Pengarna eller livet? : En kvalitativ och longitudinell studie om långtidsarbetslösa unga i ett aktörsperspektiv

Your money or your life? A qualitative follow-up study of the young unemployed from an actor perspective is a qualitative and longitudinal study following 36 unemployed young people in Helsinki over a span of ten years. The purpose of the study is to shed light on how a few young people view employment/unemployment and their lives and future, how they as unemployed perceive their encounters with society, and how society supports them. Four so-called key informants were followed at a finer level of empirical detail. They were chosen for the thematic interviews because of their different personalities, starting points and preferences. Although some differences were expected, what the results show is quite striking. The individual stories raise a number of questions about differences between young people, about society s view of the young unemployed, and about the principles behind the so-called activation policy and how society s support is distributed. The key informants descriptions underline that the group young unemployed does not consist of individuals who are alike but that life is complex, that paid work and unemployment can be perceived very differently, and that background and unofficial support can have consequences for self-perception and for ways of looking at the future, vocational choices, paid work and activation policy. Margaret S. Archer s theory of Morphogenesis and Barbara Cruikshank s theory of constructing democracies compose the study s theoretical framework. The key informants stories give a picture of a formal support system that, even though it puts part of the responsibility for unemployment on the individuals themselves, in the name of fairness and equality, treats them in an impersonal way, not giving their personal situation and wishes much weight. As a consequence, those who share the dominant values of society do well, while others who do not are faced with difficulties. The bigger the gap between society s and the individual s values, the bigger the risk to be met by little understanding and by penalties. And vice versa: Those who initially have the right values and know how to deal with authorities get heard and their opinions get accepted. The informants ask for a more personal encounter, which could improve both the atmosphere and the clients experiences of being heard. Still the risk of having a more individualistic system should be addressed, as a new system might generate new winners, but just as well give new losers. Finally, we have to ask if the so-called activation policy is looking for answers primarily to a macro-level problem on the micro-level. If it does not produce more jobs, its support for the unemployed will be insignificant. It is not enough to think about what to do at the grassroots level to make the system more functional and support job-seeking. If the current rate of unemployment endures, the quality of life of the unemployed should be addressed. A first step could be taken by placing less guilt on the unemployed. Instead of talking about activating the unemployed, discussion should be targeted at removing structural impediments to employment. If we want to have less polarisation between the those with paid work and those without, who often struggle with low incomes, we need to include the macro-level in the discussion. What does high unemployment mean in a work-based society, where the individual s self-perception and important social forms of support are linked to labour income? And what can be done at the macro-level to change this undesirable condition at the micro-level? Keywords: Unemployment, Youth, Public interventions, Activation policy, Individual actors, Qualitative, Longitudinal, Holistic, Helsinki, Finland

Sopivasti työtä ja vapaa-aikaa? Tutkimuksia ajankäytöstä eri elämäntilanteissa

Tutkimuksessa tarkastellaan erilaisissa sosiaalipoliittisesti kiinnostavissa elämäntilanteissa olevien ihmisten ajankäyttöä ja siinä 1990-luvulla tapahtuneita muutoksia. Tutkimuksen neljästä erillisartikkelista kolmessa analysoidaan työttömien nuorten, perheenisien ja eläkeläisten ajankäyttöä Tilastokeskuksen vuosina 1979, 1987–1988 ja 1999–2000 keräämien ajankäyttöaineistojen pohjalta. Neljännessä artikkelissa tarkastellaan pohjoismaalaisten työntekijöiden tyytyväisyyttä ajankäytön jakautumiseen työn ja vapaa-ajan kesken European Social Survey -kyselyaineiston pohjalta. Tutkimuksen tulokset osoittavat, että osin eri, mutta osin myös samat tekijät vaikuttavat eri elämäntilanteissa olevien yksilöiden ajankäyttöön. Keskeisiä ajankäyttöön vaikuttavia tekijöitä ovat tulot ja perhetilanne: pienet tulot ja pienet lapset rajoittavat omalla tavallaan ajankäyttöä. Sosiaalipolitiikan rooli yksilöiden ja sitä kautta perheiden ja kokonaisten yhteisöjen ajankäytössä on suuri. Ajankäytön valintoihin vaikuttavat luonnollisesti yksilöiden omat preferenssit, mutta valinnat kuvastavat aina myös ympäröivän yhteiskunnan institutionaalisia rakenteita. Onpa kyse sitten työttömän, työssä käyvän, lapsiperheen tai eläkeläiskotitalouden ajankäytöstä, ajankäyttöä ohjaavat erinäiset lait ja normit. Ajankäytön näkökulmasta ei siten ole yhdentekevää, millaista perhe-, työvoima- ja tulonjakopolitiikkaa yhteiskunnassa toteutetaan.