Mobility For Young People And Youth Workers

Key action 1 "Mobility for young people and youth workers" projects under the Erasmus+ Program as a lobby tool for European Identity.

Declarație

Prin prezenta declar că Lucrarea de dizertatie cu titlul Titlul complet al lucrării este scrisă de mine și nu a mai fost prezentată niciodată la o altă facultate sau instituție de învățământ superior din țară sau străinătate. De asemenea, declar că toate sursele utilizate, inclusive cele de pe Internet, sunt indicate în lucrare, cu respectarea regulilor de evitare a plagiatului:

− toate fragmentele de text reproduse exact, chiar și în traducere proprie din altă limbă, sunt scrise între ghilimele și dețin referința precisă a sursei;

− reformularea în cuvinte proprii a textelor scrise de către alți autori deține referința precisă;

− rezumarea ideilor altor autori deține referința precisă la textul original.

Cluj-Napoca, data

Absolvent Doru Dîrjan

_______________________

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………pag

1. European IDentity …………………………………………………………..pag

1.1. What is European Identity…………………………………………………….pag

1.2. Why is European Identity important ……….. ………. …,……..pag

2. Key Action 1 as a lobby tool for European IDentity …..……pag

2.1. Erasmus + program………………………………………………………………pag

2.2. Key Action 1 – Mobility project for young people and youth workers

2.3. Mobility project for young people and youth workers as a lobby tool.

3. Case study: E+ Youth Exchanges in Romania during 2015 ……………………………………………………….…..pag

3.1. Subcapitolul 1………………………………………………………pag

3.2. Subcapitolul ………………………………………………………..pag

3.3. Subcapitolul 2 ……………………………………………………..pag

Conclusion…………… ……….………………….……………pag

References…………..….……………………………….……pag
Appendix…………………………….…………………….…pag

I. Introduction

We live in a time where the concept of multiculturalism and specifically the European Identity component, promoted by the European Union (EU), is facing turbulent times due to the internal strong different points of view on this topic.

Officially, the European Identity is still under construction and the EU has not been able to reach a final internal consensus on the topic. But until now, fortunately, EU succeeded to provide a structured framework, on which the debate takes place and experiment with the mechanisms, to support the dissemination and implementation of the phases.

The European youth demographic, especially the urban segment is growing and maturing in an open borders policy space, where they are facing the clash of global cultures on a daily basis without having the tools or instruments of dealing with this phenomena.

In this research paper we want to focus on a niche of the Erasmus+ program for Education, Training, Youth and Sport – Youth Exchanges (verifica numele) and present their value as lobbying tools of the European Commission through which they tackle the issue and offer self-sustainable solutions to the mentioned problem.

Second of all I would like to present the role of non-formal education in starting the debate and increasing the openness level on European Identity in a nonjudgmental, interactive and learning focused environment of the youth sector in the Youth Exchanges framework.

Third and last, I want to research the impact that Youth Exchanges have on the participants, regarding their identification with the concept of European Identity and the way they would describe the concept of European Identity at the end of a Youth Exchange program.

I believe in the European Union view of multiculturalism and through this paper I want to present the great value that the Erasmus+ program, through its Mobility for young people and youth workers Action, brings to the table and support EUs multicultural approach and its lobbying efforts.

During the research I will answer the following research questions:

1. What is the role of Youth Exchanges in building a European Identity?

2. Why are Youth Exchanges a lobby tool of the European Commission on the topic of European Identity?

3. What is the impact of Youth Exchanges on the participant’s personal view of European Identity?

II. Research Method

Regarding the research methodology I will use:

a) a quality based approach: the interview, in which I will devise a structured interview with participants and facilitators from Youth Exchanges in order to gather my research data.

Chapter 1. European Identity

During the first chapter of this paper the focus will be on how European Identity is defined now and why it is important. Although the process started more than 40 years ago with the Declaration of European Identity, signed at Copenhagen in 1973, there is no official definition of the mentioned concept by the European Union so it can be said that it is an active focus point of the European Commission’s agenda.

