Are some sectors more “youth friendly” than others? Employment regimes, sectors, and gender disparities in the Great Recession

• Published date: 01 July 2019
• Date: 01 July 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12242
• Author: Raffaele Grotti,Helen Russell,Jacqueline O'Reilly

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Are some sectors more “youth friendly”than

others? Employment regimes, sectors, and gender

disparities in the Great Recession

Jacqueline O'Reilly

1

|Raffaele Grotti

2

|Helen Russell

3

1

University of Sussex Business School

2

Department of Political and Social Sciences,

European University Institute

3

The Economic and Social Research Institute

Correspondence

Professor Jacqueline O'Reilly, University of

Sussex Business School, Falmer, Brighton BN1

9RH, UK.

Email: j.o‐reilly@sussex.ac.uk

Funding information

European Union's Seventh Framework

Programme, Grant/Award Number: 613256

Abstract

Despite national differences in youth employment, many

countries share striking similarities in the uneven sectoral

distribution of job opportunities for young women and men

in Europe. A shift‐share analysis of European Labour Force

data identifies “youth‐friendly”sectors, how this varies

between countries, and how this changed during the Great

Recession. This reveals how youth job opportunities were

lost because the sector shrank or because employers were

less likely to offer full‐time, permanent contracts. New jobs

for youth were more likely to be in part‐time and temporary

employment. Youth vulnerability to unemployment is con-

tingent not only on employers' engagement with institutions

shaping school‐to‐work transitions but also on gender segre-

gation and to the fact that some sectors have been particu-

larly fragile during the economic crisis. Future research

needs to link institutional effects with employers' business

strategies to understand how these shape job opportunities

for young women and men.

KEYWORDS

gender, part‐time and temporary work, sectors, shift‐share analysis,

youth employmen t

1|INTRODUCTION

There has been a longstanding interest in understanding why human resource management (HRM) practices vary

between countries and what effects this may have on economic and organisational performance. This interest has

Received: 8 April 2017 Revised: 1 April 2019 Accepted: 8 April 2019

DOI: 10.1111/1748-8583.12242

490 © 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Hum Resour Manag J. 2019;29:490–508.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hrmj

often been framed in comparative HRM in relation to analytical frameworks such as Varieties of Capitalism (Hall &

Soskice, 2001) or the “societal effect”(Maurice, Sellier, & Silverstre, 1982; O'Reilly, 2006). These approaches explain

how institutions such as collective bargaining and wage setting arrangements, as well as working time and employ-

ment regulation, affect employers' behaviour and create different forms of dualist and segmented labour markets

between those in advantaged and less favourable jobs.

Approaches in this tradition have, to a limited extent, been applied to youth labour markets. These explain why

school‐to‐work transitions (STW) in some countries are more effective in achieving long‐term productivity and

high‐skilled production systems in countries such as Germany; in contrast, developments in the United Kingdom

are more fragmented and uncoordinated (Hall & Soskice, 2001). The economic and organisational performance of

countries has been traced to the way companies recruit, train, and retain young people in their organisations, or

not, across different economic sectors. While engaging employers to develop quality pathways into work for young

people remains a significant challenge, this is affected by different sector norms and business models (Purcell et al.,

2017; Simms, 2017). However, academic investigation of sectoral differences has only received limited attention, and

this has tended to focus on single country studies (Lewis & Ryan, 2008; Simms, 2017).

The evidence presented in this article addresses a key issue for the HR community in relation to how young

Europeans enter employment. The absorption capacity of different sectors varies by country. This raises a number

of questions as to why these recruitment practices differ and how other factors related to economic uncertainty,

technological change, and service delivery affect future employment patterns. It also shows that where young people

have been able to find work, this is more likely to be of declining quality compared with that on offer before the

Great Recession. This analysis allows us to identify similarities and differences between countries and sectors, to

make links between where employers operate under supportive institutional arrangements for integrating youth,

where these are missing, and the differential consequences for young Europeans.

1

2|YOUTH TRANSITION REGIMES IN EUROPE

Comparative HRM researchers interested in youth labour markets and transition regimes have drawn on the work of

Pohl and Walther (2007). Going beyond the established institutions identified in the Varieties of Capitalism approach,

the work of Pohl and Walther (2007) includes more cognitive norms and societal conventions in relation to how the

problem of youth unemployment is framed and policies are targeted to reduce it. Using this approach allows us to

distinguish between five “youth transition”regimes in Europe.

•Universalistic regimes include Finland, Sweden, and Denmark. These regimes are characterised by a comprehen-

sive and inclusive education system. Education and training feature a level of flexibility that allows individualised

training paths with a focus on transition policies to enable education and activation to find work.

•Employment‐centred regimes, primarily based on dual training, are found in Germany and Austria and also include

school‐based training as in France or mixed systems such as in the Netherlands.

•The United Kingdom and Ireland are examples of liberal regimes, where general education predominates.

Vocational training is low status and of a low standard but similarly to the universalistic regime is the flexibility

allowing individualised trajectories.

•Subprotective systems include Italy, Spain, Greece, Portugal, and Cyprus. School‐level education in subprotective

regimes is structured comprehensively, but training is of low standard and coverage with little employer involve-

ment. These countries are characterised by a dual labour market where there is strong employment protection

for insiders, whereas outsiders, including youth, experience high levels of precariousness and exclusion

•Finally, postsocialist regimes include a mixed liberal and employment centred approach, for example, found in the

Baltic States, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, and Slovakia.

O'REILLY ET AL.491