Tackling Youth Unemployment in Europe. A Multi-Level Governance Approach.

Tackling Youth Unemployment in Europe.

A Multi-Level Governance Approach.

MA Thesis in European Studies

Graduate School for Humanities

Universiteit van Amsterdam

ABSTRACT

One of the most dramatic and pressing issues in today’s European Union is that of youth unemployment. Across the EU, high percentages of unemployed young people are preventing member states to make full use of their growth potential. Furthermore, if solutions are not provided, long periods of youth unemployment risk to have a “scarring” effect on young individuals, eventually leading to the creation of a “lost generation”. Even though employment policy is a member state competence, the EU is increasingly playing a vital role within the policy field, especially in latest years with the implementation of innovative policies such as the Youth Guarantee. The novelty and the importance of this policy lie in the fact that crucial importance is given to the subnational level within its decision- and policy-making process, thus empowering the role of regional and local actors. In the field of employment policy, the EU seems, therefore, to be promoting the importance of the establishment of partnerships at regional and local levels and, thus, seems to be pushing towards the employment of a multi-level and multi-actor governance mechanism, such as that of multi-level governance. The aim of this research is that of understanding whether multi-level governance can actually be considered as the right approach to be applied to a policy field such as that of youth employment. In order to do so, the national and subnational implementation of the Youth Guarantee is analyzed in Italy and in two of its regions, Lombardy and Lazio. This thesis finds that, indeed, the application of multi-level governance to employment policy is contributing to the policy effectiveness by bringing the policy-making process closer to the local territory within which the policies are implemented. However, not all regions and not all subnational actors are sufficiently organized to face the complexity brought about by this mode of governance and the application of the latter could have a perverse effect, leading to new difficulties.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Abbreviations ... I Lists of Tables and Figures ... III

INTRODUCTION ... 1

1. RESEARCH DESIGN ... 6

1.1 Youth Unemployment ... 6

1.2 The multi-level governance nature of the Youth Guarantee ... 8

1.3 Outline of research ... 9

1.3.1 Research question ... 9

1.3.2 Research method ... 10

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ...13

2.1 Multi-Level Governance ... 13

2.1.1 Distribution of decision-making power across different territorial levels ... 14

2.1.2 The role of subnational and non-state actors ... 17

2.2 The pitfalls of Multi-Level Governance ...18

3. EU YOUTH EMPLOYMENT POLICY ... 21

3.1 Historical overview ... 21

3.2 The Youth Guarantee and its implementation process ... 27

3.3 The Youth Employment Initiative and its implementation process ... 30

4. CASE STUDY: ITALY ... 32

4.1 The Italian institutional framework ... 32

4.1.1 The decentralization of labour market and employment policies ... 33

4.2 The Youth Guarantee: the Italian implementation scheme ... 35

4.2.1 Partnership approach ... 37

4.3 Regional implementation: the cases of Lombardy (Lombardia) and Lazio ... 39

4.3.2 Lazio: YG implementation ... 41

5. COMPARISON: LOMBARDY & LAZIO ... 44

5.1 The Italian Youth Guarantee: policy outcomes ... 44

5.2 Lombardy and Lazio: policy outcomes ... 45

5.2.1 Higher level of coordination in Lombardy ... 46

5.2.2 Higher match between EU recommendation and local policy in Lombardy ... 47

5.2.2.1 Timing of implementation of the policy ... 47

5.2.2.2 Efficiency of public communication ... 48

CONCLUSION ... 49

Limitation and need for further research ... 53

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ... 54

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ALMP: Active Labour Market Policy

ANPAL: Agenzia Nazionale per le Politiche Attive del Lavoro COREPER: Committee of Permanent Representative

CPI: Centri Per l’Impiego

CPR: Common Provisions Regulation CSR: Country Specific Recommendation DUL: Dote Unica Lavoro

EAA: European Alliance for Apprenticeships EEC: European Economic Community EC: European Commission

EES: European Employment Strategy EPL: Employment Protection Legislation

EPSCO: Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council ESF: European Social Fund

ESM: European Social Model EU: European Union

IeFP: Istruzione e Formazione Professionale

INAIL: Istituto Nazionale Assicurazione Infortuni sul Lavoro INAPP: Istituto Nazionale per l’Analisi delle Politiche Pubbliche INPS: Istituto Nazionale Previdenza Sociale

ISFOL: Istituto Nazionale della Formazione Professionale dei Lavoratori MLG: Multi-Level Governance

NEET: Not in Employment, Education or Training NRP: National Reform Programme

OMC: Open Method of Coordination QFT: Quality Framework for Traineeships VET: Vocational Education and Training

Unioncamere: Unione Italiana delle Camere di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura YEI: Youth Employment Initiative

LISTS OF TABLES AND FIGURES

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1: Employment and Education Headline Targets ... 24

Table 3.2: Employment and Education Headline Targets: EU and Italy ... 25

Table 3.3: Guidelines for the employment policies of the member states ... 25

Table 3.4: Italian allocation of funding ... 31

Table 4.1: Italian Youth Guarantee: phases and type of services ... 36

Table 4.2: Key organizations for the support and delivery of the Italian Youth Guarantee ... 38

Table 4.3: Lombardy and Lazio: funding allocated for each service under the YG ... 43

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 4.1: Map of Italy: highlighted in red Lombardy and Lazio ... 39

INTRODUCTION

One of the most pressing issues in today’s Europe is that of youth unemployment. Despite being the generation with the highest education attainment ever (Thyssen, 2015), young people (aged between 15 and 24) have been the most badly hit by the recent financial crisis and their labour market situation calls for drastic reforms. Youth unemployment represents a dramatic phenomenon that most European member states are struggling with. Its gravity lies in the economic and social consequences that long periods of unemployment entail for young individuals. Amongst the social consequences, protracted periods of labour inactivity can lead to a loss of faith in the democratic institutions, resulting in a lack of democratic engagement and social participation and in the weakening of the civil society and social cohesion (Mezo, 2017). Economically, youth disengagement from the labour market represents an obstacle which is preventing the European Union to make full use of its growth potential (Thyssen, 2015). According to a study conducted by Eurofound (2015), the annual loss to European economies due to the high percentage of NEETs (Not in Employment, Education or Training) is around 142 billion, which in 2015 represented approximately 1% of the EU GDP (Eurofound, 2018). As stated by Marianne Thyssen, from 2014 Commissioner responsible for Employment, Social Affairs, Skills and Labour Mobility, youth unemployment “is undermining the feeling of social justice that underpins our democracies” (Thyssen, 2015, para 8).

