‘NEET’ to work? – substance use disorder and youth unemployment in Norwegian public documents

ABSTRACT

The aim of this paper is to provide insight into the degree to which and how relevant Norwegian policy documents conceptualise the chances for inclusion in working life among young adults (18–30) who are not in employment, education and training (NEET) and who have exhibited problems with alcohol or other drugs. We analysed a sample of policy documents inspired by Foucault and Fairclough`s methodology and discussed the results in light of prevailing policy trends within contemporary welfare states and results from relevant research. We found three predominant discourses that tend to govern public opinion in the area: The Medicalisation Discourse, The Stigma Discourse and The Social Investment Discourse. All three can be related to the neoliberal tendency of individualising and medicalising social problems. There seems to be little evidence in epidemiology and other research that substance abuse represents any direct reason for the NEET status among young people. Neither is there any clear evidence that problems with alcohol and drugs among young adults will, in the long run, unambiguously reduce their working capacity. Thus, the identified discourses may contribute to the creation of myths about the NEET population in question.

SAMMENDRAG

Målet med denne artikkelen er å bidra til innsikt i hvordan jobbsjansene til unge voksne (18–30 år) som verken er i arbeid, utdanning eller arbeidstrening (NEET: Not in Employment, Education or Training) og som har fremvist problemer med alkohol eller andre rusmidler, blir beskrevet og begrepsfestet i norske offentlige dokumenter. Inspirert av Foucault`s og Fairclough`s metodologi har vi analysert et utvalg av disse dokumentene. I artikkelen diskuterer vi resultatene i lys av rådende trender innenfor dagens velferdsstater og resultater fra relevant forskning. Vi fant tre fremtredende diskurser som synes å styre offentlig opinion på det beskrevne området: Medikaliseringsdiskursen, stigmadiskursen og sosial investeringsdiskursen. Alle tre diskurser kan relateres til den nyliberale tendensen til å individualisere og medikalisere sosiale problemer. Det synes imidlertid å være begrenset forskningsbelegg innenfor epidemiologisk og annen forskning for at rusproblematikk representerer noen direkte årsak til NEET – status blant ungdom. Det foreligger heller ikke klart belegg for at problemer med alkohol og andre rusmidler i det lange løp vil redusere arbeidskapasiteten deres. De diskursene vi identifiserte kan likevel bidra til å skape myter omkring den gruppen av ungdom som står utenfor arbeidsliv, utdanning og arbeidstrening og som samtidig har rusproblemer.

KEYWORDS:

• Substance disorder
• young people
• unemployment
• policy documents

NØKKELORD:

• Rusproblematikk
• ungdom
• arbeidsledighet
• offentlige dokumenter

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Anne Juberg BSW, MsocSc, PhD Health Science, is Associate Professor in Social Work at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Department of Social Work. She lectures on the department`s undergraduate programme and supervises both undergraduate and post-graduate students. Her major interests are related to social work in contemporary society, with a particular emphasis on the functioning of welfare institutions, marginalisation processes and challenges to social work in relation to population groups who have addiction problems or are involved in crime. Issues regarding social housing, school social work and young peoplès transition to adulthood are also topics that she has focused on in publications.

Nina Schioll Skjefstad BSW, MA and PhD in social work is Associate Professor in Social Work at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Department of Social Work. She lectures on the undergraduate and post-graduate programmes of the department. Her fields of interest are social work in contemporary society, especially seen in the light of New Public Management, social policy and the organisational context, and how these factors influence social work practice. Key topics are user participation and how to develop a relationship based on recognition. She presents her work at domestic and foreign conferences and congresses, and in scientific and professional books and journals.

Notes

1. The translations of the documents are made by the authors.

2. ‘Storting’: The Norwegian parliament.

3. ‘Status 0’ is mentioned by the author (Beck) as the former designation in a British context