Influential Factors for Youth Development in Ireland and the United States: A Comparative Analysis

Introduction

Youth development, an individual’s social, educational, emotional, and civic maturation is a core component of positive societal cohesion and progress. Young generations determine people’s future capacity to contribute to economic, social, and cultural growth. While many factors influence youth development, these factors vary worldwide due to different education systems, political and legislative policies, and cultural norms. Ireland and the United States offer contexts for understanding youth development as both nations have differing challenges and opportunities arising from their respective social environments.

One can look to youth development for insights into the values of each nation. In Ireland, youth development has been shaped by historical, political, and economic changes — such as cultural and technical modernization and changing social policies. In addition, education and family structures play a more significant role in Irish youth development. Further, current/contemporary national programs aim to increase youth empowerment in Irish society, but this isn’t a priority for the United States. In the United States, youth development is impacted by different factors such as socioeconomic status, race, and access to education which can support or inhibit youth’s personal and social growth.

This paper aims to explain factors that impact youth development in Ireland and the United States by providing a larger understanding of how educational, cultural, and socio-political structures shape young people’s futures. Through examining similarities and differences between the two countries, this research will identify the strengths and limitations within each factor and provide insight into strategies to improve youth development in both nations. This paper will address key systems such as family environments, economic factors, social influences, youth programs, community influences, and global programs.

By using a comparative framework, this paper aims to contribute to the discussion on youth development by providing insights into how different systems can influence the lives of young people. Understanding these factors will aid in informing support programs for youth to engage civically.

Family Environments

Bronfrenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Model shows that children’s development is influenced by their system interactions, primarily by family, the most immediate and constant environment a child experiences, providing direct influences on the emotional and social development of children. Thus, because families act as the core microsystem in childhood development, parenting styles impact behavioral norms (Brofrenbrenner, 1979). In the United States, authoritative parenting is a common parenting style, characterized by warmth, responsiveness, and clear expectations. These standards tend to produce children with higher levels of academic success, independence, self-regulation, and social competence (Steinberg and Morris, 2001). Children who come from families with authoritative parenting align with the American culture of being self-reliant citizens and are more likely to engage in civic activities (Triandis, H.C., 2001). According to the 2016 Census, 37% of the Irish population lived in rural areas (CSO, 2017). Families who live in rural communities tend to prioritize family cohesion and interdependence, children raised in these environments typically value tradition, social responsibility, and community involvement (McGinnity, 2015). Civic engagement in Ireland and the United States looks different; in Irish families, there is a strong emphasis on local engagement while in American families there is more emphasis on national and issue-based engagement.

The quality of a child’s home life can dramatically affect their development. It might go without saying that children’s experiences — both positive and negative — influence children’s values. Adverse experiences can influence these values as well. Growing up in homes with parental conflict, neglect, or poverty can hurt youth development. For children who grew up in low-income areas of the United States, unstable family environments led to chronic stress that impacted brain development (Marmot, 2005). In the United States, for example, socioeconomic status plays a role in determining access to education, healthcare, and childcare; children who are born into low-income families have less upward mobility than their peers (Chetty et al., 2014). In the United States, there is a growth in grassroots movements to engage low-income citizens in civic participation. For example, the Fair Fight Action campaign founded by Stacey Abrams, aims to increase voter turnout in marginalized communities through initiatives to combat voter suppression (Fair Fight Action). However, civic responsibility tends to fall on people from wealthier families since these people have access to more resources and educational opportunities, because of this low-income people face barriers like limited time that decrease their likelihood to be civically engaged (Putnam, 2000). While in Ireland there are more social welfare resources available for families who are experiencing financial hardship, such as child benefits, housing support, and universal healthcare, easing the impacts on families. As opposed to the United States, these social welfare programs are universally accessible for Irish citizens in the United States programs like the Child Tax Credit are income-dependent and not universally accessible. The stability of these universally accessible welfare programs allows low-income Irish families to have more reliable support for basic needs and fewer gaps in coverage (European Anti-Poverty Network, 2020). These resources make it easier for Irish families to participate in civic engagement, this in conjunction with rural family values results in civic engagement becoming an integral part of daily life. These values are then extended to Irish youth who are influenced by their families and community members’ civic engagement at an early age.