The issue of youth unemployment is not a newly stemmed one. Rather, it entered the policy debate in the 1980s due to the entrance of the so-called “baby-boom” generation in the labour market (Eurofound, 2012) and, since then, it has been one of the most crucial issues within the policy agenda of the EU. What is new about this phenomenon is the escalation that it has reached as a consequence of the 2008 financial crisis (Eurofound, 2012). According to Eurostat data, EU’s unemployment rate peaked at 23.9% in the first quarter of 2013 (Eurostat, 2019). Since then, it has gradually decreased to less than 19% in 2016 and to approximately 15% in January 2019 (Eurostat, 2019). Despite this reduction, the percentage of young unemployed people under 25 years of age is still very high and large differences occur between the different member states, with southern European countries being at the forefront of the issue. Nowadays, the labour situation of young generations is thus characterized by high levels of insecurity and, in some cases, marginalization and exclusion. Beside the difficulties that young people need to overcome in order to find a job, they are also faced with the problems of low quality and insecure job positions. Indeed, young

people are more likely to find work in temporary, part-time, low-paid and precarious forms of employment (Hvinden, O’Reilly, Sirovátka and Schoyen, 2019). Furthermore, EU growth is further hindered by the increasing number of young people who are working below their potential and qualification levels (Thyssen, 2015). Nowadays more than ever, strong initiatives at the EU-level are needed in order to overcome the dramatic situation of today’s youth and to prevent the creation of a “lost generation” of individuals (Mezo, 2017).

Despite the fact that employment policy remains a member states’ competence, the EU is increasingly playing a crucial role in terms of policy development and formulation (Gibney, Bailey & Hertner, 2017). It is particularly through the gradual advancement of the European Employment Strategy (EES), a soft law mechanism designed to coordinate the employment policies of the member states (Eurofound, 2019), that the EU has tried to gain a prominent role in the area of employment and labour market policies (Hvinden, O’Reilly et al., 2019). Through this strategy, the EU sets the objectives, priorities and targets that member states have to aim for. National governments are then fully responsible for the formulation and implementation of the necessary policies. The role of the EU within the field of social and employment policy has gained even more relevance in recent years. The EU is increasingly contributing to the promotion of cross-country policy learning, as well as to the coordination of national employment policies and to their monitoring (Hvinden, O’Reilly et al., 2019). This has been particularly the case since the adoption, in the year 2010, of the Europe 2020 Strategy, the ten-years strategy for “smart, sustainable and inclusive growth”, which gave to employment and education a pivotal position (European Commission, 2010c).

Amongst the most recent measures implemented at the EU-level in order to tackle the issue of youth unemployment, the Youth Guarantee (YG) is the one that has received the biggest attention and is now at the core of EU youth employment policy. Established with the April 2013 Council Recommendation, the aim of the YG is that of ensuring that young people under 25 years of age receive a good quality offer of employment, apprenticeship or traineeship within four months of leaving formal education or becoming unemployed (Council of the European Union, 2013a). As highlighted by the European Commission (EC), the YG is a structural reform (Dingeley, Assmann & Steinberg, 2017). Therefore, its implementation also requires major domestic reforms in order to overcome the deep-rooted structural weaknesses of some EU countries’ labour markets (Gibney, Bailey et al., 2017) and to enhance the school-to-work transition system, as well as the employability of young people. In order for the YG to be implemented, each country has to present

a national implementation plan. This is particularly useful as it identifies the measures that need to be taken to implement the YG in every specific country and in order for it to be successful.

Although in recent years the EU has gained more relevance in the field, the implementation of EU youth employment policy “on the ground” and its success depend to a great extent to the capacity and endeavors of the member states, both at the national level and, decisively, at the subnational level (Gibney, Bailey et al., 2017). Therefore, the analysis of the policy-making process of EU youth employment policy requires an approach that allows to take into account the multiple territorial tiers and the variety of state and non-state actors involved (Gibney, Bailey et al., 2017). In contemporary Europe, the correct delivery of employment and social policies requires an effective coordination across the different territorial levels involved, namely the supranational, national, regional and local level, what can be defined as a “vertical coordination” (Hvinden, O’Reilly et al., 2019). Furthermore, a “horizontal coordination”, that is a coordination between the different interest groups involved, such as administrative institutions and trade unions, is also deemed to be of crucial importance. It is therefore necessary to take into account the different levels of governance that play a role in the implementation of youth employment policies. For this reason, this thesis will make use of the multi-level governance (MLG) approach in order to thoroughly analyze the implementation process of EU youth employment policy, with a particular focus on the Youth Guarantee. This analysis will take into account the implementation process of the YG at different territorial levels in order to understand whether the coordination, or the lack of it, between the multiple actors involved in the process positively affect the advancement of the crucial objectives of EU youth employment policy. In other words, this thesis aims at understanding the actual effectiveness of the multi-level governance approach within the field of employment policy.

The fundamental idea behind the concept of multi-level governance is that within political systems characterized by high levels of complexity, like those of contemporary Europe, no level of governance, not even the nation state, is fully competent and able to thoroughly manage what happens in its territory (Hvinden, O’Reilly et al., 2019). Therefore, according to multi-level governance, national governments no longer have the capacity of entirely controlling the policy-making process. Rather, new policy arrangements between different actors at different levels are subtly altering the existing power dynamics (Gibney, Bailey et al., 2017). The picture painted by the multi-level governance perspective is one of complex, multi-levels and multi-actors policy-making and implementation processes, where decision-making power shifted away from national governments to include supranational, subnational and non-governmental actors (Gibney, Bailey et al., 2017).

Therefore, MLG offers a useful analytical framework through which it is possible to analyze the complex and multi-level policy-making and implementation processes of EU youth employment policy. This thesis will thus make use of the theoretical framework of multi-level governance in order to analyze the formulation and implementation procedures of EU youth employment policy. In particular, the focus will be on the Youth Guarantee, which has been considered as one of the most innovative youth employment policies of recent years, and the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI), one of the main EU financial resources functional to support the implementation of national Youth Guarantee schemes. The broader aim of this analysis is that of understanding how interactions across different levels of governance shape policy outcomes and how they can contribute to the explanation of the success - or failure - of youth employment policies.

The first chapter digs deeper into the issue of youth unemployment, taking stock of its consequences on the individual as well as on the societal level. Furthermore, the first chapter gives an outline of the research project and the methodology used for the purpose of this thesis.

