{"id":{"repo_id":"vilnius","oai_identifier":"oai:vu.lt:elaba:210580287"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/vilnius/oai:vu.lt:elaba:210580287","repository":{"repo_id":"vilnius","name":"Vilnius University","base_url":"https://epublications.vu.lt/oai"},"display":{"title":"ES institucijų dėmesio jaunimo politikai pokytis krizių akivaizdoje /","abstract":"This paper examines the change in the focus of the European Union (EU) institutions on youth policy since 2010, by analysing the EU's youth policy programmes and budgets and the State of the Union Report. The study combines different analytical methods which allowed for the analysis of different datasets. Qualitative and quantitative content analysis, as well as descriptive and budgetary analysis, combined with Kingdon's theory of political agenda-setting were implemented. An examination of the EU institutions' focus on youth policy in the face of crises shows that the impact of the crises on youth policy-making and the EU institutions' focus on youth is certainly noticeable. This study covered a diverse set of data and explained the impact of crises on policy-making at the supranational level using an already existing theoretical framework that recognises the impact of crises on policy-making at the national level. The study seeks to understand how these crises have influenced youth policies and programmes, including their structure, priorities and funding.To summarise the impact of the crises, it should be mentioned that the 4 crises analysed did have different effects on the focus of youth policy. Not every crisis affected all three aspects analysed in the study, but the COVID-19 pandemic clearly stood out, whose consequences and impact on youth policy were clearly observable both in the context of the programmes implemented, the SOTEU speeches, and the budget allocated to the programmes. Different crises have also had different impacts on youth policies and the context in which the focus on youth has grown. For example, after the COVID-19 pandemic, the focus has been on youth as an example or an appreciation of the sacrifices of young people, after the migration crisis the emphasis has been on solidarity, and after the financial crisis the focus has been on youth unemployment. The links between youth programmes and crises show that they have become important not only during crises, but also as a response to their aftermath. The COVID-19 pandemic has had a major impact on youth mobility programmes such as Erasmus+ and has led to the emergence of new programmes such as Youth Guarantee. The link between the EU budget and youth policy-making and crises is not very clear. COVID-19 had a significant impact on the funding of youth programmes, but the EU's considerable efforts to develop a crisis-proof budget are noteworthy. A temporal analysis of EU youth programmes against the main crises identified shows that the real implementation of EU youth policy, the initiation of change and the development of the field, takes place in the quiet period. This is because of the observed relationship between the youth programmes initiated and the rather narrow timeframes in which the EU has not been plagued by major crises, namely 2014 and 2018-2019, which are the years in which the majority of the youth programmes described in the study period were delivered. This is perfectly complemented by the pattern observed in the SOTEU analysis that the European Commission focuses more on youth after the shock of the crisis, i.e. after it has ended, or in the later years of a long-term crisis. The study has shown that the EU institutions' focus on youth policy is not constant, with changes in political processes, public communication and policy implementation. Major crises such as the global financial crisis, the EU migration crisis, COVID-19 and the outbreak of the war in Ukraine certainly have an impact on the changing focus on youth policy. However, the association of change with crises is not constant across all datasets, so crises do focus or distract attention from youth policy and young people, but manifest themselves differently in public communication, policy implementation and budgeting.","abstract_html":"This paper examines the change in the focus of the European Union (EU) institutions on youth policy since 2010, by analysing the EU's youth policy programmes and budgets and the State of the Union Report. The study combines different analytical methods which allowed for the analysis of different datasets. Qualitative and quantitative content analysis, as well as descriptive and budgetary analysis, combined with Kingdon's theory of political agenda-setting were implemented. An examination of the EU institutions' focus on youth policy in the face of crises shows that the impact of the crises on youth policy-making and the EU institutions' focus on youth is certainly noticeable. This study covered a diverse set of data and explained the impact of crises on policy-making at the supranational level using an already existing theoretical framework that recognises the impact of crises on policy-making at the national level. The study seeks to understand how these crises have influenced youth policies and programmes, including their structure, priorities and funding.To summarise the impact of the crises, it should be mentioned that the 4 crises analysed did have different effects on the focus of youth policy. Not every crisis affected all three aspects analysed in the study, but the COVID-19 pandemic clearly stood out, whose consequences and impact on youth policy were clearly observable both in the context of the programmes implemented, the SOTEU speeches, and the budget allocated to the programmes. Different crises have also had different impacts on youth policies and the context in which the focus on youth has grown. For example, after the COVID-19 pandemic, the focus has been on youth as an example or an appreciation of the sacrifices of young