Risks of Marginalisation and Social Exclusion in School-to-Work Transitions

Transcription

1 Risks of Marginalisation and Social Exclusion in School-to-Work Transitions Institutions in Context: Inequality University of Tampere, 3 9 June, 2013 Rita Asplund, ETLA Pekka Vanhala, ETLA

2 Basic outline Youth unemployment and marginalisation setting the current stage Supply-side challenges education and training systems school-to-work transitions Finland selected Nordic comparisons [Demand-side challenges]

3 YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT AND MARGINALISATION SETTING THE CURRENT STAGE

4 Source: Eurostat The well-known story

5 Challenging the youth U measure Do these youth U rates provide a correct picture of the U situation of young people? not necessarily, lively discussion in e.g. Sweden Why not? ILO-recommended coding of activities with priority given to labour market statuses (E & U) The probability of students being coded in E or U increases with the frequency of working while studying

6 An illustrative U-example: Norway U with and without pupils/students, % of the population Source: Barth, E. and K. von Simson (2012), Ungdomsarbeidsledighet og konjunkturer. Økonomiske analyser 5/2012: 38-45, Statistisk sentralbyrå, Oslo.

7 Additional key dimension: NEETs Source: NEETs Young people not in employment, education or training: Characteristics, costs and policy responses in Europe. Eurofound, 2012.

8 SUPPLY-SIDE CHALLENGES EDUCATION AND TRAINING SYSTEMS

9 Education and training under pressure Gap in understanding between demand and supply: different driving forces of educational expansion on the demand and the supply side of the labour market (e.g. increasing skill requirements in the labour market due to technological change vs. the elevator effect ) Job structure lagging behind the educational expansion shows up in mismatch and under-utilisation of skills highly disputed if the reasons for this under-utilisation is to be found in an increasingly polarised job structure rather than in rapid educational expansion Bumpy school-to-work transitions despite shrinking young age cohorts and most young people being better educated than older age cohorts

10 SUPPLY-SIDE CHALLENGES SCHOOL-TO-WORK TRANSITIONS

11 Individual trajectories, 3 cohorts pooled

12 Challenge 1: methodology? Individual trajectories can be identified by applying sequence analysis to panel data six activities & six years 6^6 = possible combinations for each individual each line in the figures tracks one individual The method combines similar trajectories into groups (pathways) entire individual school-to-work trajectories (incl. nature of spells and their order) are identified, compared and classified into one of several distinct transition pathways groups of similar pathways

13 Challenge 2: activity definitions? Cf. previous slides ILO-recommended coding of activities What happens if students coded in the basic data for some activity other than studying are re-coded into their main activity, that is, being a student? example: Finland, cohort of 16 year-olds in 2003

14 Finland: 16 year-olds in 2003, basic Dropouts/early school leavers (18.4%) (boys 57%, girls 43%) Non-dropouts (81.6%) (boys 50%, girls 50%) 40.5 % in schooling; 27.5 % in employment; 6.4 % in unemployment; 22.9 % in inactivity (2.7% being a conscript) 55.6 % in schooling; 33.3 % in employment; 3.1 % in unemployment; 3.5 % in inactivity (4.5% being a conscript)

15 Finland: 16 year-olds in 2003, adjusted Dropouts/early school leavers (boys 57%, girls 43%) Non-dropouts (boys 50%, girls 50%) 47.5 % in schooling; 20.8 % in employment; 6.2 % in unemployment; 22.9 % in inactivity 67.6 % in schooling; 21.4 % in employment; 3.0 % in unemployment; 3.5 % in inactivity

16 Challenge 3: does gender matter? Do boys typically fare worse than girls? often argued that marginalisation and social exclusion is a more widespread phenomenon among boys What happens if the data is split by gender? example: Finland, cohort of 16 year-olds in 2003

17 Finland: 16 year-old boys, 2003, adjusted 59.8 % in schooling; 21.3 % in employment; 4.1 % in unemployment; 7.1 % in inactivity; (7.7% being a conscript)

18 Finland: 16 year-old girls, 2003, adjusted 68.2 % in schooling; 21.3 % in employment; 3.2 % in unemployment; 7.2 % in inactivity; (0.1% being a conscript)