“Identity is what distinguishes us from others and makes us the same as others” – this description is one of the many that provides a good insight on why talking about identity in general can be challenging. Most of the times it proves to be quite a sensitive matter, especially when we escalate from individual identity to national identity and we go one step further to an emerging European Identity.

Before diving deeper in the research problem, it is important to specify four main aspects that would help, by bringing clarity to the topic of Identity itself, as seen by Professor Gerard Delanty, lead expert in the European Identity field:

“First, identity arises only in relation to social action. Neither individual persons nor social movements nor whole societies begin with a fully formed or articulated identity. Identities are created in action and express not an underlying consciousness or essence, but the self-understanding and self-recognition of the social actor. Since this changes in the course of time, the identity of the actor will also change.”

“Second, identities have a narrative dimension: they can be seen as the stories people tell about themselves in order to give continuity to their existence. Such narratives are the basis of memory and express the performative and public aspect of identity.” 

“Third, identity concerns a relation of self and other by which the identity of the self is constituted in symbolic markers. In this sense, identity is based on difference and thus exists in a relational context. What is important to note in this context is that identity presupposes a subject, that is, a social actor who can be an individual or a group.” 

“Fourth, a point that needs to be made in any discussion of collective identity concerns what are generally referred to as multiple identities. Collective identities can be overlapping (as in hyphenated identities), mixed (or hybrid), or co-existing. Ethnic, regional, political and national identities relate to each other in different ways. On the level of personal identities this is particularly the case as individuals rarely have only one identity, but many, and these exist in varying degrees of tension with each other.”

He concludes that: “These four aspects stress the constructed nature of identity, which must not be seen as something that either transcends or is prior to social reality. Identity is not an idea or a cultural given, but a mode of self-understanding that is expressed by people in ongoing narratives; moreover, the boundaries between identities are fluid, negotiable and contested. All identities are constructions, regardless of whatever kind they are.” Thus in the following chapter we will see in a clearer way what the European construct of identity is and what does it promise.

1.1. What is European Identity?

The topic has managed to create strong and challenging debates in the academic field and provide a generous number of possible definitions and references, varying from the cold facts taken from attitude studies results to abstract definitions, to the validation of the concept itself.

One important approach in theorizing the concept of “identity” lies in making a clear distinction between individual identity and collective identity. Thus the need to specify that people can have multiple identities rises and European Identity is an integrated part of the multiple identities that one can have.

Social Psychologist Henri Tajfel stated that individual identity is “part of an individual’s self-concept which derives from his knowledge of his membership of a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance to that membership”.

On the other side, Valentini highlighted that collective identity is: “a feeling and belief that one belongs to a specific category determined by common characteristics”, and is important that those feeling and belief must be recognized by other members of the group.

Another approach that focuses on both concepts comes from the sociologist Jeffrey Weeks who argued that:

“Identity is about belonging, about what you have in common with some people and what differentiates you from others. At its most basic it gives you a sense of personal location, the stable core to your individuality. But it is also about your social relationships, your complex involvement with others, and in the modern world these have become ever more complex and confusing. Each of us lives with a variety of potentially contradictory identities, which battle within us for allegiance: as men or woman, black or white, straight or gay, able-bodied or disabled, ‘British’ of ‘European’. The list is potentially infinite, and so therefore are our possible belongings. Which of them we focus on, bring to the fore, ‘identity’ with, depends on a host of factors. At the centre, however, are the values we share or wish to share with others.”

As we can see, the definition of Weeks begins with the points of dissimilarity that differentiate individuals from one another (individuality) and continues with the importance of the connections with others who share something in common. Therefore, in order to develop a European Identity, besides economic and monetary integration it is also important to achieve a social integration.

In conclusion, both identities are linked together and “both are a part of personal, subjective identity”.

Ernst Hass assumed that through traveling and having international contacts, the feeling of solidarity will develop. But this is not enough, a European Identity is enhanced through the frequent interaction among citizens who sees themselves as part of European society. We must see identity as a process rather than as a fixed and unchangeable state.

Another point of view when talking about European Identity is the one of Van Mol in which he highlights two approaches: one that focuses on what unifies Europeans (eq. values) (top-down approach) and one that focuses on feelings of Europeans toward Europe (bottom-up approach). This perspective is important because in this study I will use the second approach: the influence of the Key action 1 "Mobility for young people and youth workers" projects under the Erasmus+ Program on the way participants perceive and integrate European identity.