As a first crucial step in the research, it is necessary to provide an overview of the theoretical framework upon which this thesis is based. Therefore, the second chapter focuses on the theory of Multi-Level Governance, outlining its origin and its fundamental assumptions. The MLG approach implies a strong engagement and a mutual dependency between the intertwining levels of governance involved in the policy-making process of EU-level policies (Stephenson, 2013). For this reason, it offers a helpful theoretical framework in order to analyze the formulation and implementation of EU youth employment policy, within which the role of subnational actors - at a regional and territorial level - is deemed to be of crucial importance for the success of the policies. It is important to note here that youth employment policy has been overlooked by MLG literature (Gibney, Bailey et al., 2017). Indeed, researches in the field of MLG have tended to focus on other policy fields, such as cohesion (Marks, Hooghe & Blank, 1996; Marks, 1996) and environmental policy (Marquardt, 2017; Di Gregorio, Fatorelli et al., 2019).

The third chapter focuses on youth employment policy at the European level. First of all, the overview of the policies that have been implemented throughout the years in order to tackle the issue of youth unemployment is provided. The focus then moves on to the Youth Guarantee, which is considered to be one of the most significative and innovative employment policies of recent years, and on the Youth Employment Initiative, a EUR 8 billion funding scheme specifically targeted at regions experiencing high levels of youth unemployment. The implementation of these policies across different territorial levels will be analyzed.

The focus of the fourth chapter moves on to the implementation of the mentioned policies at the national and regional levels. In order to do so, this chapter makes use of a case study in order to analyze the role of national and subnational - regional and local - actors in the decision- and policy-making processes of youth employment policy. Italy, as it will be later shown, has been chosen as the right case study. In order to analyze the role of subnational actors, the focus of the analysis will be on two Italian regions, namely Lombardy (Lombardia) and Lazio.

The fifth and last chapter of this MA thesis will offer a comparative discussion of the regional and local experiences of Lombardy and Lazio concerning the formulation and implementation of the Youth Guarantee. The aim of this analysis is that of understanding whether the coordination between the different levels of governance contributes to the promotion and advancement of the crucial objectives of EU youth employment policy.

RESEARCH DESIGN

The purpose of this chapter is that of exploring the central issue of this thesis, youth unemployment. The first part of the chapter digs deeper into the phenomenon, taking stock of its impact, both on the individual and societal level. Moreover, the Youth Guarantee, which is a central feature of EU youth employment policy, will be analyzed in further details. The last part of the chapter gives an outline of the research project and the methodology used for the purpose of this MA thesis.

1.1 Youth unemployment

Young people are a fundamental asset and a crucial resource for a state economy and society (Eurofound, 2012). However, in order for a country to fully benefit from their potential, young people need to be productively employed and integrated within the society (Eurofound, 2012). Indeed, from an economic point of view, young generations represent one of the most valuable resources for a national government as they have the potential to significantly and positively influence economic growth, as well as to boost competitiveness (Billimoria, 2014). Young people are thus a driving force for European economies and the future of the European Union is dependent on them (Eurofound, 2012). Yet, youth unemployment has been on the rise in the majority of the European member states, especially as a consequence of the financial crisis that struck European economies starting from the year 2008. Indeed, the latter had a disproportionally adverse impact on the labour market prospect of young generations (Hvinden, O’Reilly et al., 2019), increasing their risk of being marginalized and excluded from national labour markets. Some groups in particular, such as low-skilled individuals, migrants and ethnic minorities, had to bear the majority of the weight of this situation. Alongside high levels of youth unemployment, the financial crisis contributed to the increase of precarious forms of job position. Standard work contracts have been increasingly substituted by atypical work, such as part-time, temporary and fixed-term work, bringing about a sense of uncertainty and insecurity among workers (Eurofound, 2017). Early job insecurity and processes of marginalization and exclusion are thus what characterizes the labour market situation of today’s youth.

As mentioned in the introduction of this thesis, there are great differences among European member states in terms of youth unemployment rates. Since the outburst of the economic crisis, southern European countries, such as Italy and Greece, have displayed the highest levels of young jobless among all European states, whereas young people seem to be better integrated into the

labour market in northern and central European countries (Eurofound, 2012). The distinct institutional structures of European labour markets can offer an explanation to the differences in youth unemployment levels that occur among EU countries. Indeed, specific institutional configurations of the educational and training system, as well as specific labour market institutions, are of crucial importance as they directly affect the integration opportunities of young people (Eurofound, 2012). Amongst the labour market institutions, Employment Protection Legislation (EPL) and Active Labour Market Policies (ALMPs) are among the most important determinants influencing the integration of the youth into the labour force (Hora, Horáková & Sirovátka, 2019). In particular, EPL is usually defined as a set of measures governing hiring and firing procedures (Muravyev, 2014), while ALMPs are governmental measures aiming at increasing the employment opportunities of job seekers, as well as avoiding the formation of NEETs.

Furthermore, of great significance are the level of coordination between the education system and the labour market and the distinctive features of school-to-work transition regimes (Hora, Horáková et al., 2019).Nowadays, the entrance of young generations into the labour market is not an easy process. In most European countries, the transition from formal education to employment is lengthy and it often requires young people to endure long periods of inactivity before becoming employed. An effective coordination between the education system and the labour market could guarantee to the youth a smooth school-to-work transition by creating a tie between schools and companies that allows young people to acquire the necessary skills needed to successfully enter the labour market. The so-called “dual training system” is based on this coordination. This system combines classroom-based education with workplace-based training (Eurofound, 2012) and it can be found in some central and northern European countries. An example is Germany, within which it is firmly established in the education system. By coupling together theory and workplace-based training, the dual training system represents an excellent approach able to ease the school to work transition of young people and shorten the period of inactivity that they often endure.

Long periods of school-to-work transition and high levels of youth unemployment impede the mobilization of existing resources on the part of the state and thus imply a decrease in its competitiveness (Mezo, 2017). Successfully tackling the issue of youth unemployment is essential not only for the national, as well as European, growth’s prospect, but also for the enhancement of the well-being of young individuals and of societies in general (Eurofound, 2012). At the individual level, protracted periods of inactivity can have long-lasting consequences which can affect future employment outcomes and earnings and can have a negative impact on the individual’s health (Eurofound, 2012). Furthermore, long-term unemployment can lead the individual to lose trust in

the democratic institutions, causing, as a result, a downturn in political engagement and civic participation.

