How neoliberalism turned the world against its young

1. At a Glance

• Thesis of the article: the worldwide rise in youth unrest comes from failures of neoliberal capitalism: cuts to public welfare, worse unemployment, falling wages that drag down consumption and investment, and rising education costs [1].
• The authors take the G7 / Global North as their test case, using France under Emmanuel Macron as the main example [1].
• Empirical anchor: global youth unemployment (ages 15–24) was 12.4% in 2025, about 67 million people, up from a two-decade low in 2023. The NEET rate climbed back to 20% [2][3][4].
• UPSC relevance: demographic dividend, jobless growth, the role of the welfare state against fiscal consolidation, SDG 8 (decent work), and GS-IV ideas about intergenerational justice.

2. Why in the News

• An op-ed by Rohit Azad and Indranil Chowdhury, "How neoliberalism turned the world against its young", The Hindu, Chennai print edition, 29 October 2026, p. 26 [1].
• Youth-led mobilisations named in the article: France, Albania, Spain, India, and earlier Bangladesh and Sri Lanka [1].
• In France, the immediate spark was a shortage of resources and staff at Lycée Antoine-de-Saint-Exupéry in Créteil, a suburb of Paris [1].
• ILO, Global Employment Trends for Youth (GET Youth) 2026 (Aug 2026): youth unemployment and NEET rates are rising again after the post-pandemic recovery [2][3][4].

3. Background & Evolution

• Neoliberal model (as the article defines it): forced cuts to public expenditure in general and to welfare spending in particular, putting profits ahead of social spending [1].
• Background (not from the retrieved sources; verify): the intellectual roots are usually traced to Hayek and Friedman. The model took political form under Thatcher in the UK (1979) and Reagan in the US (1981). It was codified as the "Washington Consensus" (John Williamson, 1989). India's equivalent is the 1991 LPG reforms (liberalisation, privatisation, globalisation).
• France: Macron has been in power since 14 May 2017. In nearly ten years France has had high unemployment, low growth, a rising cost of living, falling real wages and deep cuts to public spending [1].
• Political backlash: the article argues that the model's champions (Macron in France, Biden/Clinton in the US, Starmer in the UK) "have either been ousted or are on the brink of losing" power [1].
• Youth labour-market path (ILO): global youth unemployment fell to a two-decade low of 12.3% in 2023, was 12.6% in 2024 (WESO Trends 2025), and rose to 12.4% in 2025 (GET Youth 2026, a revised series) [2][3][6].

4. Core Static Facts

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Economic

• Demand-side argument: falling wages weaken consumption, which weakens investment, which means fewer jobs for new labour-market entrants [1].
• Fiscal austerity cuts public jobs and services such as schools; the Créteil lycée shows this directly [1].
• A low unemployment rate can hide distress: Sub-Saharan Africa has 8.4% unemployment but 21.6% NEET, so NEET is the better measure of youth exclusion [2].

Social

• Rising education costs and fewer jobs together widen intergenerational inequality [1].
• Gender: the young women's NEET rate (27.4%) is more than double the men's (13.1%) [2].
• India's 24.7% NEET (2024) puts it among the worst performers in the G20 and works against the demographic dividend [5].

Political / Governance

• Youth protests in many countries show a legitimacy crisis for centrist parties that back austerity [1].
• Incumbents in G7 democracies (France, US, UK) are losing or at risk of losing power, according to the authors [1].

Geopolitical / Comparative

• The article ties Global North protests (France, Spain, Albania) to Global South ones (India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka) through a common economic model [1].
• The regional pattern of youth distress (Arab States, Northern Africa) overlaps with past unrest-prone regions [2].

Ethical (GS-IV)

• Intergenerational justice: profits come first and young people bear the costs [1].
• The state's duty of welfare stands against market efficiency, a classic choice between Rawlsian and libertarian views.

6. Recent Developments (last 12–18 months)

• July 2025: ILO Youth at Work in G20 countries report. G20 average NEET fell to 17.6% in 2024; India was at 24.7% [5].
• 2025: UN SDG Extended Report 2025 put the global youth NEET rate at 20.4% for 2024 [7].
• 2025: ILO WESO Trends 2025 put global youth unemployment at 12.6% for 2024 [6].
• August 2026: ILO GET Youth 2026 ("Back to the future") reported youth unemployment rising to 12.4% and NEET to 20% in 2025 [2][3][4].
• October 2026: youth-led protests in France, sparked at a Créteil lycée, alongside unrest in Albania, Spain and India [1].