Since no consensus was reached regarding the definition or classification of European Identity, researchers have constructed and tested various theoretical models in order to explain this concept: moral universalism, post national universalism, cultural particularism and pragmatism. All of this models are trying to define European Identity by focusing on different aspects: human rights, political norms, cultural heritage, and territory.

Gerard Delanty analyzed these models and concluded that all of them are limited, therefore he proposed an alternative model by combining the second and fourth models, naming it cosmopolitan.

During this subchapter, we will try to focus on and present the much-debated emerging, European Cosmopolitanism current, representing European Identity, in order to create a working framework that will facilitate the understanding of how the E+ program uses Youth Exchanges as a lobbying tool, later on. It is not our intention nor the focus point of this paper to present the broad review of the extensive literature surrounding European Identity.

”In its most basic form, cosmopolitanism is an ideology which maintains that all human beings have moral obligations towards all other human beings, solely based on the fact that they are human. No gender, race, nationality, ethnicity, culture, religion, political ideology, state citizenship or other attributes should be of influence in this moral obligation.” From the definition provided by professor G.W Brown we can easily see the real, practical benefits and drawbacks of the cosmopolitan current.

Furthermore, it is necessary to mention a few reasons why it is believed that Europe is a cosmopolitan Europe as concluded by the European Commission

:

European Institutions are actively supporting traditional European values like equality and tolerance;

The overlap of different national and ethnic traditions within the European continent promotes a connection between them;

The phenomenon of colonization led to the incorporation in the European culture of different characteristic from societies located in other parts of the globe.

One of the major benefits of the fact that “…human beings have moral obligations towards all other human beings, solely based on the fact that they are human.” is that the basis for building an interpersonal rapport between individuals, is grounded in tolerance and acceptance. Thus, facilitating the communication process, creating a path to a better understanding of the other and smothering the way for shaping a sense of kinship that serves a primary ingredient for the collective identity.

On the other hand, one of the major drawbacks and dangers comes exactly for the source of the advantage; by taking out of consideration “… gender, race, nationality, ethnicity, culture, religion, political ideology, state citizenship or other attributes should [not] be of influence in… ”, elements that can represent major building blocks in identity construction, we rise the question of the quality, of the newly formed collective identity mentioned in the previous paragraph.

According to Directorate-General for Research and Innovation Socio-economic Sciences and Humanities “[European] Cosmopolitanism refers to actively seeking out and appreciating contact with other cultures and hence, concur with perceived European values of tolerance and equality.” Even more, the cosmopolitan view has incorporated in its essence the active engagement and fondness for other cultures.

In other words, the cosmopolitanism allege that people should be treated equally so therefore drawing on different traditions and cultures and being open to other ways of life are important aspects to take in consideration in developing an European Identity.

Starting from this simple and yet comprehensive definitions of the cosmopolitan nature of European Identity, this exact hunger for possessing knowledge about other cultures and the deeply rooted desire to fully comprehend them, even experience them through direct interaction and sheer socio-cultural immersion stand at the base of a newly emerging skeleton for a European Identity.

To further develop the notion, professor Manuel Castells says that: “European identity would be the set of values that would provide shared meaning to most European citizens by making possible for them to feel that they belong to a distinctive European culture and institutional system that appeals to them as legitimate and worthwhile.”.

In the same time we have to be aware of what is not European identity. It is not a “civilization” based on religion, past history, or a set of supposedly superior “Western values.”

We are at a point in history where a sentiment of peace and relative prosperity, like never before, is governing over the European Union, which creates great conditions for the cosmopolitan base values to flourish, for individuals to freely cross borders and feed their socio – cultural curiosity in an experience based approach.

Thanks to programs like Youth in Action, its predecessors and successors, especially the European youth demographic has enjoyed a hands on approach of intercultural dialog and common value discovery, elements that lead to two main self-identifying,, stages:

I) Pre European Identity: the process where through repeated exposure and interaction with European national and ethnical cultures and subcultures, the individual starts to feel part of something more than its national identity.

