Since 2008, Europe has been shaken by an ongoing crisis. But, in analogy with medical and psychological findings, some parts of the vulnerable population, although experiencing the same living conditions as others, are developing resilience, which in our context means that they perform social, economic and cultural practices and habits which protect them from suffer and harm and support sustainable patterns of coping and adaption. This resilience to socioeconomic crises at household levels is the focus of the proposed project. It can consist of identity patterns, knowledge, family or community relations, cultural and social as well as economic practices, be they formal or informal. Welfare states, labour markets and economic policies at both macro or meso level form the context or ‘environment’ of those resilience patterns. For reasons of coping with the crisis without leaving the common ground of the implicit European social model under extremely bad monetary conditions in many countries, and for reasons of maintaining quality of life and improving social policy, it is a highly interesting perspective to learn from emergent processes of resilience development and their preconditions. Thus, the main questions are directed at understanding patterns and dimensions of resilience at micro-/household level in different types of European member and neighbour states accounting for regional varieties, relevant internal and external conditions and resources as well as influences on these patterns by social, economic or labour market policy as well as legal regulations.

The project is focused on five major areas over which the impacts of the crises will be more closely assessed: the initial education and training; the institutional paths for transition from school/training to work; adult education and lifelong learning; the transparency of qualifications and the articulation between the education and training systems; the structure of services and benefits aiming at guaranteeing universal access to the education and training systems.For each of these five areas, the following key dimensions of analysis are considered: (a) diversity and relative importance of available pathways within the system, (b) curricula; (c) human resources (d) budget and funding circuits; (e) the quantity and quality of physical spaces. Results indicators will be analyzed in all five areas, such as coverage and attainment.