While some decades ago it was believed in European countries that the state should take the responsibility of assuring its citizens' well-being (social citizenship), nowadays it is believed that individual autonomy and activism should have a more prominent role in well-being. This perspective raises questions about how large share of young people is socially and politically active and how is involvement in different activities correlated. Is activism predominantly cumulative with relatively few being relatively active or, instead, are relatively many involved in a relatively few activities?The article explores youth activism patterns in two contrasting locations in Estonia. The analysis uses survey data collected in project MYPLACE, which contain a rich set of activism indicators. For establishing patterns of youth activism, cluster analysis is used. Analysis results show a considerable concentration of social and political activism in a relatively small fraction of young people while large part of young people is completely inactive or active only lightly. As a result, only a relatively small proportion of young people has the potential to make its interests and needs visible and politicised so that these could be taken into account. Such activism patterns are likely to lead to increasing inequalities instead on more just and equal society.
While some decades ago it was believed in European countries that the state should take the responsibility of assuring its citizens' well-being (social citizenship), nowadays it is believed that individual autonomy and activism should have a more prominent role in well-being. This perspective raises questions about how large share of young people is socially and politically active and how is involvement in different activities correlated. Is activism predominantly cumulative with relatively few being relatively active or, instead, are relatively many involved in a relatively few activities? The article explores youth activism patterns in two contrasting locations in Estonia. The analysis uses survey data collected in project MYPLACE, which contain a rich set of activism indicators. For establishing patterns of youth activism, cluster analysis is used. Analysis results show a considerable concentration of social and political activism in a relatively small fraction of young people while large part of young people is completely inactive or active only lightly. As a result, only a relatively small proportion of young people has the potential to make its interests and needs visible and politicised so that these could be taken into account. Such activism patterns are likely to lead to increasing inequalities instead on more just and equal society.
"The article looks into youth work participation in Tallinn, the capital of Estonia. While the focus is on describing the link between participation in different activities and some characteristics of youth development, the article also describes youth work in Tallinn. The article looks at the link between participation in five distinct youth work activities (youth centres, hobby education, youth projects, youth organisations, counseling) and three outcome variables: labor market orientation, multiculturalism and youth voting. The empirical analysis is based on a database of 1061 elementary and secondary school pupils that was collected in Tallinn in spring 2010. Analysis results indicate a positive relationship between youth work participation and levels of the outcome variables. Thought not all regression coefficients were statistically significant, they consistently pointed in the same direction. The findings are interpreted as supporting the hypothesis that youth work participation does have a positive influence on youth development." (author's abstract)
For over 20 years, the partnership between the European Union and the Council of Europe in the field of youth (hereinafter EU–Council of Europe youth partnership) has been gathering, analysing and disseminating knowledge for better youth policy and practice. It functions as a "think tank" and a laboratory, gathering and producing knowledge, translating it for its effective use in youth policy and practice, developing and testing new approaches and considering traditional themes and innovative trends. The EU–Council of Europe youth partnership has supported knowledge-based youth policy development in a variety of ways, including by organising thematic events and training on youth policy, publishing the Youth policy manual, a youth knowledge book on cross-sectoral youth policy, and "Youth policy essentials", as well as by organising the massive open online course (MOOC) on youth policy and other activities focused on the same theme. The EU–Council of Europe youth partnership collects, analyses and publishes information on the conditions of young people and on youth policy and practice in the European Knowledge Centre for Youth Policy (EKCYP), supported by a network of EKCYP correspondents and the Pool of European Youth Researchers (PEYR). Yet little is known in Europe about the national realities of youth policy monitoring and evaluation. Based on the principle of promoting knowledge-based youth policy and taking into account the benefits of youth policy evaluation, this review aims at supporting those involved at diverse levels in evaluating youth policy design and implementation, in order to enhance youth policy's relevance, effectiveness and impact. The 2018 Annual Meeting of EKCYP correspondents undertook a first reflection on approaches to youth policy evaluation based on case studies at country level. The conclusions of that reflection were that youth policy evaluation is very complex – it involves a variety of stakeholders, each with their own perspectives on the purpose of such exercises – and there is little knowledge of how it takes place at country level. DefinitionsPage 6 ► Youth policy evaluation review In 2019, EKCYP correspondents pursued this objective of gathering knowledge on how youth policy evaluation takes place and analysing how it can better support youth policy and practice. This review is the first result of that process. This study provides an overview of youth policy evaluation at national level, including a selection of nine national and two European level case studies to help the readers better understand different approaches, methods and aspects of youth policy evaluation. The mid-term evaluation of the current EU Youth Strategy and the series of international reviews of national youth policies undertaken by the Council of Europe are integrated into Chapter 4, which presents case studies for several countries, highlighting the added value of international initiatives in the field. It concludes with a section explaining concepts, theoretical approaches and methods of policy