people, after the migration crisis the emphasis has been on solidarity, and after the financial crisis the focus has been on youth unemployment. The links between youth programmes and crises show that they have become important not only during crises, but also as a response to their aftermath. The COVID-19 pandemic has had a major impact on youth mobility programmes such as Erasmus+ and has led to the emergence of new programmes such as Youth Guarantee. The link between the EU budget and youth policy-making and crises is not very clear. COVID-19 had a significant impact on the funding of youth programmes, but the EU's considerable efforts to develop a crisis-proof budget are noteworthy. A temporal analysis of EU youth programmes against the main crises identified shows that the real implementation of EU youth policy, the initiation of change and the development of the field, takes place in the quiet period. This is because of the observed relationship between the youth programmes initiated and the rather narrow timeframes in which the EU has not been plagued by major crises, namely 2014 and 2018-2019, which are the years in which the majority of the youth programmes described in the study period were delivered. This is perfectly complemented by the pattern observed in the SOTEU analysis that the European Commission focuses more on youth after the shock of the crisis, i.e. after it has ended, or in the later years of a long-term crisis. The study has shown that the EU institutions' focus on youth policy is not constant, with changes in political processes, public communication and policy implementation. Major crises such as the global financial crisis, the EU migration crisis, COVID-19 and the outbreak of the war in Ukraine certainly have an impact on the changing focus on youth policy. However, the association of change with crises is not constant across all datasets, so crises do focus or distract attention from youth policy and young people, but manifest themselves differently in public communication, policy implementation and budgeting.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Dromantaitė, Anelė,"],"institution":"Institutional Repository of Vilnius University","degree_name":null,"degree_level":null,"degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2024,"date_issued":"2024","date_published":"2024","updated_at":"2026-07-24T05:55:52Z","subjects":[],"languages":["lit"],"rights":["info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess"],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://repository.vu.lt/VU:ELABAETD210580287&prefLang=en_US","outbound_label":"Repository record","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Dromantaitė, Anelė,"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date","label":"Dc Date","values":["2024"]},{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["Institutional Repository of Vilnius University"]},{"key":"dc:relation","label":"Dc Relation","values":["https://epublications.vu.lt/object/elaba:210580287/210580287.pdf"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["lit"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["https://repository.vu.lt/VU:ELABAETD210580287&prefLang=en_US"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description","label":"Description","values":["This paper examines the change in the focus of the European Union (EU) institutions on youth policy since 2010, by analysing the EU's youth policy programmes and budgets and the State of the Union Report. The study combines different analytical methods which allowed for the analysis of different datasets. Qualitative and quantitative content analysis, as well as descriptive and budgetary analysis, combined with Kingdon's theory of political agenda-setting were implemented. An examination of the EU institutions' focus on youth policy in the face of crises shows that the impact of the crises on youth policy-making and the EU institutions' focus on youth is certainly noticeable. This study covered a diverse set of data and explained the impact of crises on policy-making at the supranational level using an already existing theoretical framework that recognises the impact of crises on policy-making at the national level. The study seeks to understand how these crises have influenced youth policies and programmes, including their structure, priorities and funding.To summarise the impact of the crises, it should be mentioned that the 4 crises analysed did have different effects on the focus of youth policy. Not every crisis affected all three aspects analysed in the study, but the COVID-19 pandemic clearly stood out, whose consequences and impact on youth policy were clearly observable both in the context of the programmes implemented, the SOTEU speeches, and the budget allocated to the programmes. Different crises have also had different impacts on youth policies and the context in which the focus on youth has grown. For example, after the COVID-19 pandemic, the focus has been on youth as an example or an appreciation of the sacrifices of young people, after the migration crisis the emphasis has been on solidarity, and after the financial crisis the focus has been on youth unemployment. The links between youth programmes and crises show that they have become important not only during crises, but also as a response to their aftermath. The COVID-19 pandemic has had a major impact on youth mobility programmes such as Erasmus+ and has led to the emergence of new programmes such as Youth Guarantee. The link between the EU budget and youth policy-making and crises is not very clear. COVID-19 had a significant impact on the funding of youth programmes, but the EU's considerable efforts to develop a crisis-proof budget are noteworthy. A temporal analysis of EU youth programmes against the main crises identified shows that the real implementation of EU youth policy, the initiation of change and the development of the field, takes place in the quiet