In Ireland, family structures have evolved into more single-parent households and smaller family sizes (CSO, 2022). Children who come from single-parent families are more likely to face financial strain in comparison to two-parent families. This financial burden limits access to resources such as extracurriculars and healthcare. After the Celtic Tiger economic boom and recession in the late 2000s, family stress increased. The economic conflict led to increased parental stress and housing instability. These stressors can impact childhood development, unstable living conditions are linked to developmental delays, behavioral issues, and emotional distress (McGinnity, 2015). During the recession, families experienced housing instability and reduced incomes, yet there were welfare systems to provide support for those impacted. While American families experienced a similar economic recession beginning in 2009-2009, there were fewer social welfare programs available which allowed more children to experience the impact of economic instability (McGinnity, 2015).

In Ireland, youth civic engagement is high with initiatives like the National Youth Council of Ireland (NYCI) which reports that young people in Ireland are participating in community service and social justice projects, these actions are perpetuated by family and community norms. This allows for projects like Comhairle na nÓg that allow young people to have a voice in local governments, starting civic engagement at a young age (NYCI, 2020). In the United States, family environments are critical in youth civic engagement. Data shows that youth civic engagement is dependent on socioeconomic backgrounds, with youth from wealthier families being more likely to vote and participate in civic programming due to more civic education and parental encouragement. However, programs like YouthBuild and Boys & Girls

Clubs of America aim to provide low-income youth with more opportunities to engage civically (CIRCLE, 2018). Starting civic engagement at a young age fosters a lifelong commitment to civic participation, critical thinking, and social responsibility.

Education Systems

Education systems are significant contributors to civic engagement among youth as environments where critical thinking and social responsibility are taught. Schools teach children their role in society as citizens. However, the differences in curriculum and extracurriculars within education systems result in different levels of civic engagement for young people in Ireland and the United States.

According to Brofenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Model, the school environment is a microsystem that influences childhood development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Civic education is embedded in the Irish education system, the curriculum includes subjects like Civic, Social, and Political Education (CPSE), a graduation requirement for students. The course teaches students how to engage with political issues through lessons about democracy, human rights, and community participation. Encouraging active citizenship motivates students to participate in communities and enforces their role as active students. Irish schools encourage participation in extracurricular activities like volunteer programs, involvement in these activities helps build leadership skills and community engagement. Such experiences allow students to obtain cultural capital, adding to national identity and community belonging which contribute to one’s level of civic engagement (Bourdieu, 1977). The United States doesn’t provide a consistent civic education curriculum, with courses varying across states and different school districts. Schools in high-income communities often have more elaborate civic engagement programs and extracurriculars such as student government or speech and debate. Structured extracurriculars promote civic responsibility and values in civic participation (Lerner, 2005). However, in low-income areas, underfunded schools have fewer resources for civic education and restrict opportunities for students to engage in politics (Coleman Report, 1966). The same phenomenon is seen in Ireland but with better-funded education programs inequity among tax brackets is mitigated.

Higher education impacts levels of civic engagement in both countries through activism, volunteerism, and providing leadership opportunities. Similar to the United States, universities in Ireland promote volunteering, community involvement, and political activism, thus adding to young adults’ cultural capital. These skills allow students to be equipped to participate civically. However, in the United States universities serve as a significant hub for civic engagement with access to political campaigns, activism, and service-based learning programs. These institutions allow students to develop their own civic identities. This development in young adulthood is enhanced through college experiences and has a strong impact on an individual’s level of civic engagement.

Education systems influence civic engagement through civic education, extracurriculars, and experiences in higher education. Both countries aim to promote civic engagement but the differences in socioeconomic status, curriculum, and resource accessibility impact how students are prepared for civic engagement.

Economic Factors

As mentioned in previous sections, economic factors play a significant role in civic engagement in Ireland and the United States. Access to resources, opportunity, and social mobility impact an individual’s ability to participate civically. Socioeconomic disparities affect access to education, political involvement, and community participation, which causes a divide in how people from different economic backgrounds engage with their government. Socioeconomic inequality is one of the most significant economic factors influencing civic engagement. Those who are from wealthier backgrounds have more access to resources that allow them to engage in civic activities, while people from low-income backgrounds face barriers to civic engagement. Those who are from wealthier families also have more knowledge of how to navigate and influence political systems (McGinnity, 2015). In Ireland, the economic impacts have been partially mitigated by the social welfare system allowing for equal access to education. However, the gap still exists within the education system as high-income families have an advantage with access to private schooling and higher education. Despite these resources, Ireland still felt a similar effect after the Celtic Tiger era where lower-income families were disproportionately affected and it caused a widened inequality gap, affecting civic engagement (Fahey, Russel, and Whelan, 2007). Economic inequality is more pronounced in the United States, in regions that have greater income inequality there are lower levels of civic engagement especially among low-income groups. This is because people from high-income families have more access to civic institutions like schools, community organizations, and networking which allows for more involvement in civic activities (Chetty et al., 2014). Since schools in the United States rely on public funding like local property taxes, this causes a disparity with richer areas having better-funded schools and access to higher education. This lower quality of education results in lower political engagement and voting rates within the United States (Coleman, 1966).