19 Finland: 16 year-old boys vs. girls, 2003, adjusted Boys Girls 59.8 % in schooling; 21.3 % in employment; 4.1 % in unemployment; 7.1 % in inactivity 68.2 % in schooling; 21.3 % in employment; 3.2 % in unemployment; 7.2 % in inactivity

20 Finland: 16 year-old boys, 2003, adjusted dropouts/early school leavers vs. non-dropouts Dropouts/early school leavers (20.5 %) Non-dropouts 46.7 % in schooling; 21.7 % in employment; 6.3 % in unemployment; 20.9 % in inactivity; (4.4 % being a conscript) 63.1 % in schooling; 21.2 % in employment; 3.5 % in unemployment; 3.5 % in inactivity; (8.1 % being a conscript)

21 Finland: 16 year-old girls, 2003, adjusted dropouts/early school leavers vs. non-dropouts Dropouts/early school leavers (16.2 %) Non-dropouts 48.6 % in schooling; 19.7 % in employment; 6.0 % in unemployment; 25.6 % in inactivity 72.0 % in schooling; 21.7 % in employment; 2.6 % in unemployment; 3.6 % in inactivity

22 Selected results for Finland: 2003, adjusted Identification of 10 typical trajectories which are grouped into 4 types of tracks: schooling employment unemployment inactivity Focus on dropouts/early school leavers cohort of 16 year-olds in 2003

23 Finland: 16 year-old all, 2003, adjusted dropouts/early school leavers: schooling tracks 60.1 % of dropouts/early school leavers in schooling tracks

24 Finland: 16 year-old all, 2003, adjusted dropouts/early school leavers: employment tracks 16.9 % of dropouts/early school leavers in employment tracks

25 Finland: 16 year-old all, 2003, adjusted dropouts/early school leavers: unemployment tracks 4.3 % of dropouts/early school leavers in unemployment tracks

26 Finland: 16 year-old all, 2003, adjusted dropouts/early school leavers: inactivity tracks 18.6 % of dropouts/early school leavers in inactivity tracks

27 Finland: 16 year-old boys vs. girls, 2003, adjusted dropouts/early school leavers: unemployment tracks 4.2 % of boys 3.1 % of girls

28 Finland: 16 year-old boys vs. girls, 2003, adjusted dropouts/early school leavers: inactivity tracks 19 % of boys 20.3 % of girls

29 Selected Nordic comparisons Cohorts , and pooled together

30 Finland: sequence graphs by dropout status Non-dropouts Dropouts

31 Norway: sequence graphs by dropout status

32 Denmark: sequence graphs by dropout status Non-dropouts Dropouts

33 Finland: dropouts, ten groups

34 Finland: dropouts, ten groups Gr10/share Student Conscript Employed Unemployed Pensioner Other Total 1/ / / / / / / / / /

35 Norway: dropouts, ten groups

36 Norway: dropouts, ten groups Gr10/share Student Employed Unemployed Pensioner Other Total 1/ / / / / / / / / /

37 Denmark: dropouts, ten groups

38 Denmark: dropouts, ten groups Gr10/share Student Employed Unemployed Pensioner Other Total 1/ / / / / / / / / /

39 FI, NO, DK: dropouts, schooling tracks' Country Share Student Conscript Employed Unemployed Pensioner Other FI FI FI NO NO NO DK DK DK DK

40 FI, NO, DK: dropouts, employment tracks' Country Share Student Conscript Employed Unemployed Pensioner Other FI FI FI NO NO DK

41 FI, NO, DK: dropouts, unemployment tracks' Country Share Student Conscript Employed Unemployed Pensioner Other FI NO DK

42 FI, NO, DK: dropouts, inactivity tracks' Country Share Student Conscript Employed Unemployed Pensioner Other FI FI NO NO NO DK DK

43 FI, NO, DK: dropouts, pensioner tracks' Country Share Student Conscript Employed Unemployed Pensioner Other FI NO DK

44 Ongoing next steps more straightforward comparisons across countries activity status at age 21, 26 and 31 determinants/correlations: family background performance in primary school post-primary school trajectory etc. impact of the crisis years

45 Thank you!