1.2 The multi-level governance nature of the Youth Guarantee

The issue of youth unemployment is nowadays at the top of the policy agenda of the European Union, as it is shown by the prominent role given to employment targets within the Europe 2020 Strategy. The latter proposes, as a headline target to be achieved by the year 2020, that 75% of the population aged 20-64 should be employed (European Commission, 2010c). Moreover, the mentioned strategy puts forward the so-called “Youth on the Move” initiative in order to enhance the performance of the education systems of EU member states and to facilitate the entry of young people into the labour market (European Commission, 2010c).

Since the year 2010, the EU has implemented different youth employment policies in order to tackle the issue of youth unemployment and improve the situation of thousands of young people. Among these policies, the Youth Guarantee, which is the focus of this thesis, has been considered as one of the most innovative and comprehensive of recent years. Under the YG, member states have committed to ensure that all young people under 25 years of age receive a good quality offer of employment, further education, apprenticeship or traineeship within a period of four months of becoming unemployed or leaving formal education (Council of the European Union, 2013a). Part of the innovativeness of this policy lies in the fact that, not only it contributes to the development of innovative and effective programmes aiming at assisting young people in their search for a job, but one of its fundamental objectives is also that of promoting large-scale structural reforms within the member states (Gibney, Bailey et al., 2017). Alongside the YG, the EU has established the Youth Employment Initiative, a EUR 8 billion funding instrument from which member states can draw on support in order to successfully implement national YG schemes (European Commission, 2014). The YEI is allocated to regions that have youth unemployment rates higher than 25% and its aim is that of financing measures specifically targeted at helping young people not in employment, education or training (European Commission, 2014).

The role of national governments and their successful participation in the implementation of national YG schemes is of crucial importance. It is important to highlight the fact that the YG is a recommendation and, as such, its compliance depends solely on soft forms of governance (Dingeley, Assmann et al., 2017). Indeed, although EU recommendations have an important political weight, they have no binding character and their implementation generally occurs on a voluntary basis (Dingeley, Assmann et al., 2017). However, in the case of the YG, the EU has set a

comprehensive framework that helps member states to understand how the policy has to be implemented at national levels. For instance, in its recommendation on the establishment of the Youth Guarantee, the Council of the European Union has emphasized the need for member states to build a partnership-based approach that allows the engagement and coordination across all the different levels involved, namely the national, regional and local level (European Commission, 2014). The EU has thus emphasized the importance of vertical coordination in the implementation of national YG schemes, also as a means to foster compliance and policy convergence within the mode of soft governance (Dingeley, Assmann et al., 2017).

The reason why the Youth Guarantee is considered one of the most comprehensive youth employment policies of recent years lies in the innovative approach that it proposes in order to tackle youth unemployment. This approach considers vertical coordination necessary in order for the YG implementation process to be successful. At the same time, national structural reforms and an improvement of horizontal coordination are expected as policy outcomes (Dingeley, Assmann et al., 2017). Therefore, the YG contributes to the creation of a strong connection between the supranational level, in which the YG itself is shaped, and the national and subnational levels, within which the policy is implemented through a partnership-based approach. It can thus be said that the Youth Guarantee contributes to the promotion of multi-level governance as member states are pushed to operate in a multi-level and multi-actor political environment (Gibney, Bailey et al., 2017). It is worthy to note here that the multi-level governance approach, if applied in specific policy areas or in regions where, for instance, the interests of subnational actors are not aligned with those of the supranational level, could trigger a perverse path (Milio, 2013). The aim of this MA thesis is that of understanding the effectiveness of the MLG approach within the field of EU youth employment policy.

1.3 Outline of Research 1.3.1 Research question

The purpose of this thesis is that of investigating the formulation and implementation processes of EU youth employment policy, with a particular focus on the Youth Guarantee, in order to understand whether the coordination across the different levels involved in these processes positively affects the promotion of the crucial objectives of (youth) employment policy put forward by the European Union through its recommendations. In light of what said in the previous paragraph, it is possible to argue that the most appropriate way to analyze the formulation and implementation processes of the Youth Guarantee, and of EU youth employment policy in general,

is through the theoretical framework offered by the multi-level governance approach. One of the core principles of MLG is that, in contemporary Europe, decision-making power is spread across multiple territorial tiers as no level of governance by itself is able to manage the complexity that characterizes decision-making and implementation processes nowadays. MLG implies engagement, influence and mutual dependency between the intertwining levels of policy-making (Stephenson, 2013). It is therefore necessary to strengthen a vertical coordination between the supranational, national and subnational levels and a horizontal coordination between the interest groups and stakeholders involved.

The success of national Youth Guarantee implementation plans depends to a great extent on the endeavors and the willingness of the member states, at a national as well as at a regional, and decisively local, level. As claimed by the Council in its recommendation on the establishment of a YG, national YG schemes need to be tailored to national, regional and local circumstances and they have to consider the diversity of the young people that are the target of the measure (Council of the European Union, 2013a). In order to successfully implement the YG, a member state needs to identify the relevant public authorities at different local levels that will be in charge of establishing and managing the policy. Furthermore, public authorities will have the task to coordinate partnerships across all levels and sectors (Council of the European Union, 2013a).

The analysis of the implementation of the Youth Guarantee, therefore, demands a theoretical framework that takes into account the multiple territorial levels and actors that are involved in the decision-making process of EU youth employment policy, such as MLG. Through this theoretical structure, this thesis aims to answer to the following research question: Does the multi-level governance nature of the Youth Guarantee, and of EU youth employment policy more broadly, positively affect the advancement of the objectives of EU youth employment policy? In the process of answering this main research question, the following subquestions are also going to be addressed: What are the objectives of EU youth employment policy? How do the actors involved in the European, national and subnational levels interact with regards to the implementation of EU youth employment policy? Does the coordination between the different levels of governance involved in the formulation and implementation of EU youth employment policy lead to policies that are well-adjusted for local conditions?

1.3.2 Research method

In answering the main research question, as well as the mentioned subquestions, this thesis will make use of a qualitative method as it provides detailed insight into the issue and it allows for an

in-depth analysis of the phenomenon that would not be possible to achieve using other methods. The processes of decision-making and implementation at the EU-level, as well as at national levels, are nowadays characterized by a high level of complexity. A thorough and detailed analysis of these processes is therefore possible only through the use of a methodology that allows to go deeper into the phenomenon and better explore the dynamics of policy-making and implementation of EU youth employment policy across the different territorial levels involved.

