download - Deutsches Jugendinstitut e.V.

Professor Howard Williamson, University of Glamorgan,
Wales, United Kingdom
European Youth Policy
Introduction
Practical programmes often exchange ideas about what
constitute the essential elements of successful initiatives
and interventions. These are invariably contested and I
would suggest that they are a somewhat misguided quest
for the holy grail. Instead, I subscribe to a view proposed
long ago by Marris and Rein in their study of social reform
programmes:
“The whole process – the false starts, frustrations, adaptations, the successive
recasting of intentions, the detours and conflicts – needs to be comprehended. Only
then can we understand what has been achieved, and learn from that experience….
Even though no one ever again will make exactly the same journey, to follow the
adventures of the projects offers a general guide to the dangers and discoveries of
their field of action” (Marris and Rein 1972, p260)
This is, of course, especially pertinent in the context of any European policy agenda;
even the very best ideas cannot be transported simplistically across geographical borders
without careful reference to cultural, historical and political traditions as well as current
approaches to policy formulation and implementation.
I used the quotation above in my pioneering evaluation of what would, these days, be
called a ‘social cohesion’ community initiative. In that report (Williamson and
Weatherspoon 1985), the ‘disadvantaged neighbourhood’ was referred to as ‘an area of
social deprivation’. The front cover depicted four separate pieces of a jigsaw – voluntary
agencies [NGOs], central government, local community, and statutory agencies – and then
an integrated jigsaw picture overlaid by a handshake between these sections. It was a
symbolic attempt to represent the need for agencies to come and work together if effective
practice was to be engendered.
It is also important for grounded, local programmes to operate within some
understanding of the direction of overarching policy for young people (and, of course,
neighbourhood renewal and community cohesion), which increasingly has a significant
European component. Understanding that framework not only allows practitioners to
engage in debate about its future direction but can also assist in ‘legitimising’ their own
direction of travel when regional and national frameworks may be informed by different
priorities and criteria.
The framework of European ‘youth policy’ – some general notes
I will be selecting just a few key developments in youth policy at a European level, both
from the European Union (representing 27 countries) and from the Council of Europe
(representing 47 countries).
99