Agency within structures: the peculiar position of the young adults . 20

(2005) in the context of the sociological debate regarding agency vs. structure. It brings forward the agency of individuals who 'actively create their own lives and maximize their own development within parameters set by their social worlds' (p.

42). In addition, the concept refers to agency in attempting to change the world in cooperation with others. The notion implies the mutual influence of both, social structures and human agency, promoted by the life-course research and requires a scrutiny of the change of this balance along the life course of the individual. Therefore, it is particularly suited to the research on youth in transition bringing forward the structural constrains and opportunities as well as the individuals' power of negotiation within these structures and to make their own choices.

Accordingly, Coles (1995) describes youth as a special period of transitions characterized by critical choices made by the individuals and those around them

8 e.g. Denmark, Finland and Spain in UP2YOUTH (2009)

9 With the only exception of Hungary

that have a special impact on their careers. At the same time youths are particularly vulnerable to abusive measures and exploitation as in their transitions they are at the phase of entering the public sphere whether in the markets, employment or training. Their inexperience in both the public and private spheres makes them more vulnerable to abuse than the adult population.

When it comes to children and adolescents, vulnerability can be divided into inherent and structural factors. The first refers to inherent qualities such as physical weakness or lack of experience and the latter to structural factors constraining children's opportunities for participation (Hall and Rudkin 2011).

Thereby, vulnerability is associated with a lack of citizenship rights as well as the lack of political and economic power (Hall and Rudkin 2011, Lansdown 1994).

According to Article 1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) 'a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier'. Hence, the category of a child applies to most of the subjects in this research. While this will be covered more thoroughly in the methods section, at this point it serves as an example of the ambiguous situation of this particular age group around 18.

Adolescents just under 18 are still considered as children and are mostly under the influence of the educational context and family. This makes their situation related to citizenship and voice particularly peculiar, since their abilities to make decisions and shape their environment are more developed than that of what normally would be understood as a child. After all, their cognitive and behavioral capacities in terms of setting goals and projecting to the future are close to that of an adult (Crockett and Silbereisen 2000).

Another peculiarity derives from the young people's increasing reliance on institutions such as those providing education and welfare. While the state and public institutions are commonly believed and expected to provide the basis for equality and integration, the 'welfare state dilemma' (Esping-Andersen 2009, Spini et al. 2013) introduces the inability of such institutions to effectively respond to new social risks and provide protection to the individuals concerned (Esping-Andersen et al. 2002, Ranci 2010, Sarfati and Bonoli 2002). This phenomenon is further strengthened by the fact that young people's status as 'not any more child – not yet mature adult' makes them vulnerable when faced with the power of institutions. Such a definition makes them prone to have few legitimate means to make their voices heard (Kasearu et al. 2010).

It is common amongst the youth not to have the same rights, status and power in the society as other age groups (Barry 2005). Whereas there have been claims of the increased focus on youth participation in the policy arena by actively engaging young people in public decision making (Pittman et al. 2000), young people still lack opportunities to make their voices heard due to their status considered as close to that of a child. In the institutional context, young people are often the receivers rather than participators in the decision-making processes initiated by professionals and politicians making them prone to acquire the role of client, patient or customer (Evans and Prilleltensky 2007, Ginwright and James 2002).

The discussion around vulnerability, marginalization and the lack of voice often related to young age occurs in the midst of the development towards

individualization, biographization and increased opportunities in the post-modern society. Within these discussions agency and structure receive different connotations and emphasis if not a complete juxtaposition between the two. In social constructionist terms, youth in itself is but a construction related to the conceptualization of age, which is given social meanings and against which transitional pathways are evaluated. Such evaluations reach normative premises when benchmarks for appropriate life course transitions are defined (Elder et al.

2003) and give an essentialist understanding to the term 'adolescence' as a 'moratorium between childhood and adulthood' (Bynner 2005: 368). Arnett's (2000) term 'emerging adulthood', shortly presented earlier, refers to an attempt to drive attention away from this perspective and takes into account a stage between adolescence and adulthood, which is an extension of youth transition influenced by structural changes such as globalization. While this is primarily psychological theory, sociological theorization on the concept of emerging adulthood has been developed emphasizing the social and institutional structures that are in constant process of change within the late modern Western societies (e.g. Gaiser and Muller 1989; Heinz 1990, 1991). There is an evident focus on such structural factors framing individuals' life-goals within the conception of adolescence (Bynner 2005). Institutionalization, for instance, which is based on a new individualized paradigm, is a concept that describes this process of structural influence on transitions by its impact on biographies (e.g. Meyer 1986).