II) Pseudo European Identity: the second step of the process where through continued interaction and immersion in intra-European cultures he develops a sense of identification with an abstract construct of Europeanism without being able to tie it down to something specific.

In the second stage of the self-identification process we choose to call it Pseudo European Identity and not European Identity because of the lack of official, assumed definitions by the European Union government institutions.

From this point onward, in order to bring more clarity to the working concept of European Identity for this paper, we will define it as: a self-understood social construct with fluid boundaries, expressed by Europeans through continue narratives in their search of a cosmopolitan nature kinship.

To better understand European Identity and develop methods that will help enhancing it, is important to understand how Europe evolved and how its identity was build over the years. Leonce Bekemans highlighted four major components of the “European Spirit”:

The rescue of history from memory to focus on ideas which travel irrespective of borders;

The move beyond assimilation and multiculturalism towards interculturalism to management diversity and live with difference;

The acceptance of change so that the dialogues and mutual listening becomes the driving social force

The learning from humility so that Europe can draw from its religious and nonreligious traditions and from its Christian roots in learning how to practice humility.

He concluded: “in order to valorise these components a cosmopolitan perspective of the European integration process might be helpful in recognising plural and multifaceted identities in Europe, accepting its constitutive otherness and benefiting from its diversity”.

Furthermore, in order to develop and improve the policy making process, European institutions needed to discover a way on how to explore the public opinion regarding important topics; like European integrations, policies, health, culture, citizenship and many other. In 1970, the European Commission began to sponsor simultaneous surveys targeting European Communities in order to obtain specific input. Starting 1974, a survey called The Standard Eurobarometer was designed and since then it is implemented each autumn and spring, involving in the process all of the EU members .

As we can observe from the results of the Eurobarometer in Table 1 for 2015, only 2% of the population sees itself as European only, assuming an abstract form of European Identity. The rest splits in 38% National identity only, 52% identify primary with their national identity and secondary with European identity, 6 % feel primary European and secondary assume their national identity, 1% don’t know, 1% don’t identify with neither of the 2 concept and there wasn’t anybody who refused to answer, 0%. To sum up, the last two columns present the huge 82% difference between the total primary identification with the national and European segments: A total of 8% feel primary European and a total of 90% identify primary on a nationality level.

Table 1.1 – Representation of the average European Identification percentage of 9 types of Identities on 2 variables percentage and identification.

In conclusion, the literature that addresses the concept of European Identity is vast and until the end of 2015, there is no consensus in terms of defining this concept. Nevertheless, researchers agree that developing an European Identity is an important process that will help bringing Europe and its Europeans closer together.

1.2. Why is European Identity important?

European Identity shows its importance only when we set the stage and talk about it in the bigger frame of European Integration. We are at a crossroad where we have to decide who we are as Europeans and what exactly do we want to do and leave behind.

European Union, the space where European Identity flourishes, has grown in usefulness but not in efficiency, it has become an important global player on a political, economic and social scale and it promotes itself as the great cultivator through our multiculturalism strategy, easily recognized, Unity in diversity, but not always externally recognized as one.

Constant wars between religions, political ideologies and nations were predominant themes for Europe, but its child, the European Union, was created and is implementing an integration strategy that makes war utterly unthinkable, although the member states had to cede to a certain degree part of their sovereignty in order to achieve this long period of peace and prosperity.

Nevertheless, taking the final decisions on what European Identity is, will have a direct impact on all Europeans daily life and can only be done in a European Union that enjoys a well-developed and efficient structural core. Starting from this premise, EU considers that enhancing a European Identity can be used as a prerequisite for the development of EU democracy, first of all because EU considers itself a political community that requires citizenship from those within that community. More specifically, the existence of a European Identity in which people see the EU the same as their economic, political and cultural norms and last but not least, as their values, it is crucial for the integration of the EU.

The fact that EU’s strategies will develop the notion that the war is unthinkable is an idea that was stated earlier in this paper and it is also a topic discussed by David Michael Green, especially when he highlights the importance of European Identity. He argues that: ‘‘it is, at the end of the day, the only true preventative for war,’’ and that the existence of “we” will make it difficult, if not impossible, to identity the “others” as the ones against whom a war can be carried on. As a final remark from his studies, he concluded that European Identity exists and that is an important part of a unified Europe.