In order to understand whether the multi-level governance nature of the YG, and of EU youth employment policy more broadly, affects the advancement of the policy field’s objectives, this research will make use of a case study. Italy, and in particular two of its regions, namely Lombardy and Lazio, have been chosen as the focuses of the analysis. Through the use of a case study, an up-close and in-depth examination of the dynamics at play within the policy-making process of EU youth employment policy is possible. In particular, the employment of a case study approach is essential for the purpose of this research as it allows for the analysis of the concrete implementation of youth employment policies at local levels. In other words, it allows to go deeper into the phenomenon by investigating it in a “real life situation” (Karlsson, 2016). In particular, Italy has been chosen as it represents a right fit for the objectives of this thesis. Alongside other southern and eastern European countries, Italy has experienced one of the highest levels of youth unemployment within Europe. In particular, the Italian youth unemployment rate has been escalating from about 20% in 2007 up to a historical peak of 44% in 2014 (Pastore, 2015). Although this percentage has decreased in recent years, it is still at alarming levels. Italy thus represents an appropriate fit for the analysis of EU youth employment policy implementation as it is a country in immediate need of such policies.

As it has been previously argued, the delivery and success of European youth employment policies depends considerably to the endeavors of the member states, especially at regional and local levels. Being the purpose of this thesis that of better understanding the multi-level governance nature of EU youth employment policy, the research would not be complete without taking into account the role played in the implementation process by subnational actors. For this reason, the Italian regions of Lombardy and Lazio have been chosen as the main areas of focus. Indeed, regions are key actors for the success of policies such as the Youth Guarantee and its funding instrument, the Youth Employment Initiative. Through the analysis of the regional implementation of the mentioned policies in Lombardy and Lazio it is possible to have a grasp of the “real life” situation within which the implementation takes place. Two regions have been chosen in order to be able to compare and contrast their experiences. In particular, the choice is based on two motives. First of

all, both regions have displayed high levels of NEETs and unemployed young people. They are, therefore, both eligible for funding under the YEI. Secondly, they represent two very similar regions in terms of socio-economic conditions. This is particularly important as it allows to draw significant conclusions from the comparison. The analysis of two regions characterized by marked structural differences, as it would be a comparison between an Italian region located in the north and one in the south, would risk to lead to predictable conclusions.

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

For the purpose of this research, it is crucial, as a first step, to provide an overview of the theoretical framework that forms the basis of the analysis. In order to do so, this chapter focuses on the theory of Multi-Level Governance, which, as already mentioned, offers a useful framework for the analysis of a policy field such as that of youth employment policy. The first part of the chapter focuses on the fundamental assumptions underpinning the concept of MLG, while the second part analyzes the challenges that arise from the implementation of this mode of governance.

2.1 Multi-Level Governance

Multi-Level Governance (MLG) is a particularly popular concept which is widely used by a variety of scholars of different disciplines (Piattoni, 2009). Given its popularity, observers point to the risk of conceptual over-stretching that the concept of MLG could become victim of (Borg, 2012). Indeed, as Piattoni argues, the concept of MLG “runs the risk of becoming an umbrella under which many disparate phenomena are subsumed” (Piattoni, 2009, p. 163). For the purpose of this research, it is therefore necessary to conceptually delimitate the concept. In order to do so, the following part of this chapter will outline its fundamental assumptions, as well as its implications on decision-making dynamics within the European Union, in order to explore the governance of youth employment policy.

The concept of Multi-Level Governance was first advanced in the early 1990s by Gary Marks and Liesbet Hooghe in order to better explore the dynamics of decision-making within the EU. In particular, the concept emerged from a research in the field of EU cohesion policy (Saurugger, 2014). In the implementation of EU cohesion policy, the central government and subnational actors, such as regional and non-state organizations, are required to set up and engage in partnership processes in order to reach an agreement for the well-functioning of the policy’s instruments (Saurugger, 2014). Therefore, different actors located at different levels - European, national, regional and local - take part in the decision-making process at the EU-level (Saurugger, 2014).

The fact that decision-making power in a number of different policy fields is no longer under the sole remit of central governments but is shared across different territorial levels is one of the fundamental assumptions of the theory of Multi-Level Governance. Indeed, the core idea of MLG is that within political systems characterized by high levels of complexity, no level of governance is fully able to manage what happens in its territory. Greater complexity of issues, therefore, means

that decision-making power becomes more dispersed (Hvinden, O’Reilly et. al., 2019). In other words, decision-making power shifts away from central governments to include supranational, subnational and non-state actors. Therefore, this theory offers a useful theoretical framework in order to explore and analyze the process of European integration and EU policy-making in today’s European Union. The importance of MLG lies in the fact that it goes beyond the state-centric vision of the European Union advanced by theories such as Intergovernmentalism and Neofunctionalism and it provides an interpretation of today’s EU focused on the different subnational actors that play a role in the decision-making process of a number of different policy fields at the EU-level. Mainstream theories of European integration, such as intergovernmentalism and neofunctionalism, are considered by scholars of MLG to be inadequate as they conceive the EU as “a single dimension ranging from national state domination at the one extreme to a supranational polity at the other” (Marks, 1993, p. 407) and they therefore do not take into account the mobilization and empowerment of subnational governments (Marks, 1993). It is worthy to note that MLG does not reject the idea that national governments are important or that they are the most important actors in the policy-making process of EU policies (Marks, Hooghe & Blank, 1996). However, it claims that decision-making authority is shared by actors at different tiers of governance as central governments are no longer able to monopolize it (Marks, Hooghe et al., 1996).

According to Multi-Level Governance, with the establishment of a complex political system such as the one of contemporary Europe we have witnessed the emergence of new power dynamics that are blurring three boundaries that were considered to be of central importance for the traditional understanding of the European modern state (Piattoni, 2009). These boundaries are: 1) the one between the domestic and the international; 2) the one between centre and periphery; and 3) the one between state and society (Piattoni, 2009). The following part of the chapter will analyze in more details the theory of Multi-Level Governance and its fundamental assumptions.