Time and resources for political engagement are factors that are typically ignored when considering the impact of finances on civic engagement. Those with higher incomes have more time and financial resources to engage in activities like attending community meetings, volunteering, or donating to campaigns. In Ireland, higher-income families are more likely to participate politically because economic security allows for more time and resources to be involved. Economic pressures like financial instability limit one’s ability to engage civically as those who are impacted are more likely to prioritize immediate financial concerns rather than long-term civic engagement (McGinnity, 2015). Those with more financial resources can make donations and be involved in political campaigns, skewing civic engagement toward those with more money. While in the United States, the economic divide is wider and has more of an impact on civic engagement. Wealthy individuals are more likely to vote, donate, and engage in advocacy work (Chetty et al., 2014). Political campaigns are expensive and the cost of involvement emphasizes the influence of money on civic engagement because not everyone can contribute to campaigns or engage in political advocacy work. This leads to unequal representation in government, often leaving lower-income people feeling marginalized and decreasing levels of civic engagement.

Economic factors impact both Ireland and the United States due to their influence on education, political participation, and community involvement. These impacts create barriers for low-income individuals in both countries, which limits their ability to engage civically. These economic factors must be addressed to promote equal civic engagement across socioeconomic groups in both nations.

Social Influences

Social influences including, peers, cultural norms, and community networks have a profound impact on youth development in both countries. These influences impact how people view their place in society and their sense of civic responsibility. Both countries are similar in social dynamics but differ greatly in their cultural and structural differences, which impact civic engagement.

Most people develop their civic identity during adolescence, a period when people are most influenced by peers and social networks (Lerner, 2005). Peer influence has a stronger impact in structured settings like school classrooms and youth sports, these environments promote teamwork and increase a sense of community (McGinnity, 2015). Ireland emphasizes community activities, leading to increased access to these structured settings that foster peer influence. There are programs such as cultural festivals and community service groups to promote civic engagement. Specifically, projects like the Tidy Towns initiatives organized by the Department of Rural and Community Development increase community pride by competing in community service-based challenges to honor the most beautiful town in the Republic of Ireland. This initiative involves people of all age groups and backgrounds with many citing peer encouragement as a motivating factor (Tidy Towns, 2024). Irish youth also experience peer influence from digital organizing tactics to promote community and civic responsibility. This was seen in the digital organizing for the Repeal the 8th Movement, where young people used the internet to amplify the need for civic engagement.

The impact of peer influence is substantial in both countries but how it is utilized is different in the United States. Youth development is linked to involvement in activities like volunteering, activism, or school clubs (Lerner, 2005). Peer influence impacts recreational involvement but has a similar effect when it comes to civic engagement in organizations like Model UN, which promotes civic responsibility and growth later on in life. Social media also acts as a catalyst for civic engagement in the United States. Social media platforms are used to mobilize youth for social and political issues, this digital interaction aids in creating echo chambers of content. This is seen with the March for Our Lives movement, which utilized digital organizing strategies to amplify peer influence through the use of hashtags and digital campaigns. This resulted in online communities for political mobilization and illustrates the impact of peer influence on young people in the United States.

Youth Programs 

Youth programs play an important role in promoting civic engagement by giving young people the skills and experiences necessary to be active civically. Both Ireland and the United States offer programs that emphasize leadership development, political awareness, and volunteerism. These programs provide pathways for young people to engage with their communities and develop a commitment to civic responsibility. Youth programs in both countries foster leadership skills and civic awareness while providing participants with opportunities to be civically engaged.

In Ireland, there are programs like Leadership for Life, a program that encourages young people to develop decision-making skills, public speaking, and teamwork. These skills are then implemented on community projects to organize local events that address social issues, programs like these create a sense of civic pride and agency for young people. These programs are effective in engaging youth from different backgrounds and bridging participation gaps (McGinnity, 2015). The United States offers similar programs like 4-H and Boys Scouts of America which promote leadership through volunteerism and political education. These programs also promote positive youth development by giving participants the skills to lead projects to improve and support underserved communities, thus providing a solid foundation for civic engagement in the future.