Because every researcher adopts his point of view regarding a concept or phenomenon and therefore the findings are interpreted according to his vision, there are some authors who stated that we cannot reach a European Identity in the near future because of its limitations. Edgar Bellow wrote on his PhD thesis, reviewing the work of Strath, that “many people are not willing to subordinate their national identity and the national interests reflected by the national identity to a larger European identity as defined by the EU and its policies”.

According to another supporter of this idea, “national identifications possess distinct advantages over the idea of a unified European identity. They are vivid accessible, well established and long popularized, and still widely believed…In each of these respects, ‘Europe’ is deficient both as an idea and as a process…”

On the other hand, as mentioned in the first chapter when we tried to define the European Identity concept, an individual is capable of having multiple identities and they do not exclude each other. This being considered, an individual can have both a strong European and national identity. According to Laffan, “a shared European Identity is possible only if it is based on multiple identities, so we do not need to create only one nation and therefore we need to protect the diversity of Europe”.

The differentiation between these two concepts was necessary because in order to discuss about European Identity, we should consider national identity, as they are linked and both of them are important in the process of unifying Europe. Since the focus of these paper is on European Identity, for more information about national identity you can read the thematic article of Radu Cinpoes titled From National Identity to European Identity.

To further respond to the question why European Identity is important, we need to consider the accelerating process of globalization and take into account the following trends, as stated by Smith:

“- the rapid growth of vast transnational companies, with budgets, technologies, communications networks and skill levels far outstripping those of all but the largest and more powerful of contemporary national states.

– the rise and fall of large power blocs based on one or other military ‘superpower’, and forming a military – political network of client-states in an increasingly interdependent international system of states;

– the vast increase in the scale, efficiency, density and power of the means of communication, from transport to the mass, from telecommunications to computerized information and transmission.”

Thanks to the evolution of transportation means that have greatly facilitated intercontinental travel and to an ever-growing globalization current, the clash of cultures, identities, and citizens has become a daily reality. As mentioned earlier, the question of the role that a possible assumed European Identity can play in offering an empowering sense of identity and comfort for Europeans in the social interactions with citizens of the current superpowers of the world with clear, strong assumed identities like the Americans, Chinese, Indians, etc. arrised.

Refocusing on the internal components of the European Union, and accepting the fact that currently, it is one of the great world super powers, we have to embrace the fact that in its current format it is one of the main trendsetters in various fields. Thus, we argue that the importance of a clear, strong European Identity is much needed in order to create, implement and spread the positive social currents we believe in.

In the European Union it is strongly believed in the ecofriendly and sustainable approach in the business environments, in order to maintain and regenerate the current state of our planet. Thus, the importance of a clear European Identity emerges yet again, because as individuals or nations, we are being constantly overwhelmed by the global problems, but when we appeal to our European Identity we appeal to our role as a world supper power that has not only the material resource to tackle those problems, but the actual motivation of the common mental collective, gathered in the form of European Identity, to spring from thought to action.

As it was mentioned before, we would like to stress again the importance of European Identity in maintaining and growing our EU level of prosperity, that can only be achieved through a common deeper sense of belonging to something more than a nation. Even more important, that prosperity is our common creed for which countless souls have been sacrifice to ensure its legacy ‘Unity in diversity’.

Its importance it is brought into light only in direct contact with our European Identity because it represents the core essence of our European lifestyle that we live and we offer to the world as a successful and fulfilling model to live by. Its value is given by the constant intra-European harmonized clashes between: the religious and the secular, liberals and conservators, pro EU and anti EU and so on.

Chaper 2 . Key Action 1 as a lobby tool for European IDentity

Youth is one of the most vulnerable group in society, especially in the current economic and financial crisis and, in our increasingly aging society, young people are a precious resource: “Young people are the most valuable asset of each nation. The carrying amount of the youth; establishing a link between the community and the future

and the history of nations is the most important tool for moving into the future.”