7. Prelims Hooks

• The ILO defines "youth" as ages 15–24 for unemployment statistics [2].
• Global youth unemployment in 2025 was 12.4%, about 67 million people [2][3].
• Youth unemployment hit a two-decade low of 12.3% in 2023 [3][4].
• The global NEET rate reached 20% in 2025, up from 19.7% in 2023 [2].
• The NEET rate for young women (27.4%) is more than double that for young men (13.1%) [2].
• The Arab States had the highest regional youth unemployment in 2025 (26.2%) [2].
• Sub-Saharan Africa has below-average youth unemployment (8.4%) but an above-average NEET rate (21.6%) [2].
• India's youth NEET rate was 24.7% in 2024, among the highest in the G20 [5].
• South Africa has the highest NEET rate in the G20 (41.7%) [5].
• The G20 average NEET rate was 17.6% in 2024 [5].
• Global Employment Trends for Youth is published by the ILO (not UNDP or the World Bank) [2].
• Youth NEET is tracked under SDG 8 [7].
• Emmanuel Macron has been President of France since 14 May 2017 [1].

8. Does the Data Really Back the Article's Big Claim?

• The strongest objection: the global youth job market got better for years under the same model
• Youth unemployment fell to a two-decade low of 12.3% in 2023 [3][4].
• It then rose only slightly, to 12.4% in 2025 [2].

• The economic model was the same in both periods. If neoliberalism alone were the cause, 2023 should not have been the best year in twenty years.

• The worst youth job markets are outside the G7 the article studies

• The highest youth unemployment is in the Arab States (26.2%) and Northern Africa (22.6%) [2].

• The article builds its case on France and the G7 [1]. So its G7 lens cannot explain the worst cases on its own.

• India's official numbers point the other way

• The government says India's youth unemployment rates are lower than global levels [11].

• But India measures youth as 15–29, while the ILO uses 15–24. Teenagers usually have the highest unemployment, so a wider age band can make India's rate look better. The two numbers are not a like-for-like comparison.

• What the objection gets wrong: the mechanism is real

• Even the IMF, long a promoter of these policies, found that austerity (cutting government spending to reduce debt) raises long-term unemployment [8].
• Fair verdict: the article overstates when it makes neoliberalism the single cause. But it is right that spending cuts cost jobs, and it is right that young people, the newest entrants to the job market, pay first.

9. Even the IMF Admits Spending Cuts Cost Jobs

• The IMF's own 2016 review backs the article's core argument
• The paper "Neoliberalism: Oversold?" was written by IMF economists [8].
• It found that fiscal consolidation (cutting the budget deficit through spending cuts or higher taxes) of 1% of GDP raises long-term unemployment by about 0.6 percentage points (a percentage point is a plain difference, e.g. 10% to 10.6%) [8].

• Periods of consolidation were usually followed by a fall in output, not a rise [8].

• How you cut matters as much as how much you cut

• An IMF working paper found that cutting spending widens inequality more than raising taxes does [9].

• This fits the Créteil school: cuts to school staff fall directly on the young [1].

• The fair limit of this argument

• The same IMF paper accepts that some countries, like those in southern Europe, had little choice. Markets would not keep lending to them [8].
• So the real question for an exam answer is not "austerity or no austerity". It is "who carries the cost of the cut".

10. India's Own Numbers Tell Two Different Stories

• Story 1: unemployment is falling
• The PLFS (Periodic Labour Force Survey, MoSPI's main jobs survey) puts youth (15–29) unemployment at 9.9% in 2025, down from 10.3% in 2024 [10].

• Graduate unemployment (age 15+) fell from 17.2% in 2019-20 to 14.9% in 2021-22 [12].

• Story 2: many young people are neither working nor studying

• India's youth NEET rate was 24.7% in 2024, among the worst in the G20 [5].

• A low unemployment rate only counts people who are looking for work. Young people, especially young women, who have stopped looking do not appear in it at all.

• The educated are hit hardest

• Urban youth unemployment is 13.6%, against 8.3% in rural areas [10].
• The ILO's India Employment Report 2024 found that educated youth have higher unemployment. There is a mismatch between what they trained for and the jobs on offer [13].

• This is the same frustration the article sees on the streets: young people who did everything "right" and still have no job.

• Be careful reading the trend

• From 2025, PLFS moved from a July–June year to a January–December year [10].
• So the 2025 figure is not fully comparable with earlier years. Do not write "fell by 0.4 points" as a clean fact.

11. What Europe's Youth Guarantee Teaches India

• What Europe tried
• The EU Youth Guarantee is a promise that every young person gets a job, training or education offer within a set time after leaving school or work [14].
• The reinforced version widened the age group to 16–29 [14].

• Early studies in the countries that started it first show some success in moving youth into work [14].

• Where it broke: promises without money

• Most national plans had the right design, but did not put in enough money [14].

