TERCERO INTERESADO: CARLOS MANUEL RUBIO ROMERO.

Unifying educational policies are influenced by the neoliberal framework (Youngman, 2000; Davies & Bansel, 2007; Tarabini, 2010, Ganti, 2014). Whist Ganti (2014, p. 92) traces the term neoliberal to 1925 and views it as ‘an offspring of the Great Depression’, other authors state that its ideology and theories emerged around the 1970s (Youngman, 2000; Davies & Bansel, 2007; Kascak & Pupala, 2011; Ganti, 2014). Ong (2006) states that neoliberalism seems to be different things depending on one’s vantage point (Ganti, 2014, p. 90). Neoliberalism is an ideology concerned with the deregulation of the economy, the liberation of trade and industry and the privatization of state owned enterprises; it can also be understood as a set of related economic policies, modes of governance and a range of cultural phenomena linked to individualism (Youngman, 2000; Gant, 2014 ). The concept is centred on the idea that market mechanisms are the means to ensure an efficient and productive economy and maximize economic welfare (Youngman, 2000). Within the neoliberal framework it is believed that the youth should acquire proper skills to enable them to access wage employment, achieving financial growth and increased job opportunities (McGrath & Powell, 2016).

As an ideology of governance neoliberalism ensures that educational provision promotes learner productivity, entrepreneurship and ultimately improves national economic growth

46

(Youngman, 2000). Educational policies developed within the neoliberal framework are supported by the world’s largest and most influential multinational funding agencies for education such as the World Bank, World Trade Organization (WTO) and International Monetary Fund (IMF) and are calculated towards increased entrepreneurship rather than the people’s welfare (Lakes & Carter, 2011; Youngman, 2000). Literature argues that neoliberalism uses education and educational institutions, as highly relevant contexts, to develop human resources that are needed for economic growth and successful competition in the world market (Youngman, 2000; Davies & Bansel, 2007). Unifying policies within the neoliberal framework transfer educational provision risks and responsibility from the state to the learners (Davies & Bansel, 2007). In implementing these policies, schools and universities compete amongst themselves as they decide on school tuition, curricula issues, teacher expertise and escalating prices for textbooks and other learning material as well as administering high-stake standardized testing (Lakes & Carter, 2011). In a neoliberal society ‘young people chase credentials to gain security in future education or workplaces. Failure to achieve, is deemed one’s own fault and human beings are made accountable for their predicaments’ (ibid. p.107-108).

Neoliberalism seems to extend freedom of choice to individuals and give them the right to plan their own lives rather than being directed by the state as a central planning authority (Ganti, 2014, Davies & Bansel, 2007). Individuals within this framework are made to believe that they have the power of choice, whereas their actions often respond to calculated acts towards financial achievement by those in power who are often a minority (Davies & Bansel, 2007; Tarabini, 2010). Such choices are viewed as emphasizing self-reliance, autonomy and independence as a necessary condition for self-respect, self-esteem, self-worth and self- advancement (Lakes & Carter, 2011). However, these privatization policies that promote individualization and competition do not provide for the uninformed, misinformed or fearful parent or learner who just welcomes the increased freedom of choice as active citizenship (Davies & Bansel, 2007). Individuals who are victims of this influence tend to believe that the educational choices they make are to further their own interests and those of their families, whereas those choices are state-directed and controlled. According to the neoliberal framework, the acquisition of proper skills by individuals would ensure access to employment which would then lead to economic growth as more jobs would be created for all. Therefore, educational policies and subject choices tend to promote entrepreneurship skills in order to achieve financial prosperity.

47

In conclusion, the promotion of individualism and competitiveness by the neoliberal framework tends to erode the foundation of human associations manifested within African communities, families and general friendships (Lekoko & Modise, 2011). Social institutions are reconfigured to ensure that they produce individuals who are economic entrepreneurs rather than promoting African values such as collective responsibility. Whilst promoting the entrepreneurs, the neoliberal framework erodes the self-esteem, self-worth and self- advancement particularly of the disadvantaged youths.

Due to the influence of the neoliberal framework, most of the educational interventions do not interest the youths’ who are supposed to be the beneficiaries. For instance, most countries have increasingly realized that one shot at education is not enough to respond to unemployment (UNESCO, 2010). Globally it has been realized that to combat the increase in unemployment a strategy that emphasizes skills as a driver of employment, productivity and economic growth, should be adopted. Vocational education is viewed as smoothing the transition between school and the world of work, especially to combat youth unemployment. In Latin America and the United States, vocational education extended opportunities to marginalized young people who had dropped out-of-school, for employment as well as for re- entering education (McGrath, Akoojee, Gewer, Mabizele, Mbele & Roberts,2006). However, challenges to vocational education included poor links to employment markets, underinvestment, and poor quality. These challenges, according to the EFA report, often result in vocational programmes being shunned by youth as they cannot relate to them. In my view this is a result of focusing on creating entrepreneurs rather than understanding the youth and how to structure programmes that relate to them for effective economic development.

2.7.1 Youth education, training and employment in South Africa

In an attempt to address youth unemployment, the government of South Africa invited stakeholders to respond to the White Paper for the Post-School Education and Training (Department of Higher Education and Training, 2013). The government noted a host of problems related to poor quality education provided during the apartheid period. The Green Paper (Department of Higher Education and Training, 2012) emphasized that these problems need to be analysed so as to identify reasons for their persistence and to design interventions on how they could be overcome. These interventions included formulating policy frameworks to establish colleges throughout the country, providing quality university education for the increasing population and capacitating graduates by providing pre- and post-training, and flexible and sustainable innovations for their livelihoods.

48

It is worth noting that the South African government, like the other governments, omitted the youth’s voices as one of their stakeholders. They sought comments and contributions from formal stakeholders within the education and training sector, organised business and organised labour. On the other hand, government acknowledged the existence of social inequalities amongst its citizens. These social inequalities related to gender, class, and race. The Green Paper also acknowledged that it was mainly the young people, three million who were 18 – 24 years of age, that faced a very bleak future and that the post-school system should meet the needs of the economy and society as a whole.

2.7.2 Youth education, training and employment in Eswatini

There has been no study in Eswatini on NEETs; however, interventions to address educational quality and access have been implemented. The Brenthurst Foundation report reveals that Eswatini’s greatest concern is school drop-out rates, declining enrolment in tertiary education, and the inability of young people to acquire the necessary skills to participate in the economy and in meaningful employment (Oppenheimer et al., 2011). Therefore, interventions such as the Orphans and Vulnerable Children (OVC) Fund which provides financial support for education, the Free Primary Education (FPE) in 2010 and Non-formal Primary Education (NPE) were adopted. To address youth unemployment the Youth Empowerment Fund, vocational schools, and tertiary level sponsorships have been implemented.