evaluation, as well as with a practical checklist. Monitoring and evaluation of public policies, including youth policy, contribute to ensuring accountability as they offer the information needed to understand how each policy is planned and implemented and allow the sharing of different perspectives on the same policies, thus helping to understanding the resulting benefits, shortcomings and even losses. Monitoring and evaluation of polices also support the dialogue held during policy formulation and implementation and contribute to legitimating policies by allowing public participation, including youth participation. Therefore, monitoring and evaluation support the development of knowledge-based youth policy and interinstitutional and public communication. They support the dissemination of the learning outcomes, results and impact of youth policy. All these benefits of monitoring and evaluation of youth policies are important reasons for learning more about how youth policy evaluation is conducted in Europe. The needs of young people are evolving even faster than the context of public policies. The learning outcomes of monitoring and evaluation of youth policy are extremely valuable to support decision makers in amending and adapting youth and all policy targeting young people to better answer those changing needs. This review pays special attention to impact evaluation because it contributes to the accountability, learning and communication of youth policy, offering policy makers, stakeholders and young people information on the meaningful and lasting (short- or long-term) change generated by youth policy. Impact evaluation informs about the results achieved by the policy, which is relevant when planning new policies, so as to ensure their future impact, and provides data to decision makers when planning budgets. The horizontal, trans-sectoral nature of the youth policy and the numerous correlations needed with other sectoral policies, such as education, social inclusion, employment, health, sport and housing, should also be kept in mind. In this context, monitoring and evaluation are needed to increase the accountability of each institution and stakeholder involved and they allow the promotion of specific results in the field of youth to all relevant policy makers. Participation of young people in the policy process is an important principle in the youth field and the review also takes into consideration participation in evaluation. The participation of policy beneficiaries in the policy process, including its monitoring Introduction ► Page 7 and evaluation, is very important for each sectoral policy in a democratic society. By participating in youth policy evaluation, young people learn to exercise active citizenship. This is an investment that they take with them as they make the transition to informed, active and involved adults. The review includes the result of a survey conducted among the EKCYP and PEYR on the evaluation of national youth policy across Europe, followed by expert discussions in June 2019 and November 2019. The publication presents several good practices of concrete ways youth policy or elements of youth policy are evaluated throughout Europe. Definitions are presented at the beginning to clarify the meaning of the most important concepts used. A final section of the review presents the conceptual framework underlining the idea of knowledge-based policy and provides short presentations of the main theoretical and conceptual approaches in policy evaluation, when they can be used and for what purpose, as well as what advantages and challenges each of those perspectives entail. This review concludes with a practical checklist on youth policy evaluation. The checklist and the whole content of this review should be seen as a complementary resource and not as prescriptive methodology for youth policy evaluation initiatives.
For over 20 years, the partnership between the European Union and the Council of Europe in the field of youth (hereinafter EU–Council of Europe youth partnership) has been gathering, analysing and disseminating knowledge for better youth policy and practice. It functions as a "think tank" and a laboratory, gathering and producing knowledge, translating it for its effective use in youth policy and practice, developing and testing new approaches and considering traditional themes and innovative trends. The EU–Council of Europe youth partnership has supported knowledge-based youth policy development in a variety of ways, including by organising thematic events and training on youth policy, publishing the Youth policy manual, a youth knowledge book on cross-sectoral youth policy, and "Youth policy essentials", as well as by organising the massive open online course (MOOC) on youth policy and other activities focused on the same theme. The EU–Council of Europe youth partnership collects, analyses and publishes information on the conditions of young people and on youth policy and practice in the European Knowledge Centre for Youth Policy (EKCYP), supported by a network of EKCYP correspondents and the Pool of European Youth Researchers (PEYR). Yet little is known in Europe about the national realities of youth policy monitoring and evaluation. Based on the principle of promoting knowledge-based youth policy and taking into account the benefits of youth policy evaluation, this review aims at supporting those involved at diverse levels in evaluating youth policy design and implementation, in order to enhance youth policy's relevance, effectiveness and impact. The 2018 Annual Meeting of EKCYP correspondents undertook a first reflection on approaches to youth policy evaluation based on case studies at country level. The conclusions of that reflection were that youth policy evaluation is very complex – it involves a variety of stakeholders, each with their own perspectives on the purpose of such exercises – and there is little knowledge of how it takes place at country level. DefinitionsPage 6 ► Youth policy evaluation review In 2019, EKCYP correspondents pursued this objective of gathering knowledge on how youth policy evaluation takes place and analysing how it can better support youth policy and practice. This review is the first result of that process. This study provides an overview of youth policy evaluation at national level, including a selection of nine national and two European level case studies to help the readers better understand different approaches, methods and aspects of youth policy evaluation. The mid-term evaluation of the current EU Youth Strategy and the series of international reviews of national youth policies undertaken by the Council of Europe are integrated into Chapter 4, which presents case studies for several countries, highlighting the added value of international