• The funding gap was estimated at €7.3 billion [14]. A guarantee with too little money cannot deliver its offers.

• Why doing nothing is costlier

• NEET youth cost Europe about €162 billion a year, or 1.2% of GDP, in lost earnings, lost taxes and benefits paid [14].

• So spending on youth is not only welfare. It is cheaper than leaving them idle.

• What India's actors should do

• MoSPI should publish a NEET rate in every PLFS release, next to the unemployment rate. Today the 24.7% figure comes from the ILO, not from India's own headline data [5][10].
• The Finance Ministry, when cutting the deficit under the FRBM Act, should protect schools and skilling. The IMF evidence shows spending-based cuts hurt inequality more than tax-based ones [9].
• The Labour Ministry should fully fund any youth job guarantee from the start. Europe's lesson is that an underfunded guarantee fails, however good its design [14].

12. Anchors for Answers

• Data: India youth (15–29) unemployment 9.9% in 2025; urban youth 13.6% (PLFS 2025) [10]
• Data: India youth NEET 24.7% in 2024, among the highest in the G20 [5]
• Data: fiscal consolidation of 1% of GDP raises long-term unemployment by about 0.6 percentage points [8]
• Data: NEET youth cost Europe about €162 billion a year (1.2% of GDP) [14]
• Report/Committee: IMF, "Neoliberalism: Oversold?" (Finance & Development, 2016) [8]; ILO–IHD, India Employment Report 2024 [13]
• Comparison: EU Youth Guarantee: an offer of a job, training or education for every young person; it worked in part, but national plans were short of funds by €7.3 billion [14]

13. Mains Relevance

• GS-I: Social empowerment; effects of globalisation on Indian society; population and associated issues (youth bulge).
• GS-II: Welfare schemes for vulnerable sections; important international institutions (ILO).
• GS-III: Indian economy: growth, development and employment; inclusive growth; effects of liberalisation on the economy.
• GS-IV: Ethics in public policy; intergenerational equity.
• Essay: "A demographic dividend without jobs is a demographic disaster."
• Question stems: 1. Rising youth NEET rates show that unemployment figures alone understate labour-market exclusion. Discuss with reference to India. (GS-III, 15 marks) 2. Fiscal austerity under the neoliberal paradigm has worsened youth unemployment worldwide. Critically examine, and suggest lessons for India's demographic dividend. (GS-III) 3. Youth-led protests across the Global North and South point to a crisis of the welfare state. Analyse. (GS-II)

14. Related Topics to Study Next

• Demographic dividend and India's youth bulge: India's 24.7% NEET rate threatens the dividend [5].
• PLFS (MoSPI) youth unemployment data: the domestic counterpart to the ILO estimates.
• 1991 LPG reforms and the Washington Consensus: where neoliberal policy began in India.
• Fiscal consolidation (FRBM Act) vs. welfare spending: the austerity debate in an Indian setting.
• SDG 8 and Target 8.6 (youth NEET): the international monitoring framework [7].
• Gender gap in labour force participation: the female NEET rate is double the male rate [2].
• Gen-Z / youth movements in South Asia (Sri Lanka, Bangladesh): cases cited in the article [1].
• ILO structure and conventions: the institution behind GET Youth.

15. NCERT Concepts to Revise

• Neoliberalism (Economy): The article's central target: free-market policy with spending cuts, which the authors blame for youth distress.
• NEET (Economy): Key youth-exclusion measure in the note; it shows distress that the plain unemployment rate hides.
• Austerity (Economy): Public spending cuts, such as the under-resourced Créteil school, are the article's main cause of youth anger.
• Demographic dividend (Economy): India's high NEET rate threatens the gain from a young workforce, a common exam link.
• Youth unemployment (Economy): Rising youth joblessness (12.4% in 2025) is the core empirical evidence behind the unrest.
• Jobless growth (Economy): Explains how economies can expand without creating jobs for new young entrants to the labour market.

16. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• Age band: the ILO youth definition is 15–24. India's PLFS often reports 15–29 and the National Youth Policy uses 15–29. Don't mix them.
• Unemployment vs. NEET: NEET also counts inactive youth who are not studying, so it is broader. A low unemployment rate (e.g., Sub-Saharan Africa at 8.4%) can sit alongside a high NEET rate [2].
• Different series: ILO's 12.6% (2024, WESO 2025) and 12.4% (2025, GET Youth 2026) come from different revisions. The SDG report's 20.4% NEET is not directly comparable with ILO's 20% [2][6][7].
• Wrong publisher: GET Youth is an ILO report, not a UNDP or World Bank report.
• G7 vs. G20: the article analyses the G7. The ILO NEET comparison covers the G20 [1][5].