2.1.1 Distribution of decision-making power across different territorial levels

As above-mentioned, one of the fundamental assumptions of Multi-Level Governance is that, in contemporary Europe, decision-making authority is no longer under the sole remit of national governments. Rather, it is shared by different actors located at different territorial tiers. Unlike other mainstream theories of EU integration which central focus are national governments, MLG takes into account and highlights the role of subnational actors, such as regional and local governments and organizations. The latter are therefore empowered by this mode of governance. Furthermore, MLG claims that, instead of being embedded, political arenas are interconnected between each

others (Marks, Hooghe et al., 1996). This means that subnational actors play a role both at the national and supranational level, rather than being nested within the nation state, and, by doing so, they contribute to the creation of transnational associations (Marks, Hooghe et al., 1996). Even though states are of crucial importance, they no longer are the sole linking channel between the supranational and subnational levels (Marks, Hooghe et al., 1996).

In order to better understand the theoretical framework provided by the theory of MLG, it is useful to make a distinction between the two different constituent parts of the State: institutions and actors (Marks, Hooghe et al., 1996). The former are sets of commonly accepted formal and informal rules that restrain the power of political actors. The latter are considered as the only agents that are able to engage in goal-oriented initiatives (Marks, 1996). It is important to highlight the fact that MLG puts great emphasis on the role of political leaders within national governments. According to MLG, it is elected politicians who hold positions of authority, have policy goals and interact with subnational actors (Marks, 1996). As a consequence, politicians are considered to be the key actors in the process of decision-making at the EU-level (Marks, Hooghe et al., 1996). Furthermore, it is important to note that, instead of being considered as an actor, the State is seen by scholars of MLG as a set of institutions (Marks, 1996). As mentioned, it is therefore political actors who hold the greatest powers and who decide to change institutional rules, for instance by shifting decision-making powers to the supranational level (Marks, Hooghe et al., 1996).

The differentiation between the State as a set of institutions and political actors that play a role within it is of crucial importance. Indeed, by focusing solely on the role of political leaders it is easier to give an explanation to why, in contemporary Europe, decision-making power in a number of different policy fields is being transferred from national governments to the institutions of the European Union. Rather than asking why do nation states choose to shift decision-making authority to the EU, the question that, according to scholars of MLG, needs to be asked is the following: why do political leaders decide to give up decision-making authority to the EU? (Marks, Hooghe et al., 1996). Indeed, nation states are not considered as actors and are unlikely to give up competences and authority to the EU-level. There are different reasons that could give an answer to this question. First of all, the political benefits of transferring powers to the supranational level may outweigh the cost of losing political control (Marks, Hooghe et al., 1996). For example, giving up certain competences to the EU could enhance the effectiveness of certain policies. Moreover, there may be benefits for political leaders when transferring decision-making power to the EU. This often occurs when unpopular decisions have to be taken and it is convenient for political leaders to shift the responsibility for these decisions to the EU (Marks, Hooghe et al., 1996).

The pooling of certain decision-making competences from central governments to the EU-level contributes to what Piattoni (2009) defined as the blurring of the boundary between the domestic and the international level (p. 163). Furthermore, Marks, Hooghe & Blank (1996) highlight the consequences that shifting decision-making powers from the nation state to the supranational level could have on individual and collective state-executive control (pp. 350-351). First of all, the most apparent limit on the executive power of a member state is the decision rule of qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers (Marks, Hooghe et al., 1996), which does not require the consensus of all the member states in the EU decision-making process. Scholars of intergovernmentalism have tried to weaken this claim by saying that, even though nation states give up part of their decision-making authority to the supranational level, they are more than compensated for it by the policy gains that they receive (Marks, Hooghe et al., 1996). As Moravcsik (1993, p. 485) has claimed, collective decision-making boosts the executive power of a member state as the latter decides to cooperate only “where policy coordination increases its control over domestic policy outcomes, permitting it to achieve goals that would not otherwise be possible” (Moravcsik, 1993, p. 485). Moreover, intergovernmentalists have claimed that, in spite of the use of qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers, member states are still in control of their sovereignty as decision-making power on a different number of key policy areas remains subject to unanimity, meaning that every member state can veto and block any decision (Marks, Hooghe et al., 1996). However, as pointed out by scholars of MLG, throughout the years qualified majority voting is being extended to an increasing number of policy fields, especially as a consequence of the Treaty of Lisbon.

What has been here outlined concerns the impact of shifting decision-making authority from national governments to the supranational level on individual state-executive control. As above mentioned, scholars of MLG claim that this shifting of decision-making powers also have consequences on collective state-executive control (Marks, Hooghe et al., 1996). In other words, the ability of member state governments to control institutions at the supranational level is restrained by a number of different factors (Marks, Hooghe et al., 1996). These are: the multiplicity of member states, which, in case of different views and opinions on particular issues, are prone to competition and conflict; the existence of “informational asymmetries” between the member states and supranational institutions; and the unintended effects that certain institutional changes can have (Marks, Hooghe et al., 1996). It is important to note here that, as it will be shown in the following chapters, these factors play a role in the field of EU employment policy, constraining the decision-making power of central governments within the field.

2.1.2 The role of subnational and non-state actors

Another fundamental assumption underpinning the theory of Multi-Level Governance is the increasing importance of subnational - regional and local - and non-state actors and their inclusion in the processes of formulation and implementation of a growing number of policies. Indeed, as above mentioned, even though the role of central governments remains vitally important, they are no longer able to monopolize the decision and policy-making processes at the EU-level. Policy-making authority is instead shared among different actors at different territorial levels (Trnski, 2005). The picture that emerges from Multi-Level Governance is thus one of complex, multi-tier and multi-actor policy-making and implementation processes. In this mode of governance, subnational actors are given greater powers and their role is thus empowered. As stated by Hooghe (1995) “Multi-Level Governance is the only model where regions would be a governmental level of importance next to national, European and local arenas. This Europe cannot be one of the national states, nor of the regions, but only a Europe with the Regions” (p. 178). As already outlined, according to scholars of MLG, domestic political arenas are interconnected between each others, rather than nested (Marks, Hooghe et al., 1996). This means that subnational actors do not necessarily need the central government in order to have access to the European arena (Hooghe, 1995). Therefore, there are no hierarchical relationships among the different territorial levels involved in the EU decision-making process. Instead, a high level of interdependence among these levels is established (Hooghe, 1995).