Most youth programs emphasize the need for community service that encourages civic participation into adulthood, this is seen through incentives for youth civic engagement. The Gaisce President’s Award in Ireland challenges young people to contribute to important community service projects that address a variety of issues. These initiatives highlight Ireland’s emphasis on collective responsibility by awarding those who are accountable to their community (Fanning, 2018). Similar programs exist in the United States, however, rather than incentivizing civic engagement with an award there are competitive programs for young people to get involved with. This includes AmeriCorps which provides service-learning to connect volunteerism with professional development. This program encourages people to use their skills to address social issues through hands-on projects. These hands-on projects benefit the communities that the volunteers are in but also promote a sense of purpose, one of the main drivers for sustainable civic engagement (Steinberg and Morris, 2001).

Youth programs also play an important role in developing political awareness of democratic processes. Programs such as the NYCI in Ireland conduct training to educate young people about their rights and civic responsibilities. Similarly, there are youth campaigns like Vote@16 which is composed mainly of young people advocating to lower the voting age and empower youth to influence public policy. This campaign found success through the use of digital tools impacting the campaign’s reach and allowing young people to feel more empowered in the democratic process (Livingstone, 2009). While there are programs in the United States that educate young people on the democratic process, these are mainly school-based initiatives such as Model UN and Youth in Government. These programs teach participants skills to be involved in democratic processes but their impact is diminished in comparison to Ireland due to lack of youth outreach.

Regardless of differences in youth programming, both countries recognize the need for inclusivity in youth programs, specifically targeting marginalized groups. To help combat this there are programs in both Ireland and the United States to aid these communities. In Ireland, programs such as Youthreach are designed for people who leave school at a young age to provide them with education tracks and promote civic skills. This program ensures that all Irish youth have the opportunity to participate in community activities and be civically engaged. Since these programs are widely available to everyone they have shown a positive impact in integrating immigrant and minority youth into civic life (Fanning, 2018). Similar programs exist in the United States, like the Boys & Girls Clubs of America which offer mentorship programs for underprivileged youth. This program aims to provide mentorships and opportunities for civic engagement across socioeconomic levels to mitigate the effect of socioeconomic inequality.

Targeting programs to low-income areas are effective in promoting civic participation by increasing accessibility to new resources (Chetty et al., 2014) By addressing barriers to civic engagement and creating inclusive environments, these programs ensure accessibility to civic engagement and build stronger communities.

Global Influence

Civic engagement in both countries is shaped by global influences such as migration, international social movements, digital connectivity, and economic globalization. These factors foster a connection between local community action and global issues, providing a new opportunity for civic engagement. The specific impacts are different in each country but both are impacted by global trends shaping civic engagement.

Migration is a key influence on the civic environment in Ireland and the United States, it has allowed new diverse perspectives and priorities to enter the political conversation. During the Celtic Tiger era in Ireland, there was an immigration boom that shifted the country’s demographics and cultural makeup. Organizations like the Immigrant Council of Ireland emphasize the active participation of immigrants in civic life. These organizations promote fair housing policies, workers’ rights, and anti-discrimination policies. This demographic shift allows Ireland to redefine its national identity while promoting civic engagement (Fanning, 2018). The United States has always been a country impacted by migration. Immigrant communities form groups to address relevant issues such as immigration reform, healthcare access, and education equality. This is seen with the Dreamers Movement, a group advocating for undocumented immigrants under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, this is a key example of how activism is influenced by migration. These movements don’t only promote immigrant rights but they continue to foster civic engagement in younger generations (Chetty et al., 2014).

Global social movements create a connection between global issues and encourage people to participate in international civic initiatives. Particularly in Ireland, environmental activism has grown in popularity through movements like Fridays for Futures. Irish youth have successfully organized events urging policymakers to make sustainable development a priority. This unity on a particular social issue promotes shared responsibility and solidarity among Irish youth (McGinity, 2015). These movements show a trend among Irish youth to participate in civic activities that align with their global concerns. A similar movement was seen in the United States with the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, highlighting the power of global solidarity. The campaign originally targeted racial injustice in the United States but its success has sparked similar protests around the world, bringing light to racism as a global issue. Movements like BLM connect local activism to international efforts, thus expanding the civic landscape.

