Title: Coping with Yo-Yo-Transitions: Young Adults’ Struggle for Support, between Family and

State in Comparative Perspective

Author: Andy Biggart and Andreas Walther
Published in A New Youth? Young People, Generations and Family Life, edited by Carmen and
Leccardi and Elisabetta Ruspini. 2006. Ashgate.

Summary
1. Introducing yo-yo-transitions
 Yo-yo transitions: Transitions have become less linear, more complex and also reversible.
 Before, the transition to adulthood has tended to become synonymous with the transition to
work while the completion of other transitions in terms of leaving the family, partnership,
parenthood, housing or lifestyles has been interpreted as consequences of entering the labour
market.
 “Standard” biography of the completion of education = labor market integration = social
integration
 A driving factor behind 'yo-yo-ization' of transitions is the restructuring of labor societies both
in terms of flexibilization and individualization.
 Increasing mismatch between young people's biographies and the institutional structures of
transition systems.
 The mismatch is reinforced by a trend towards the withdrawal of welfare benefits available to
young people making their transitions.
 The perspective developed by the concepts: 'young adults', 'misleading trajectories' and the
image of yo-yo-transitions highlights a situation where young men and women increasingly
find themselves in pending situations of uncertain duration in which they try to develop their
'own lives' while still being in a state of economic dependence.
 2. Comparing transition regimes in Europe
Regime Countries School Training Soc. Emp. Female Concept of Concept of youth Concept of Focus of
Security regime emp. youth unemployment disadvantage transition policies
Universalistic Denmark, Not Flexible State Open High Personal dev. 'Not foreseen' Mixed (individual / Education
Sweden selective standards Low Citizenship structure-related) Activation
risks
Emp. centered Germany, Selective Standardized State / Closed Med. Adaptation to Disadvantage Individualized (Pre-) vocational
France, family Risks at social positions (deficit model) training
Netherlands
the
margins
Liberal UK, Ireland Not Flexible, low State / Open High Early econ, Culture of Individualized Employability
selective standards family High independence dependency

risks
Sub-protective Italy, Spain, Not Low standards Family Closed Low Without distinct Segmented labor Structure-related 'Some' status:
Portugal selective and coverage High status market, lack of work, edu. or
training training
risks
Informal
work
Brief description of each type of transition regime:
a) Universalistic transition regime
 Large opportunity to finish higher education
 Diverse vocational training
 Social assistance available
 'Youth unemployment' is a paradox because young people are not expected to be on the labor
market but to be in education
 Individual choice respected
 Considerable opportunities in the labor market due to extended public sector
 As long as young adults remain within the system, they are encouraged and supported in
experimenting with yo-yo-transitions, which are provided for with individualized education
and welfare options.

b) Liberal transition regime

 Values individual rights and responsibilities than collective provision
 The post-compulsory stage has been developed towards a flexible system of vocational and
academic options with a variety of entry and exit points.
 Social benefits are tied to citizenship, but low and time-limited
 Workfare prevalent - non-participation results in benefit sanctions
 Women are more precarious than men because they are more likely to take care of family and
part-time service jobs
 In the context of the liberal transition regime it is a parallel process of a flexible system
coupled with individualized risks that leads to yo-yo-transitions.

c) Employment-centered transition regime

 Secondary education is typically organized on a selective basis that sorts and allocates young
people to occupational careers in different segments.
 In Germany, the concept of work is particularly rigid due to its vocational structure where the
labor market is divided into a highly standardized and protected core with a precarious
periphery and women are clearly under represented. This is reflected in the structure of the
social security system that distinguishes between high levels of compensation for those who
have paid sufficient social insurance contributions and a residual system of social assistance
that provides a basic safety net.
 Youth unemployment = breakdown of socialization due to failure in educational attainment or
social skills
 Yo-yo transitions in this regime can be seen in terms of young adults that have to navigate
between the strong demands and implications of standard trajectories and the construction of
an individual career.
d) Sub-protective transition regime
 Low percentage of standard work places and a high rate of unprotected living conditions
 Family and informal economy play a key role
 Vocational training is not well developed and largely provided through professional schools
with low levels of company involvement.
 Young people are not entitled to social benefits and therefore tend to be employed in unstable
jobs
 Limited childcare provision hinders women's personal career
 Yo-yo transitions do not develop against dominant assumptions of youth but through a social
vacuum that is compensated by a prolonged dependency on the family.