There are different factors that allow subnational actors to gain greater decision-making power. First of all, this could be achieved as a consequence of internal top-down decentralization processes through which regional and local organizations and authorities are transferred greater responsibility for a number of different policies (Mosley, 2011). It is worthy to note that these processes have been occurring in a variety of member states throughout the latest years. As it will be shown in the fourth chapter of this MA thesis, different waves of decentralization have been occurring also in Italy and, as a consequence, the role of regional governments has been empowered as they gained greater decision-making authority in a variety of different policy areas, including (youth) employment policy. Alongside top-down processes of decentralization, subnational actors can be empowered also through upward decentralization processes whereby greater regional authority is achieved as a consequence of exerting pressure on the central government. The reasoning behind the transfer of greater responsibility to the subnational level lies principally in the fact that, by doing so, greater and more efficient political control can be wielded on regional and local areas and more efficient policies can be implemented. According to Piattoni (2009) the

growing power of subnational actors contribute to the blurring of the boundary between the centre and the periphery.

The third boundary that, according to Piattoni (2009), is being blurred by MLG is that between the State and society. This occurs because, in a complex political system such as the one of today’s EU, central governments are induced to transfer part of their public power to a variety of social actors (Piattoni, 2009). It is important to note that with the term “social actors” the author refers to non-governmental and civil society organizations. As claimed by Breslin & Nesadurai (2017), in recent years different forms of transnational governance whereby private actors such as NGOs, foundations and business firms engage and contribute to the development of policies, both at the national and European level, have been established (Breslin & Nesadurai, 2017). The growing inclusion of non-state actors within the decision-making process at the EU-level can be considered as a consequence of public demands for greater representative legitimacy (Bevir, 2010). Nevertheless, the increasing role of subnational and non-state actors contributed to the creation of a complex and fragmented system that could present a challenge to democracy as the growing involvement of subnational and non-governmental actors in the formulation and implementation processes of policies blurs historic lines of accountability, hence making it complex to understand who should be held responsible for specific actions (Bevir, 2010).

2.2 The pitfalls of Multi-Level Governance

Multi-Level Governance has been described by the 2001 White Paper on European Governance as the most suitable way of governance for the European Union (Milio, 2013). In particular, MLG has been acclaimed by many scholars for the crucial importance of the partnership approach that it promotes. A partnership-based approach requires a close and strong cooperation between all the actors that are involved in the formulation and implementation processes of EU policies, that is a coordination between the European, national and subnational levels, as well as among the variety of stakeholders involved (Dabrowski, Bachtler & Bafoil, 2014). The importance of the partnership approach lies in the fact that, through the engagement of regional and local actors in the policy-making process, it is possible to adjust programmes and strategies to local specificities and needs, thus enhancing their effectiveness. Furthermore, MLG has been acclaimed as it is considered to increase the effectiveness of monitoring and evaluation processes of projects that allow member states to benefit from EU funding (Dabrowski, Bachtler et al., 2014).

However, many new challenges arise from MLG. First of all, MLG has been criticized by many scholars as it is considered to be challenging the already existing patterns of interaction and

coordination between the different territorial levels and actors (Dabrowski, Bachtler et al., 2014). As stated by Stephenson (2013), “MLG destabilized, fragmented and restructured existing organizational patterns, challenging the existing concentration of power/authority with the opportunities and threats it represents. It also altered political culture and organizational behavior, bringing new values to policy-making” (Stephenson, 2013, p. 828). As above mentioned, MLG contributes to the creation of a complex, multi-level and multi-actor political system where coordinating the copious amount of governmental and non-governmental actors active at different territorial levels becomes difficult, especially because, as stated by Piattoni (2008), it has to be done “in ways that do not conform with the hierarchical relations or the mechanisms of consultation currently in place in the member states” (Piattoni, 2008, p. 71). According to Scharpf (1988), this complex system risks to lead to a so-called “joint decision trap”, that is a lack of efficiency due to the increased costs of coordination and bureaucratic burden caused by the involvement of multiple territorial levels and jurisdictions (Milio, 2013).

The involvement of a multiplicity of actors in the policy-making process of EU policies leads to further difficulties. For instance, as outlined in the previous paragraph, the growing engagement of subnational and especially non-governmental actors, risks to blur the traditional lines of accountability as, in many cases, traditional subnational governments are marginalized in favor of networks of non-elected actors (Dabrowski, Bachtler et al., 2014). Even though the latter are playing an increasingly important role in the design, implementation and monitoring processes of a variety of different key policy areas, their growing engagement risks to have problematic consequences. Not being democratically elected, the involvement of these actors risks to blur traditional responsibilities, thus undermining democratic legitimacy and accountability (Dabrowski, Bachtler et al., 2014). Indeed, in a political system characterized by a multiplicity of actors, understanding who should be held responsible for what could become a complex issue (Bevir, 2010).

Further tensions can arise due to the incorrect application of the partnership principle. Although the aim of the latter is that of increasing the engagement and the horizontal coordination between all the interest groups that are involved, its actual implementation could be hindered by a lack of experience on the part of the stakeholders, as well as by difficulties in the establishment of an effective net of coordination. Moreover, even though partnership is necessary to gather knowledge in order to adjust policies to local specificities, it could be undermined by the mismatch between the objectives and the agendas of the different actors (Milio, 2013). Indeed, it may occurs

that the actors involved have different and conflicting views on specific issues and this risks to lead to complex phenomenon, such as lobbying and rent-seeking (Milio, 2013).

3. EU YOUTH EMPLOYMENT POLICY

The purpose of this chapter is to explore the youth employment policy at the European level. The first part gives an overview of the historical steps taken in the development process of the policy field. The second part analyzes the formulation and implementation processes of the Youth Guarantee, which is the main focus of this research, and of the Youth Employment Initiative, the main funding instrument of youth employment policy.

3.1 Historical overview

The employment and social affairs dimension of the European Union has been developing considerably only in recent years. Indeed, efforts to promote policies in the field at the EU-level have come late and they seem to be weak and inefficient, especially if compared to the success of other European projects, such as the single market and the monetary union (Scharpf, 2002). Within the 1957 Treaty of Rome, which is the treaty that signed the creation of the European Economic Community (EEC), little attention was given to issues concerning social policy. Instead, the at the time six members of the European Community decided to focus on economic matters and on policies designed to promote market efficiency. Therefore, under the mentioned treaty, social policy competences remained under the control of the member states and the Community only had limited intervention within the policy field (Dodo, 2014). The main reason for this has been the lack of political will to further advance the social policy agenda of the Community on the part of the member states (Dodo, 2014), which were reluctant to give up competences on a policy field considered to be of great importance for a state’s government.