period. This is because of the observed relationship between the youth programmes initiated and the rather narrow timeframes in which the EU has not been plagued by major crises, namely 2014 and 2018-2019, which are the years in which the majority of the youth programmes described in the study period were delivered. This is perfectly complemented by the pattern observed in the SOTEU analysis that the European Commission focuses more on youth after the shock of the crisis, i.e. after it has ended, or in the later years of a long-term crisis. The study has shown that the EU institutions' focus on youth policy is not constant, with changes in political processes, public communication and policy implementation. Major crises such as the global financial crisis, the EU migration crisis, COVID-19 and the outbreak of the war in Ukraine certainly have an impact on the changing focus on youth policy. However, the association of change with crises is not constant across all datasets, so crises do focus or distract attention from youth policy and young people, but manifest themselves differently in public communication, policy implementation and budgeting."]},{"key":"dc:format","label":"Dc Format","values":["application/pdf"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["ES institucijų dėmesio jaunimo politikai pokytis krizių akivaizdoje /","Changing eu institutions' focus on youth policy in the face of crises."]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:creator":["Dromantaitė, Anelė,"],"dc:date":["2024"],"dc:description":["This paper examines the change in the focus of the European Union (EU) institutions on youth policy since 2010, by analysing the EU's youth policy programmes and budgets and the State of the Union Report. The study combines different analytical methods which allowed for the analysis of different datasets. Qualitative and quantitative content analysis, as well as descriptive and budgetary analysis, combined with Kingdon's theory of political agenda-setting were implemented. An examination of the EU institutions' focus on youth policy in the face of crises shows that the impact of the crises on youth policy-making and the EU institutions' focus on youth is certainly noticeable. This study covered a diverse set of data and explained the impact of crises on policy-making at the supranational level using an already existing theoretical framework that recognises the impact of crises on policy-making at the national level. The study seeks to understand how these crises have influenced youth policies and programmes, including their structure, priorities and funding.To summarise the impact of the crises, it should be mentioned that the 4 crises analysed did have different effects on the focus of youth policy. Not every crisis affected all three aspects analysed in the study, but the COVID-19 pandemic clearly stood out, whose consequences and impact on youth policy were clearly observable both in the context of the programmes implemented, the SOTEU speeches, and the budget allocated to the programmes. Different crises have also had different impacts on youth policies and the context in which the focus on youth has grown. For example, after the COVID-19 pandemic, the focus has been on youth as an example or an appreciation of the sacrifices of young people, after the migration crisis the emphasis has been on solidarity, and after the financial crisis the focus has been on youth unemployment. The links between youth programmes and crises show that they have become important not only during crises, but also as a response to their aftermath. The COVID-19 pandemic has had a major impact on youth mobility programmes such as Erasmus+ and has led to the emergence of new programmes such as Youth Guarantee. The link between the EU budget and youth policy-making and crises is not very clear. COVID-19 had a significant impact on the funding of youth programmes, but the EU's considerable efforts to develop a crisis-proof budget are noteworthy. A temporal analysis of EU youth programmes against the main crises identified shows that the real implementation of EU youth policy, the initiation of change and the development of the field, takes place in the quiet period. This is because of the observed relationship between the youth programmes initiated and the rather narrow timeframes in which the EU has not been plagued by major crises, namely 2014 and 2018-2019, which are the years in which the majority of the youth programmes described in the study period were delivered. This is perfectly complemented by the pattern observed in the SOTEU analysis that the European Commission focuses more on youth after the shock of the crisis, i.e. after it has ended, or in the later years of a long-term crisis. The study has shown that the EU institutions' focus on youth policy is not constant, with changes in political processes, public communication and policy implementation. Major crises such as the global financial crisis, the EU migration crisis, COVID-19 and the outbreak of the war in Ukraine certainly have an impact on the changing focus on youth policy. However, the association of change with crises is not constant across all datasets, so crises do focus or distract attention from youth policy and young people, but manifest themselves differently in public communication, policy implementation and budgeting."],"dc:format":["application/pdf"],"dc:identifier":["https://repository.vu.lt/VU:ELABAETD210580287&prefLang=en_US"],"dc:language":["lit"],"dc:publisher":["Institutional Repository of Vilnius University"],"dc:relation":["https://epublications.vu.lt/object/elaba:210580287/210580287.pdf"],"dc:rights":["info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess"],"dc:title":["ES institucijų dėmesio jaunimo politikai pokytis krizių akivaizdoje /","Changing eu institutions' focus on youth policy in the face of crises."],"dc:type":["info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T05:55:52Z"}