3. Implications of different transition regimes for young people’s biographical construction

 Sources of income: high rate of economically independent young people in UK; highest
parental support in Italy; parent, employment, and training allowances play a key role in
Germany; from employment or training allowances in Denmark
 Living arrangements: young Italians have the highest rates remaining in the parental home;
cohab is most common in Denmark.
 Balancing subjective and systemic risks against coping mechanisms:

a) UK
 Increasingly difficult to access social assistance
 Faced with limited opportunities in employment or training, some opt out and become
involved in crime or informal economy.
 Family support increasingly important
 As young people increasingly invest in education, the potential for subjective risk increases,
but in general, there are few mechanisms that allow for maintenance of aspirations.

b) Italy
 Lack clear institutional structures and extended periods of unemployment are common. Rely
on the family to provide them during the prolonged period of transition.
 Due to the widely shared experience of unemployment among young people, little stigma
attached to an extended period of unemployment.
 Family provides a cushion that allows them to maintain their aspirations.

c) Germany
 High level of stigma attached to claiming social assistance.
 Want to avoid unemployment at all cost - trade down aspiration
 Strong orientation towards the normal biography among young people and parents alike means
this is associated with individual failure.
 Rigidly structured nature requires a heavy investment in education or training.
 Those who fail to find qualified employment or regular training willingly enter pre-vocational
programs and training schemes
 Families still have to provide financial support to compensate for insufficient levels of benefits
and education allowances to allow for personal autonomy.
 Those who enter the core sectors of segmented training and employment gain a high degree of
autonomy, while those who fail to do so are kept in state of dependency with few options for
the development of an individual pathway.

d) Denmark
 More able to achieve independence at an earlier stage due to abundant opportunities for paid
employment, and state support for education and training.
 Individuals are the main focus of social policies, with an education system that prioritizes
personal choice and development, young people appear to be free to take their own decisions.
 Young people leave their parents at an older age due to extended and more uncertain
trajectories and a change of family relationships towards individualized support networks.

 Overall speaking, family support varies in its contribution to the maintenance of aspirations.
 In the 'Northern' welfare state, family support for young adults have been underplayed, but is
regaining importance due to heightened risks and the increasingly restrictive nature of welfare
policies.
 Southern family regimes have been reduced to backward constellations of control and
dependency

4. Constellations of semi-dependency
 To demystify total independence: working males have been depending on reproductive work of
their wives and mothers.
 In the current context biographies switch between dependency and autonomy, young adults
may achieve legal or civic autonomy, but still remain economically dependent on the state, the
family, or both. Example: return to own family after failure in career or relationship;
independence in economy but depend on their family in terms of cultural-emotional support.
Definitions of dependency and autonomy need to move beyond the sole criteria of income and
housing. There are increasing number of forms of semi-dependency in Europe:
 Young people combine their own income and / or social welfare benefits with family
resources.
 Young people may leave their parental home, but still receive economic support in order
to compensate for low wages or to assist with housing costs.
 Young people continue to live at home despite achieved full economic independence, but
have not found a long-term partner (esp. in South).
 Young people who have casual or part-time jobs and use their money for an independent
social life of leisure and consumption related to sub-cultural identities.
5. Conclusions
 State support in Europe is declining.
 Risks increase in transitions to adulthood while support declines.
 For those young men and women who are backed by sufficient resources, transitions
tend to be experienced as spaces in which they can navigate and construct their own personal
biographies (positive)
 For those with limited resources they are more likely to be pushed towards reversible
and precarious careers (negative)
 Increased periods and forms of semi-dependency during which time young people
try to achieve personal autonomy while still remaining dependent on their parents (or the
welfare state).
 Further questions: How do young people develop their own strategies and support –
counseling, networking for jobs, education and training opportunities and even material
support? Will family support become overburdened?