These efforts are also promoted through digital civic engagement by enabling global communication and mobilization. Social media has played a key role in successful social issue campaigns in both countries. For example, in Ireland activists used online platforms to advocate for repealing the Eighth Amendment, an amendment that restricted access to abortions. These activists used social media to share personal stories, promote other feminist advocacy work, and connect with other international networks. Digital tools empower young people to engage civically on a global scale, which creates a new world of online activism and traditional civic participation (Livingstone, 2009). Platforms such as Twitter and Instagram have been essential for social activism. Movements like the #MeToo movement gained international publicity through social media and digital advocacy. This movement encouraged survivors to share their stories and demand change around the world. While digital media can increase visibility on an issue it promotes international collaboration in the activism sphere (Steinberg and Morris, 2001).

Civic engagement has also been influenced by economic globalization by showing global interdependence and shaping priorities. In Ireland, membership in the European Union instigates connections between national civic issues and the EU. For example, EU support for renewable energy has promoted youth involvement in environmental activism, aligning Irish youth civic engagement to global sustainability goals. A similar effect was also seen during the Celtic Tiger era where there were debates on corporate responsibility and economic inequality; this led to increased civic engagement and participation in labor movements (Fahey et al., 2007). Global economic trends have inspired similar campaigns in the United States that advocate for labor rights, fair trade, and corporate accountability. This is seen in the Fight for $15 campaign, which advocates for a higher minimum wage and brings awareness to overall global income inequality and unfair labor practices. These movements draw inspiration from other international labor campaigns, showing the connection between civic actions in a globalized world.

These global influences have impacted youth civic engagement in both Ireland and the United States. This shift has allowed local efforts to reach a global scale, which encourages people to address global issues such as climate change, social justice, and economic inequality. As these global dynamics are changing it highlights a more interconnected world where local actions can have an impact on a global level.

Conclusion 

Civic engagement in Ireland and the United States is influenced by multiple factors, including family environments, education systems, economic conditions, social influences, youth programs, and global interactions. While both countries highlight the importance of civic engagement, their approaches differ because of different cultural, historical, and structural environments. Ireland’s emphasis on community values and providing a social welfare system promotes collective civic engagement through family influences and youth programs. However, in the United States places prioritize autonomy with socioeconomic divides and education access shaping civic engagement levels.

Global interactions connect both nations’ civic landscapes to larger international movements, highlighting global issues like climate change, economic inequality, and social justice. Connections through digital media have promoted transnational movements and expanded the scope of civic engagement. This allows youth in both countries to engage in local activism for global issues.

Through comparative analysis, this research highlights the importance of promoting inclusive programs and addressing structural inequalities to increase civic engagement in both countries. An understanding of these relationships can inform policies and programs aimed at civically empowering youth and growing active citizens in Ireland and the United States.

References

Arnett, J. J. (1995). Broad and Narrow Socialization: The Family in the Context of a Cultural Theory. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57(3), 617–628.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction. In Power and Ideology in Education (pp. 487–511). Oxford University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Harvard University Press.

Chetty, R., Hendren, N., Kline, P., & Saez, E. (2014). Where is the Land of Opportunity? The Geography of Intergenerational Mobility in the United States. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(4), 1553–1623.

Coleman, J. S. (1966). Equality of Educational Opportunity (Coleman) Report. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

European Anti-Poverty Network (2020). Welfare Supports in Ireland. Retrieved from https://www.eapn.ie/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/EAPN-Ireland-Annual-Report-2 020.pdf.

Fahey, T., Russell, H., & Whelan, C. T. (2007). Best of Times? The Social Impact of the Celtic Tiger. Institute of Public Administration.

Fanning, B. (2018). Migration and the Making of Ireland. University College Dublin Press. Lerner, R. M. (2005). Positive Youth Development: A View of the Issues. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(1), 10–16.

Livingstone, S. (2009). Children and the Internet: Great Expectations and Challenges. Polity Press.

McGinnity, F. (2015). Family Dynamics and Child Outcomes in Ireland: A Longitudinal Study.

The Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).

Steinberg, L., & Morris, A. S. (2001). Adolescent Development. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 83–110.

Tidy Towns Initiative (2024). Department of Rural and Community Development. Retrieved from https://www.tidytowns.ie/.

Triandis, H. C. (2001). Individualism-Collectivism and Personality. Journal of Personality, 69(6), 907–924.

Youth Programs in Ireland and the United States. National Youth Council of Ireland (NYCI).

Retrieved from

https://www.youth.ie/programmes/global-youth-work-and-development-education/young-peoples-committee