initiatives in the field. It concludes with a section explaining concepts, theoretical approaches and methods of policy evaluation, as well as with a practical checklist. Monitoring and evaluation of public policies, including youth policy, contribute to ensuring accountability as they offer the information needed to understand how each policy is planned and implemented and allow the sharing of different perspectives on the same policies, thus helping to understanding the resulting benefits, shortcomings and even losses. Monitoring and evaluation of polices also support the dialogue held during policy formulation and implementation and contribute to legitimating policies by allowing public participation, including youth participation. Therefore, monitoring and evaluation support the development of knowledge-based youth policy and interinstitutional and public communication. They support the dissemination of the learning outcomes, results and impact of youth policy. All these benefits of monitoring and evaluation of youth policies are important reasons for learning more about how youth policy evaluation is conducted in Europe. The needs of young people are evolving even faster than the context of public policies. The learning outcomes of monitoring and evaluation of youth policy are extremely valuable to support decision makers in amending and adapting youth and all policy targeting young people to better answer those changing needs. This review pays special attention to impact evaluation because it contributes to the accountability, learning and communication of youth policy, offering policy makers, stakeholders and young people information on the meaningful and lasting (short- or long-term) change generated by youth policy. Impact evaluation informs about the results achieved by the policy, which is relevant when planning new policies, so as to ensure their future impact, and provides data to decision makers when planning budgets. The horizontal, trans-sectoral nature of the youth policy and the numerous correlations needed with other sectoral policies, such as education, social inclusion, employment, health, sport and housing, should also be kept in mind. In this context, monitoring and evaluation are needed to increase the accountability of each institution and stakeholder involved and they allow the promotion of specific results in the field of youth to all relevant policy makers. Participation of young people in the policy process is an important principle in the youth field and the review also takes into consideration participation in evaluation. The participation of policy beneficiaries in the policy process, including its monitoring Introduction ► Page 7 and evaluation, is very important for each sectoral policy in a democratic society. By participating in youth policy evaluation, young people learn to exercise active citizenship. This is an investment that they take with them as they make the transition to informed, active and involved adults. The review includes the result of a survey conducted among the EKCYP and PEYR on the evaluation of national youth policy across Europe, followed by expert discussions in June 2019 and November 2019. The publication presents several good practices of concrete ways youth policy or elements of youth policy are evaluated throughout Europe. Definitions are presented at the beginning to clarify the meaning of the most important concepts used. A final section of the review presents the conceptual framework underlining the idea of knowledge-based policy and provides short presentations of the main theoretical and conceptual approaches in policy evaluation, when they can be used and for what purpose, as well as what advantages and challenges each of those perspectives entail. This review concludes with a practical checklist on youth policy evaluation. The checklist and the whole content of this review should be seen as a complementary resource and not as prescriptive methodology for youth policy evaluation initiatives.
"This article examines the relationship between structural, cultural, social and identificational integration dimensions among second generation Russians in Estonia on the basis of TIES data. The relationship between structural integration and other dimensions is established through cluster analysis, which involves the analysis of the difference between means across clusters. In addition, a bivariate correlation analysis is used to determine the relationship between cultural, social, and identificational dimensions. The results raise questions regarding the pertinence of linear assimilation theory in the Estonian case. While the cluster analysis reveals a positive relationship between structural and cultural integration, higher levels of social and identificational integration are not correlated with higher levels of structural and cultural integration. Second generation Russians retain a strong ethnic identity and socialise primarily with other Russians. A bivariate correlation analysis reveals that there is a relationship between cultural, social and identity-related dimensions. Feelings of belonging to Estonia and distance from both Russia and Russians in Russia are stronger among those with good Estonian language proficiency. Respondents with strong Estonian language skills also tend to be more socially integrated and to have more Estonian friends." (author's abstract)
AbstractThis article discusses public opinion of EU integration in Estonia in a comparative perspective. It introduces the concept of 'reactive identity' and finds that, instead of the internal politics and socio‐economic factors put forward in previous research, identity is the key factor in explaining euroscepticism in the countries of central and eastern Europe (CEE).
This article examines young people's experiences of open access youth work in settings in the UK, Finland, Estonia, Italy and France. It analyses 844 individual narratives from young people which communicate the impact of youthwork on their lives. These accounts are then analysed in the light of the European youth work policy goals. It concludes that it is encouraging that what young people identify as the positive impact of youth work are broadly consistent with many of these goals. There are however some disparities which require attention. These include the importance young people place on the social context of youth work, such as friendship, which is largely absent in EU youth work policy; as well as the importance placed on experiential learning. The paper also highlights a tension between 'top down' policy formulation and the 'youth centric' practices of youth work. It concludes with a reminder to policy makers that for youth work to remain successful the spaces and places for young people must remain meaningful to them 'on their terms'.