Over the last years, the European Union granted a high importance to all young people, their personal and professional development, their involvement in building the future of Europe. The concept of "youth" was included in European politics since 1993, with the adoption of the Maastricht Treaty. Chapter 3, article 126 of the Treaty states that the European Union must: “encourage mobility of students and teachers …and encourage the development of youth exchange and of exchanges of socio-educational instructors”. As it became a higher priority for EU, the european cooperation for youth was proven by the adoption in 2001 of the ‘White Paper on Youth’ that proposes: “a new framework for cooperation consisting of two components: increasing cooperation between EU countries and taking greater account of the youth factor in sectoral policies”.

But, as David Michael Green stated, a challenge that needs to be considered is the fact that young europeans have grown with EU and therefore even though this may lead to an easier acceptance of the process, it may have determined them to take the Union for granted:

"Young Europeans, in sum, are probably considerably more comfortable than

their parents and grandparents with Europe as a social and political space in

which to exist, but they have not been drawn to identify with Europe more than

previous generations (and may in fact do so less than their elders)".

2.1. Action Programs for youth promoted by EU

Although EU does not have the competencies in areas such education and youth, the focus is on offering support and coordinate the actions of its Member States, providing in the last couple of years various development opportunities in order to increase the visibility of young people. Currently, the European Commission supports youth participation in the development of various EU policies and programs, in order to stimulate active citizenship, social inclusion and enhance a European Identity.

2.1.1. LifeLong Learning Programme (2007-2013)

Among these actions of EU it is important to mention LifeLong Learning Programme (2007-2013) with his four sectoral sub-programs: Comenius (supports actions for undergraduate education), Erasmus (supports exchanges of students in higher education), Leonardo da Vinci (vocational education and training) and Grundtvig (adult education). The aim of this programme was to contribute, by promoting learning as a process that needs to be present in all stages of life, to the development of EU as an advanced knowledge based society, with sustainable economic growth, more work places and a greater social cohesion. In the following paragraphs, the four sectoral programmes will be presented.

Comenius – Undergraduate Education

The Comenius actions focused on all levels of school education, from preschool to primary and secondary schools, and it aimed pupils and teachers, but it was also relevant for local authorities and non-government organisations. The main objectives of this sub-program were to develop, among the targeted audience, knowledge and understanding of diversity of cultures, languages and European values and to help young people aquire basic life skills necessary for their personal and professional development and to engage them in active European citizenship.

The program was designed to:

Increase and improve the mobility of pupils and teachers across Member States;

Increase the volume and quality of partnerships between schools across the EU;

Encourage the learning of modern foreign languages;

Support the development of content, educational services and innovative practices based on ICT;

Support improvements in pedagogical approaches and school management;

Improve the wualit and European dimension of teacher training.

Assessing the impact of the Comenius Programme, the European Commission highlighted that : “both pupils and teachers improved their languages skills, gained more intercultural competences, and experienced a better school climate.”

B. Erasmus – [anonimizat] programme

The Erasmus Programme, launched in 1987, is the largest organised exchange programme in Europe, for students, teachers and staff in higher education . From the beginnings, the Erasmus Progamme had clear objectives:

The objectives of the ERASMUS programme shall be as follows: (i) to

achieve a significant increase in the number of students…spending an

integrated period of study in another Member State, in order that the

Community may draw upon an adequate pool of manpower with first

hand experience of economic and social aspects of other Member

States…; (iv) to strengthen the interaction between citizens in different

Member States with a view to consolidating the concept of a People’s

Europe; (v) to ensure the developments of a pool of graduates with

direct experience of intra-Community cooperation, thereby creating

the basis upon which intensified cooperation in the economic and

social sectors can develop at the Community level.

In other words, besides supporting the learning of foreign languages and of other European cultures, the Programme aims to promote European Identity and to support the economy through creating opportunities for future careers and therefore lowers the unemployment rate. The fact that Erasmus is an exemple of promoting European integration is stated even in the motto of the program: ‘Bringing students to Europe, bringing Europe to students’. But whether the programme actually enhances a European identity or not is a very debatable subject.

