour market. Much research has shown that the more closely targeted are programmes the more effective they are (Fay, 1996). Although targeting is a double-edged sword in as much as if one targets disadvantaged groups one runs the risk that participation will be seen as a negative indicator of potential productivity. |
| 1) | The system is based on nationally regulated and universally accepted skill certification with a high degree of standardisation. Young people are provided with institutionally defined and nationally recognised skills which are highly portable within occupations. |
| 2) | Employers and workers' organisations are involved in determining the content of training and overseeing its certification and, as a result, are committed to the success of the system. |
| 3) | The system has solved the financing problem. Training costs are born to varying degrees by firms, trainees and the state. Trainees are prepared to accept part of the costs of training because they are aware that they will emerge a high level of marketable skills. Larger firms, where the net costs of apprenticeships tend to be positive, know that they will usually be able to retain apprentices once qualified in as much as the wage determination system makes it difficult for other similar firms to use wage incentives to "poach" skilled workers(63). In smaller firms, the net costs of training are more likely to be negative which in itself provides an incentive to provide training. |
| 1) | The system is highly structured and inflexible and precludes upward mobility into higher skill and wage strata (Buechtmann et al., 1993). Young people's career patterns are decided very early on in life. Although it might be born in mind that this is perhaps more due to the structure of the three-tier schooling system than that of post-school dual apprenticeships. |
| 2) | Whilst the system has gone a long way towards solving the teenage unemployment problem, deteriorating labour market conditions following reunification have lead to an emerging problem of young adult unemployment. This in part is due to a reduction in the retention rates by firms of graduating apprentices (Wolfinger, 1996). This also raises the question of the ability of such a rigid system to cope rapidly changing economic environment. |
| 3) | The German system has not entirely solved the problem of disadvantaged or "hard-to -employ" youths. Early failure in the transition from school to work have long-lasting effects on later occupational careers and incomes. Also those young people who do not find work shortly after completing vocational training are likely to face a comparatively long period of unemployment (Franz & Pohlmeier, 1996). In the current poor labour market situation, such problems are likely to worsen. |
| 1) | Training and employment programmes for youths have had, in general, a small positive impact on the employment prospects and a variable effect on the incomes of participants. |
| 2) | The effectiveness of such programmes depends on the state of the economy. On the one hand, in the deadweight and substitution effects of such programmes is likely to be higher when the economy is buoyant, yet the usefulness of, in particular training programmes depends on there being adequate employment opportunities at the end of programmes. This implies that the role of programmes varies with the state of the labour market. When the labour market is relatively buoyant training programmes may be useful in resolving skills mismatches and such like. When the economy is in recession, however, many participants on such schemes will have little prospect of a job at the end of it. This implies that they function as temporary employment subsidies acting to maintain young people's attachment to the labour market. It is perhaps important to take this into account when considering the type of programme to implement and the type of training content. Finn (1988), for example, notes the danger of raising the aspirations and expectations of young people by providing them with skills and training which they will not subsequently be able to use. |
| 3) | Targeting is important for at least two reasons. Firstly, targeting tends to increase the effectiveness of programmes (Calmfors, 1994, Fay, 1996). Secondly, one may argue that those groups most likely to be affected by long periods of unemployment should be targeted in order to maintain their labour market attachment. |
| 4) | As the German experience has shown, the effectiveness of programmes is enhanced when employers and workers organisations involved in the design and implementation of programmes (OECD, 1996a). |
| 5) | A further point is that the effectiveness of interventions appears to increase when schemes are voluntary (Fay, 1996) |
| 1) | We need to go further than simply the aim of employing young people at any cost. We need also to look at the quality of work. Perhaps in times of high youth unemployment, the temptation is to look only at the quantitative effects, however, shouldn't one also take into consideration the question of quality of work (and of life)? Or is that a luxury to be abandoned in times of difficulty? |
| 2) | Schemes are increasingly obligatory in nature, and young (usually unemployed) people are effectively compelled to participate. Yet, as was noted above, schemes which are voluntary tend to be more effective. I feel that there is a need to balance the roles of building or maintaining attachment to the labour market with the desirability of promoting individual choice in the labour market. |
| 6 S D2 | ||
| 1 - | --------------------- | Where D is the difference in rank between the two series and n is thenumber of observations. |
| n(n2-1) |