It is not commonly known that Egypt has myriad set of models and players in the field of youth employment programs. Some of these models actually stand for their innovative approaches, sustainability and institutionalized designs. Others fail to be demand-driven, focus on outdated skill training, and show no evidence of sustainability or impact. But what are youth employment programs, what do they do, and what is happening in Egypt? These are the questions I address in this blog, using data from the Youth Employment Inventory, a public-access repository that has been recently updated to include 182 programs from Egypt.
Youth-focused active labor market programs are important for Egypt given the high rate of youth unemployment (15.7 per cent) and the high inactivity rate (29.0 per cent). The face of unemployment in Egypt is that of a young woman. The unemployment rate of young females is more than five times that of young males (38.1 per cent versus 6.8 per cent). Also, almost one-half of unemployed young people have completed university-level education or above (44.5 per cent of the unemployed).
What are youth Employment Programs?
Also known as active labor market programs (ALMPs), these programs are generally implemented to improve the prospects of gainful employment of participants. They generally fall into four categories:
1.Training and skills development: addressing a specific skill deficit – could focus on soft /technical skills or a mix of both.
2.Entrepreneurship promotion: addressing low labor demand through self-employment and job creation through financial and non-financial services.
3.Employment services: addressing weak labor market information among youth through job search assistance, career counseling, and job placement service.
4.Subsidized employment programs: addressing insufficient labor demand through job and training opportunities in public works or public service programs.
ALMPs have been increasingly globally integrated in social policy, particularly to mitigate the impact of economic crises as part of a social protection policy framework.
Youth-Focused ALMPS in Egypt: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly
The majority of programs in Egypt (66%) focus on skill training, followed by entrepreneurship promotion (24%), employment services (8%) and subsidized employment (2%).
Figure 1: ALMPs in Egypt by Category of Intervention
Source: Author’s calculations, using data from the Youth Employment Inventory
The Good
1.Youth employment is a key policy priority in Egypt, which is reflected in the multiplicity and diversity of state and non-state actors in this field.
2.The ALMPs field in Egypt witnessed a number of institutionalized initiatives such as the Dual Education Program, which spun off from the earlier donor-funded Mubarak-Kohl Initiative (1994-2007); USAID’s lending business associations established in the early 1990s; and continued presence of the Social Fund for Development with its partnerships with civil society organizations and the private sector.
3.The field is rife with models that reflect the international thinking such as enterprise-based and demand-driven training programs; integrated packages offering different types of programs; training programs offering international certification; and the use of social media channels in training and employment services for a wider outreach at a lower cost.
The Bad
1.The field is highly fragmented with weak coordination among state and non-state actors. This is in contrast to global calls for the integration of ALMPs into other social services; and the implementation of one-stop-shop services.
2.There is a dominant pilot modality of implementation, which also relates to the field’s donor-dependency.
3.Supply-driven training programs that are not connected to labor market needs continue, many with state support.
4.Programs are biased in targeting, primarily focusing on urban male youth, while unemployment is highest among female youth and while the rate of inactivity is highest among youth in rural areas.
The Ugly
A key common challenge to interventions by both state and non-state actors is the lack of proper program documentation and a weak culture of evaluation of impact and cross learning. ALMPs are very costly interventions. With the little knowledge about the impact of these programs, there is no evidence that these programs are an efficient use of resources.