On the other hand, although not in direct opposition, there is a more agentic exploration of youth within the biographization discourses that stresses the individuals' ability to construct their own life courses through the choices and actions they take regardless of or within the structural forces. Biographical approaches to youth studies focus on the internal processes of individuals, how they construct and make sense of their lives in the midst of societal changes.

Rationalization, which is a concept closely related to biography, is a tool to understand agency and the ways available to individuals to negotiate uncertainty related to these changes (Furlong and Cartmel 2007). The differences between young people get a focal point within this research on agency, which can be reached by the description of 'self-efficacy', a key notion in life-course construction. The term created by Albert Bandura (e.g. Bandura et al. 1996) is defined as a 'capability to exercise control over the level of functioning and environmental demands' (p. 1206). Without self-efficacy, the belief that one can have control over external processes, action towards realizing one's goals and aspirations is unlikely to be taken. This applies also to internal processes such as making a change within oneself, which is more likely to take place if a person has a strong sense of self-efficacy and personal agency. Thereby, life-courses are strongly dependent on the personal beliefs that the young people have about their agency (Gecas 2003).

Like adults, children and adolescents are not passive victims of structural constraints and influences but make choices and act upon them. However, human agency is influenced by social structures, by meanings created within them and by social relations. Socialization is a powerful aspect of these structures that frames but does not fully determine individuals' beliefs about their abilities and opportunities (Corsaro and Fingerson 2003, Lutfey and Mortimer

2003). In the next chapters, the institutional structures affecting individual agency will be scrutinized further.

1.5 Conclusions

The aim of this chapter has been to give an introduction to the wide scale of research on youth, particularly from the angle of biography and trajectories from school to work. Such literature has a special perspective on change towards a new type of biography construction along the structural changes in the labor market and economic structures as well as the following restructuring of the welfare state. These changes have brought along new types of risks and challenges for the transitional pathways of young people, which range from increased risk of unemployment to precariousness linked to flexibilization of the labor market. At the same time, transitions have changed their nature from the traditional parameters of rigid institutional structures and clearly framed social structures for identity constructions (Beck 1992, Levy 1991) towards more instability and insecurity brought along by a wider variety of options and challenges for the trajectories to adulthood. The new types of transitions imply a prolongation of educational pathways and alternations between education, training and work, which are claimed to subject the youth to higher risks of social exclusion (Walther and Plug 2006). Yet, the degree to which these transitions have changed is a subject of debate, as some authors defend the argument that to some degree such changes have been exacerbated. For instance, Furlong and Cartmel (2007) argue that while the fragmentation of structures is evident, social structures such as gender division and class still explain life experiences and predict individuals' life chances. Thereby, the issue of post-modern life-courses and youth transitions is in constant development.

From the social political perspective, especially in its current developments, the phase of youth appears highly associated with problems in labor market integration and unemployment. Special groups are brought forward, such as NEETs that bring out the need to make policy interventions and to further develop measures to prevent exclusion and enhance labor market integration.

Youth unemployment from this perspective is seen as an obstacle for economic growth and development. Intervention to overcome inactivity is supposed to bring a solution for reducing costs on welfare expenditure. In reality, vulnerable groups of young people consist of many factors such as gender, migrant background and socio-economic status often linked to educational attainment.

Moreover, the status of a young person implying lack of citizenship rights in the case of under aged youth as well as the lack of political and economic power further exposes them to abuse in the labor market. The importance of the notion of agency of youth becomes apparent due to the ambiguity of this life phase that seems to be in the middle of childhood and adulthood.

In order to bring more clarity to the agency issues related to young people, more information would be needed to understand how the young people create their biographies and what obstacles there might be to make a coherent and comprehensive transitional biography. This would enable the view of the individual as not responsible for the management of the risks in our society alone but would also involve the institutions, which constitute the structures of

opportunities (Coles 1995). Moreover, giving voice to young people by empirical research contributes to reconceptualizing the idea of youth (Holm et al. 2006), which in turn contributes to the design of policies more adapted to young people's needs. Next, an overview is given of the welfare policies influencing the trajectories of the youth.