Young people in transitions: conditions, indicators and policy implications. To NEET or not to NEET?

In this dramatic period of increasing youth unemployment a great attention in the scientific and public debate has been paid to NEET, recommended as a comprehensive concept and indicating an emergent ‘lost generation’. Indeed, youth unemployment and joblessness provoke a scarring effect on long-term wages and careers. But, on the base of Eurostat data analysis and literature review, the use of NEET is criticised, in particular for its consequences on labour policies toward ineffective or even detrimental measures. As a workfare Trojan horse it aims to shift public opinion and policy action towards the consequences of social inequalities more than their causes. Serious problems are entailed by NEET: scarce precision and strong heterogeneity, criminalisation of non-participant youngsters, approximation of the dimensions of social disadvantage, and, paradoxically, the exclusion of temporary workers from the debate on school-work transition. Compared to the traditional indicators, NEET is not able to give original information, instead it tends to conceal different features and dynamics among countries. It is not persuasive to introduce NEET as policy indicator: labour market policies should address social inequalities and promote inclusive and high-quality educational path and employment rather than pushing towards any available training programmes and jobs.