Between 1987-2013, about 3 million students had the opportunity to live and study or work in a foreign country for a period of time, the most popular destination beeing Spain, France and Germany.

The impact of the Erasmus Programme is big, as stated by Androulla Vassiliou, European Commissioner for Education, Culture, Multilingualism and Youth:

"The latest record figures, showing that we have exceeded our target of 3 million Erasmus students, are testament to the enduring success and popularity of the programme. Erasmus is more important than ever in times of economic hardship and high youth unemployment: the skills and international experience gained by Erasmus students make them more employable and more likely to be mobile on the labour market. Erasmus has also played a tremendous role in improving the quality of higher education in Europe by opening up our universities and colleges to international cooperation.”

Considering these results, the actions of Erasmus will continue between year 2014 and 2010 under the name of Erasmus + , Key 1 Action, which will be presented later on in this paper.

C. Leonardo da Vinci – Vocational education and training

The Leonardo da Vinci Programme aimed to enhance the mobility of individuals across Europe, in order to improve their competences and knowledge and therefore to build a skilled and mobile workforce. The program focused on those involved in vocational education and training (VET), from trainees to VET professionals.

The main objective of this program was to facilitate and improve the quality of training systems by developing innovative practices, naming teaching methods, materials and procedures and transferring them to those involved in the process.

D. Grundtvig – Adult education programme

It is a well known fact that the population of Europe is aging and the rate of unemployment is raising. To counteract these effects, the Grundtvig Programme was developed, in order to provide adults, and especially those in the vulnerable of underpriviledge category, with means to improve their skills and knowledge. The Programme supports these actions through exchanges and other professional experiences.

2.1.2. Youth in Action Programme (2007-2013)

Another important action sustained by EU is the Youth in Action (YiA) programme, mentioned earlier in the first chapter. YiA is the European Union’s programme that promotes non-formal learning activities for young people age 13-30 years, mobility within and beyond the EU’s borders, intercultural dialogues and inclusion through project funding with EU funds. Instituted on the 15th of November, 2006, by the European Parliament and Council, the YiA programme had the following objectives, as mentioned in the YiA Programme Guide :

Promote young people’s active citizenship in general and their European citizenship in particular;

Develop solidarity and promote tolerance among young people, in particular in order to foster social cohesion in the European Union;

Foster mutual understanding between young people in different countries;

Contribute to developing the quality of support systems for youth activities and the capabilities of civil society organisations in the youth field;

Promote European cooperation in the youth field.

In other words, the main goal of this programme was to inspire a sense of active European citizenship, solidarity and tolerance among young Europeans and to involve them in shaping the Union's future.

. The programme was divided in five operational Actions, with their corresponding sub-actions:

Action 1: Youth for Europe – this programme offers the opportunity for young people to travel and meet different people from other countries and to learn about each other’s cultures (Youth Exchanges sub-action 1.1), to enhance cooperation and exchanges of experiences between young people (Youth Initiatives sub-action 1.2) and to enhance and support young people’s participation in the democratic life (Youth Democracy Projects sub-action 1.3).

Action 2: European Voluntary Service – the aim of this programme is to determine young people to participate in voluntary activities, inside and outside the EU in order to develop their sense of solidarity.

Action 3: Youth in the World – this programme encourages exchanges and training of young people and youth workers across the world, not only within EU.

Action 4: Youth Support Systems – projects carried out with the support of Action 4 of the YiA programme and the 8 sub-Actions, have the purpose to promote and support cooperation between youth organisations through sharing experiences and good practices of those who work with young people, in order to improve the quality of their activities.

Action 5: Support for European cooperation in the youth field – this Action promotes dialogue and understanding in this area between young people, youth workers and those responsible for youth policy and cooperation with international organisations.

The impact of the Youth in Action programme was measured by the European Commission through a survey. The results of a monitoring survey from 2011 showed that: 91% participants said the experience increased their foreign language proficiency, 87% stated that their social and civic competences have developed and also their cultural awareness and expression have increased (82%). Considering the results regarding the attitudes component, from Table 2.1 we can see that more than 90% of participants stated that the project made them more receptive to other’s culture and they have become aware of common European values, those being two components of European Identity.

