Youth unemployment and civil society under devolution: a comparative analysis of sub-state welfare regimes

这项研究的重要性在于三个关键原因：(1)欧盟比较将英国视为“一个福利国家”，而事实上，英国四个国家的权力下放意味着情况并非如此，而且到目前为止，我们对英格兰、苏格兰、威尔士和北爱尔兰在解决青年失业问题的政策和公民社会方法方面的差异知之甚少。(2)它利用了一个宝贵的机会来比较政策差异，并创建了权力下放背景下青年失业中公民社会活动的第一个交叉比较数据集。(3)它将告诉我们一些新的和不同的东西，在政策和实践中，在四种不同的政策背景下，什么是有效的，什么是无效的，这些政策背景与任何一个拥有分散或下放福利制度的国家有关。目前，西欧有17%的年轻人失业。在英国，大约5.4%的人失业，16-24岁的人失业的可能性几乎是其三倍（12.5%）。随着人口工资的下降——比五年前低了近1600英镑——对20多岁的年轻人的影响更大（低了1800英镑），英国自2010年以来的强硬紧缩措施影响了生活成本和工资，不稳定就业的增加，继续教育成本的上升，加上福利改革和政府对失业者的紧缩规定，意味着更多的年轻失业者依赖慈善机构的支持；在这种情况下，公民社会组织是一个至关重要的权宜之计。然而，我们对公民社会组织如何在英国四个国家内部和之间运作知之甚少，更不了解权力下放对他们在青年失业问题上所起的作用。这项研究将解决这方面的知识差距，并表明政策、实践和国家-民间社会关系的哪些因素似乎最有效、最无效、最有成效和最有希望；最关键的是，为什么。最近英国中央政府缓解青年失业的政策侧重于就业途径，如；为大学“扩大准入”计划，鼓励继续教育，促进学徒制，并赋予地方当局执行这些措施的责任。然而，这些政策的实施、规模和补充方法（例如通过工作经验计划）各不相同，民间社会或非营利组织（通常称为“第三部门”）在平衡这种差异方面发挥着作用。一些团体游说政府改善青年失业政策和规定，一些与政府合作制定和实施政策，一些为年轻人提供额外的服务和资源，失业的人；但正如研究表明的那样，随着紧缩措施和公共部门削减的后果逐渐显现，所有这些政策都可能变得更加重要，而随着权力下放的推进，这些政策的分歧也会越来越大。理解民间社会对青年失业的参与在很大程度上取决于他们工作的社会和政治背景。然而，现有的研究倾向于将英国视为“单一”福利国家，而事实上，自1998年以来的权力下放已经逐渐削弱了这种说法的准确性。英国有四个不同的政府，四种非常不同的青年失业政策方法，这意味着福利提供和公民社会的作用之间存在重要差异。这项研究的结果将首次全面了解民间社会在下放的青年失业政策和提供方面的作用。调查结果还将对英国退出欧盟产生影响。威尔士和北爱尔兰都严重依赖欧盟的青年失业倡议和资金。英国政府将在多大程度上填补这一缺口仍不得而知，但如果资金减少了第三部门在为年轻失业者提供福利方面的作用，那么第三部门在填补日益扩大的福利缺口方面可能会变得更加重要。

This research is important for three key reasons: (1) EU comparisons treat the UK as 'one welfare state' when in fact devolution in the four nations of the UK mean that this is not the case and, as yet, we know little about the differences in policy and civil society approaches to tackling youth unemployment between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. (2) It takes advantage of a valuable opportunity to compare policy divergences and create the first cross-comparative dataset on civil society activity in youth unemployment in the context of devolution. (3) It will tell us something new and different about what works and what doesn't work in policy and practice within and between four different policy contexts relevant to any country that has decentralised or devolved systems of welfare provision. Currently 17% of young people are unemployed across Western Europe. In the UK where around 5.4% people are unemployed, 16-24 year olds are nearly three times more likely to be out of work (12.5%). With dropping population wages -nearly £1,600 lower than five years ago- affecting young people in their twenties more (£1,800 lower), hard line austerity measures in the UK since 2010 affecting the cost of living and of wages, increase in precarious employment, the rising cost of further education coupled with welfare reform and tightening government provision for the unemployed means more young unemployed people are dependant on charity support; and civil society organisations are a crucial stop-gap in this scenario. Yet we know little about how civil society organisations operate within and between the four nations of the UK and even less about the effect that devolution is having on their role in youth unemployment. The study will address this gap in knowledge and show which elements of policy, practice and state-civil society relationships seem most effective, ineffective, productive and promising; and crucially, why.Recent UK central government policies to mitigate youth unemployment have focused on routes into work such as; 'widening access' programmes for universities, encouraging continued education, boosting apprenticeships and placing duties on local authorities to enforce these measures. However, approaches to delivery, scale and supplementation of these policies (e.g. through Work Experience schemes) varies and civil society or not-for-profit organisations, commonly termed the 'third sector', plays a role in balancing-out this variation. Some groups lobby government for better youth unemployment policy and provision, some work with government to shape and delivery policies and some provide additional services and resources for young, out of work people; but all, as research has shown, are likely to become both more important as the consequences of austerity measures and public sector cuts play-out and more divergent as devolution progresses. Understanding civil society involvement in youth unemployment relies heavily on the social and political contexts within which they are working. However, existing studies tend to treat the UK as 'one' welfare state when in fact devolution since 1998 has steadily eroded the accuracy of this. The UK has four different governments, four very different policy approaches to youth unemployment which means important differences between welfare provision and the role of civil society. The findings from this research will provide the first full picture of civil society's role in devolved youth unemployment policy and provision. The findings will also have implications for the UK's exit from the EU. Both Wales and Northern Ireland rely heavily on EU youth unemployment initiatives and funding. The extent to which this gap will be filled by the UK government remains unknown, but if funding decreases the role of the third sector in providing welfare for the young unemployed could become more important in filling an ever widening gap in welfare.