Even nowadays, the EU has only limited competences in the field of employment and social policy and the responsibility remains mostly under the remit of the member states. However, the work of the EU has been increasingly focusing on social issues throughout the years of the European integration process (European Parliament, 2017) and, as a consequence, the EU is increasingly playing a crucial role within the policy area, for instance through the use of instruments such as specific EU laws, funds and tools to better harmonize and monitor national policies (European Parliament, 2017). The idea of a European Employment Strategy (EES), although officially formalized in 1997 by the Amsterdam Treaty, was put forward by the Delors White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness and Employment of 1993 and afterwards put into practice by the so-called Essen procedure (Goetschy, 2003). The Essen procedure, or Essen strategy, was advanced by

the summit of the European Council held in Essen, Germany on December 1994. Within this summit, a pivotal role was given to employment issues as they were considered to be crucial in order to consolidate growth and improve the competitiveness of the European economy, as well as that of its member states (European Council, 1994). As stated by the official document issued at the end of the summit, the fight against unemployment and equal opportunity for men and women was considered to be “the paramount task of the European Union and its member states” (European Council, 1994, para 2). In order to successfully achieve this task, the Council recognized the need to take measures that, not only would solve the problem of unemployment in Europe, but would also help solving the structural problems of European economies. In order to do so, the Council agreed on the following five main employment objectives: 1) promoting investment in vocational training; 2) increasing the employment-intensiveness of growth; 3) reducing non-wage labour costs; 4) improving the effectiveness of labour market policy; and 5) improving measures to help groups which are particularly hard hit by unemployment, with a particular focus on young people, especially school leavers (European Council, 1994, para 2). It is important to highlight the fact that, as a way to achieve the second objective, namely the increase of the employment-intensiveness of growth, the Council emphasized the need for member states to promote initiatives, especially at regional and local levels, aiming at creating new jobs (European Council, 1994). The role of the subnational level in the field of employment policy was therefore already acknowledged in the year 1994.

After the Essen European Council meeting, the EES has been officially included within the so-called “employment chapter” of the 1997 Amsterdam Treaty, representing a major development in the area of employment policy. Indeed, through the EES member states agreed, for the first time, on the establishment of a set of common objectives and targets for employment policy. Furthermore, the importance of the EEC lies in the fact that it first introduced the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) (Gibney, Bailey et al., 2017). It is important to note here that, even though the term Open Method of Coordination was coined in 2000, the method dates back to earlier years, for instance to the 1992 Maastricht Treaty where an analogous type of governance was used to achieve economic coordination (the so-called Broad Economic Policy Guidelines) and, indeed, to the 1997 Amsterdam Treaty with the EES, also called Luxembourg process (Prpic, 2014). The OMC is a method of soft governance which aim is that of achieving convergence towards the goals set by the EU and it is nowadays mostly used in policy areas that fall under the partial or total remit of the member states (Prpic, 2014). Within these policy areas, the EU, having limited competences, cannot

make use of binding rules. The OMC, therefore, is dependent on other mechanisms, such as, for instance, guidelines, benchmarks and national and regional targets (Prpic, 2014).

An important step forward for the strengthening of the EU employment policy has been made in 2000 with the launch of the so-called Lisbon Strategy, also known as the Lisbon Agenda or Lisbon Process, which would be later re-launched in 2005. The objective of the Lisbon Strategy was that of making Europe “the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-driven economy by 2010” (European Council, 2000, para 5). This strategy emphasized the need to solve unemployment issues, especially by promoting the modernization of the European Social Model (ESM). The concept of a ESM was put forward for the first time by the Commission’s 1994 White Paper on Social Policy and it is based on the belief that economic and social progresses are tied to each others and thus they cannot be achieved separately (Eurofound, 2011). The Lisbon Strategy can be considered as a comprehensive and interdependent series of reforms (Kok, 2004). In particular, a fundamental objective set by this strategy that needed to be achieved by member states was that of promoting social inclusion. In order to do so, member states needed to invest in people, especially in those social groups considered to be the most disengaged from the labour market, such as women, ethnic minorities and young people (European Council, 2000). Overall, the Lisbon Strategy was presented as an innovative and comprehensive strategy that would modernize the European economy through the enhancement of its productivity growth and that, therefore, would boost the international role of the European Union (Annesley, 2007). However, this strategy had contradicting results (Kok, 2004). One of the key factors that hindered the achievement of the strategy’s objectives was an over-dependence on soft law governance mechanisms which, by heavily relying on benchmarking activities and peer pressure (Papadimitriou, 2012), prevented the EU from sanctioning non-compliance or improper behaviors carried out by the member states. Furthermore, the social dimension of the strategy was marginalized in favor of “market-building” processes (Gibney, Bailey et al., 2017).

After the poor outcomes of the Lisbon Strategy, the Europe 2020 Strategy, launched by the Commission in 2010, marked a “new beginning” (European Commission, 2010c) and an important step forward in the field of employment policy. Launched two years after the outburst of the financial crisis that struck European economies, Europe 2020 offers a vision of Europe’s social market economy for the 21st century where the top priority is a successful exit from the crisis (European Commission, 2010c). In order to do so, it establishes a framework for the promotion of a smart, sustainable and inclusive growth based on a greater coordination of national and European economic policy (European Commission, 2010c). In order to achieve the objectives set out by the

strategy, five headline targets to fulfill by the year 2020 have been included within the initiative. These targets comprise employment, research and development, climate change and sustainability, education and the fight against poverty (European Commission, 2010c) and they have been included also as a way to overcome the weaknesses of the Lisbon Strategy, which did not contain specific and ambitious goals that needed to be met by the member states. Table 3.1 has been here included in order to show the headline targets for employment and education, which are the most relevant for the purpose of this thesis.

Table 3.1: Employment and Education Headline Targets.

Source: European Commission (2010c). Europe 2020. A European strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. COM(2010)2020, Brussels.

It is important to note here that these targets do not represent a “one size fits all” approach (European Commission, 2010c). Rather, the EU has recognized the fact that every member state is different and, therefore, these general headline targets should be tailored by each member state to its particular situation. In order to do so, these targets need to be translated into national targets. These are particularly useful as they reflect the status of every member state, thus allowing the creation of suitable and achievable targets for every member. Table 3.2 in the next page shows the national targets for Italy, the chosen case study for the purpose of this MA thesis.

Employment

Increase the employment rate of the population aged 20-64 from the current 69% to at least 75%, including the greater involvement of women, older

workers and the better integration of migrants into the workforce

Education

Tackling the problem of early school-leavers by reducing the drop-out rate to 10% from the current 15%, whilst increasing the share of the population aged 30-34 having completed tertiary education from 31% to at least 40% in 2020