Table 2.1. Main results taken from the Impact of the YiA Programme 2011 Monitoring Survey

2.1.3 Erasmus+ Programme (2014-2020)

Starting with the 1st of January 2014, the new framework that incorporates all European programs for education, training, youth and sport, begins its activity under the name of Erasmus+.

As we will discover along this sub chapter, it is important to make a very clear and distinct separation between the well-known and popular Erasmus programme, that was established in 1987 and has as main activity international student exchange projects at different higher education cycles and the new, complex programme, Erasmus+ (Erasmus Plus, abbreviation E+), where the old one has become just a piece of the pie.

The Erasmus+ Programme wants to surpass the previous programs by incorporating and accentuating the importance of cross-sectoral collaboration throughout the different fields of education, training and youth, dismissing procedural and artificial barriers between the various Actions and project formats, generating innovative ideas, involving new social actors from the business and civil sectors and last but not least, creating new forms of cooperation.

In order to achieve this spectacular outcomes it is of vital importance for the Programme to be associated with a strong name brand, easily recognized so the effect of brand transfer to happen naturally. Thus, the successful and widely known program Erasmus was chosen as a winner and as a brand base for brand transfer of the Erasmus+ program.

On top of the many advantages that the branding decision brought in disseminating information about the E+ Programme for the new audiences, its Ahile’s heel targets the previous beneficiary of the previous programs who tend to minimize the complexity of E+ to their previous experiences.

The Erasmus+ program frame covers a time span of 6 years, from 2014 – 2020 and has three major Key Actions that incorporate the seven previous programs on the field of education, training, youth and sport:

Key Action 1 – Learning Mobility of individuals;

Key Action 2 – Cooperation for innovation and the exchange of good practices;

Key Action 3 – Support for policy reform.

Plus two special areas, Jean Monnet and Sport.

The charm of the new design of Erasmus+ lays in its structural matrix that allows a greater focus on the impact of EU actions, through exploring and exploiting the interactions between fields and actions by boosting efficiency and adding bureaucratic simplification.

As we all know, until the end of the decade, Europe has the hard task of facing challenges from the socio-economic sectors and finding solutions for them and in the same time to endorse the rendering of European policy agenda for social inclusion, jobs, growth, equity and the Erasmus+ incorporated sectors of education, training, youth and sport, are the new players that can bring a significant contribution.

In response to the dire events concerning European countries, Erasmus+ has become an important instrument to promote the inclusion of people with disadvantaged backgrounds with a great focus on newly arrived migrants.

Europe aspires to a more inclusive and cohesive society that will encourage its citizens to take a more proactive role in its democratic life using education and youth as key change agents. In order to prevent brutal radicalization of its society, with the help of the key agents mentioned before, EU will focus on promoting common European values, nurturing social integration and augmenting intercultural understanding and a sense of togetherness specific to communities.

Another important challenge tackled by the EU is the social capital development among young people, more precisely the empowering process and their proactive participation in daily civic life of the society, as envisioned in the Lisbon Treaty. An effective way of attacking the issue at hand is facilitated by non – formal learning process, encouraged in the Erasmus+ framework because of its great result in elevating young people and youth workers professionalism and present the European dimension of their work.

Efficient and performing training and education systems and youth policies can offer real support in dealing with this challenges by equipping people with the skills needed to thrive on the labor market and the economy, while allowing them to exercise an active role in society and grasp personal fulfillment. A shared vision between policy makers and stakeholders can serve as a basis for the reform brought by the Erasmus+ Programme in the field of education, training and youth and help bolster progress towards these goals

Throughout the education, training and youth fields, the Erasmus+ Programme is supporting Program Countries’ efforts in efficiently employing the potential of Europe’s talent and social assets in a lifelong learning perspective, connecting the informal, non-formal and formal leaning approaches.

Last but not least the program supports actions, cooperation and tools consistent with the objectives of the Europe’s 2020 Strategy and its flagship initiatives, such as Youth on the Move and the Agenda for new skills and jobs. E+ also contributes to achieving the objectives of the Education and Training Strategic Framework for European cooperation in Education and Training and of the European Youth Strategy through the Open Methods of Coordination.