Chus І., Vlasenko M.

Oles Gonchar Dnipropetrovsk National University (Dnipropetrovsk)



Since the financial crisis of 2007-2008 there have been warnings of generational conflict, or of a “lost generation” of youth who are unable to find employment and whose job prospects are grim [1].

Typically businesses, and most people, think about the short term; how they are going to live or produce a profit over the next few years. This leaves the role of thinking across broader horizons to the government. Governments need to plan to ensure the prosperity of the nation in twenty or even fifty years’ time because many of their current citizens will still be alive. This planning is also necessary because of the length of time that large scale construction projects or social changes take. For example, in the energy sector, investments are made for a period between 20 and 60 years [2]. Decisions on what kind of power to support, coal, gas, nuclear, or renewables, will still be making an impact in half a century. Clearly, when thinking longer term it simply makes sense to focus on younger people as they are going to have an impact for longer. Just the same as in energy policy if a nation makes mistakes with its treatment of its youth it will be feeling the consequences for half a century. It is clearly in the long-term interest of the state to invest in its youth.

Spending on young people is an investment. While there may be other objectives too, such as taking young people off the street to prevent trouble, when there is spending on young people this is almost always to ensure they have either a broader, or more focused skill base. This is done through education, training, and apprenticeships. Having a better skilled workforce has a beneficial effect on economic growth. This means that there are several economic benefits to spending on youth; there is the initial fiscal benefit from the spending on youth followed over years and decades by a return on the investment from having higher skilled workers. This higher skilled workforce will then overtime pay back the initial investment through paying more tax as a result of being more productive (so earning more). There is then a change from the unemployed youth being a burden on the state and the economy to a contributor.

A young person, trained and given a job, can clearly be turned into a gain for the taxpayer and society. This is similar to why it is more beneficial to the economy to spend on infrastructure than simply handing cash out. Both will give a fiscal boost from the money being spent but handing money out won’t bring return decades later [3].

Allowing high rates of youth unemployment and underemployment to continue could be disastrous. When people lose hope, they are much more likely to turn to violence or towards crime and drugs.

In Ukraine, almost every second of the registered individuals in the State Employment Authorities is a young person under the age of 35 years. The yearly scope of state employment is about 800 000 of unemployed youth and 1.5 million of people enrolled in educational institutions of different types.

Youth unemployment is particularly acute problem in Ukraine. University graduates, who have great employment potential and desire to work, face the greatest difficulties in finding work. They can’t afford starting their own business because in Ukraine there are no effective government programs to promote small business and entrepreneurship. Therefore, the most educated, promising graduates look for opportunities to go abroad. The fact that young people look for a job abroad is a very bad trend. It turns out that Ukraine invests in education, trains young professionals, and then they work and therefore pay taxes to other States [4].

As we see, youth unemployment is an urgent problem in Ukraine. The difference between the youth employment and the general employment challenge is that helping young people get the right start to ensure that they follow a pathway to decent work that will benefit the economy of Ukraine.

Tools having the direct positive impact on employment growth among young people are the following: a 5-% quota of employment in the labour market low competitive citizens, including young people, in companies employing more than 20 people; companies that prove jobs for graduates assigned to work by the State Employment Authority for a period not less than two years, will have a reimbursement of 100% of single social contribution [5].

The implementation of these and other activities, including planned measures by the State Program to promote employment, may contribute to improving the situation of youth employment, have an impact on the national labour market, help to create new jobs, stimulate private initiative in SMEs and promote economic growth in Ukraine.

The list of references:

1. Ahead of International Youth Day, Ban warns of risk of creating a “lost generation”, UN News Centre, 10 August 2012 [Електронний ресурс]. – Режим доступу :

2. The Commission's Energy Roadmap 2050, Europa, 15 December 2011, MEMO/11/914 [Електронний ресурс]. – Режим доступу :

3. Belfield C. R. The Economic Value of Opportunity Youth [Електронний ресурс]/ C.R. Belfield. – Kellogg Foundation, January 2012,. – Режим доступу : council/pdf/econ_value_opportunity_youth.pdf

4. Госпрограмма содействия занятости населения и стимулирования создания новых рабочих мест не отвечает вызовам современности [Електронний ресурс]. – Режим доступу :

5. Програма 
сприяння зайнятості населення та стимулювання створення нових робочих місць на період до 2017 року [Електронний ресурс]. – Режим доступу : laws/show/1008-2012-п