Themen: Politikinteresse allgemein sowie auf lokaler, nationaler, europäischer und internationaler Ebene; Rezeptionshäufigkeit politischer Themen in den Medien und hauptsächlich genutztes Medium; Politikinteresse des Vaters und der Mutter sowie des besten Freundes bzw. der besten Freundin; Wichtigkeit übereinstimmender politischer Ansichten im Freundeskreis; Wahlberechtigung, Wahlbeteiligung und Wahlverhalten bei der letzten allgemeinen Wahl sowie bei den Wahlen zum Europäischen Parlament 2004; Formen und Häufigkeit politischer Partizipation im letzten Jahr (Skala); Beteiligung an politischen Protesten; Unterstützung einer Wahlkampagne bzw. politische Überzeugungsarbeit; ausgewählte politische Partizipation in der Schule und am Arbeitsplatz; Mitgliedschaften in Organisationen, Vereinen bzw. einer Partei; Teilnahme an Veranstaltungen oder freiwillige Arbeit in einer Organisation; Häufigkeit eigener Meinungsführerschaft; politische Selbsteinschätzung auf einem Links-Rechts-Kontinuum (5- und 11-Punkte-Skala) Einschätzung der Position des Vaters, der Mutter und des besten Freundes bzw. der besten Freundin auf einem Links-Rechts-Kontinuum (5-Punkte-Skala); Teilnahmehäufigkeit der vorgenannten Personen an Demonstrationen und Wahlen; Diskussionshäufigkeit über politische Themen mit dem Vater, der Mutter, Geschwistern, Freunden, dem Lehrer, dem Partner sowie mit Arbeitskollegen, Mitschülern bzw. Studienkollegen; politische Wirksamkeit (Skalometer: efficacy); Kompliziertheit der Politik führt zu Unverständnis; Identifikation als Weltbürger, Europäer, Bürger des Nationalstaates, einer Region oder einer Firma bzw. der Familie; Einstellung zu politischer Aktivität (Skala); Parteinähe zu den wichtigsten Parteien des Landes; Einschätzung der zukünftigen persönlichen Einkommenssituation, der Arbeitsplatzsituation, der sozialen Absicherung, der Lebensqualität und der Aus- und Weiterbildung im Vergleich mit der derzeitigen Situation der Eltern (erwartete soziale Mobilität); Wichtigkeit ausgewählter Probleme für das eigene Land (Umweltverschmutzung, Armut, Einwandererzahl, Rassismus, Abbau des Sozialstaates, Arbeitslosigkeit, Drogen, Verbrechen und Terrorismus); Zufriedenheit mit der Arbeit der Regierung des Landes.
Optionaler Teil (nicht in allen Ländern gefragt): Einstellung zu Politik und Image der Politik (Skala); Einstellung zu gesellschaftspolitischen Fragen: Todesstrafe, härtere Bestrafung für Vergehen, Erziehung von Kindern zum Gehorsam, Führungspersönlichkeit oder demokratische Entscheidungen, Akzeptanz von mehr Flüchtlingen im eigenen Land, zu viele Einwanderer, Kulturverlust des Landes in der EU, Forderung nach Frauenrechten, mehr Frauen in die Politik, unterschiedliche Gesetzesanwendung bei Reichen und Armen, Reichtum von Fabrikanten auf Kosten ihrer Arbeiter, Privatisierung aller öffentlichen Firmen, freie Marktwirtschaft, Wohlfahrtsstaat, Arbeitslosigkeit als Selbstverschulden, Verzicht auf staatliche Unterstützung, zu großer Einfluss internationaler Konzerne sowie Zustimmung zu Antiglobalisierungsbewegungen; Institutionenvertrauen in: die Regierung, politische Parteien, das Landesparlament, Politiker, die Europäische Kommission, das Europäische Parlament, Greenpeace, Amnesty International und Attac; politischer Kenntnistest anhand ausgewählter Aussagen zur EU und zu nationalen politischen Gegebenheiten.
Demographie: Geschlecht; Alter (Geburtsmonat und Geburtsjahr); Staatsbürgerschaft; Geburtsland; Kinder; Erwerbstätigkeit; Wochenarbeitszeit; Alter bei Schulabschluss; höchster Schulabschluss des Befragten, seines Vaters und seiner Mutter; Wohnsituation (wohnen bei den Eltern); Selbsteinschätzung des derzeitigen Lebensstandards; Konfession; Selbsteinschätzung der Religiosität; Urbanisierungsgrad.
