Drawing on theories developed within life-span developmental psychology and life-course sociology, an integrative social-ecological developmental model of agency is formulated, enabling the examination of the interplay of structure and agency in the school-to-work transition over time and in specific societal contexts. Life-span developmental psychology has long viewed the individual as an active co-producer of development (e.g., Lerner and Busch-Rossnagel 1981). In the past two decades, action-theoretical and motivational-psychology models have been used to advance the conceptualization of developmental agency (Brandtstädter and Lerner 1999; Freund and Baltes 2000; Heckhausen 1999, 2018). In general terms, there is convergence with life-course sociological constructs of agency (Dannefer and Huang 2017; Elder 1994; Elder et al. 2015) which view agency as an individual-level construct fundamental for social action and choice. However, agency as a non-structural construct has remained an underspecified, “slippery” theoretical concept within sociological research (Fuchs 2001; Hitlin and Elder 2007; Loyal and Barnes 2001). Recently, life-course researchers have included key dimensions of agency based in developmental, motivational and social psychological constructs into their longitudinal research on the transition into adulthood (Hitlin and Johnson 2015; Schoon and Lyons-Amos 2016, 2017; Vuolo et al. 2012; see also review in; Settersten and Gannon 2005). These approaches draw on multi-dimensional conceptualizations of agency, as specified within socio-cognitive theories of agency (Bandura 2001, 2006), expectancy-value theory (EVT) (Eccles and Wigfield 2002), the motivational theory of lifespan development (MTD, Heckhausen et al. 2010, 2019) and ecological theories of human development (Bronfenbrenner 1989). These approaches focus on the dynamic interrelations between a changing individual and changing social structures.

The proposed socio-ecological model specifies the multiple influences shaping the development of agency in the transition from school-to-work, ranging from factors in the directly experienced family context (proximal influences), as well as wider societal influences, such as institutional regulations and aspects of socio-historical change. Agency itself is conceptualized as a multi-dimensional construct, comprising aspects of expectancy, control perceptions, goal selection and goal setting, intention, volition and goal engagement, control striving, action regulation, disengagement, and goal adjustment that develop during adolescence and young adulthood. It is argued that individual agency cannot be reduced to decontextualized universal principles of psychological functioning, nor to a mere expression of structural constraints or regularities produced by societal institutions or social structures. Agency is understood as a relational construct that emerges through interaction with a wider socio-cultural context. In addition to individual attributes, the characteristics of the wider social context have to be considered—as well as the ways in which individuals interact with this context.

The socio-ecological approach for conceptualizing agency in the school-to-work transitions is outlined in four steps. First, a multi-dimensional conceptualization of the notion of agency as intentional action and action regulation is provided. Second, the societal conditions that shape the opportunities for individual agency during the school-to-work transition are described. These are considered as the context of human action, having their effect on the individual through the societal channeling of individual action along distinct pathways. Third, the question if and under which conditions individual agency can overcome societal constraints is asked, identifying key processes that link structure and agency. In particular, a differentiation is made between independent, cumulative, and compensatory processes. Fourth, the circumstances under which agency can be most effective are discussed.

At the most general level, individual agency is understood as intentional action, i.e. the capability to set goals (i.e. intention), plan their pursuit and attainment in the future (i.e. action planning; foresight), and allow behavior to be guided by goal pursuit (i.e. action-regulation). Moreover, asking what motivates individuals, psychological theories of individual agency have built on the classical expectancy-value theories (Lewin et al. 1944; Tolman 1932) as applied to achievement motivated behavior (Eccles and Wigfield 2002; Heckhausen and Heckhausen 2018). Expectancy-value models propose that goal choices and their pursuit are determined by expectancies about the likelihood of attaining the goal and values associated with attaining the goal. The former comprise beliefs about one’s own capability, i.e. expectations for success or self-efficacy—the extent to which individuals believe that they can be successful at attaining the specific goal being considered. The latter refer to values associated with attaining the goal, which include values intrinsic to the activity and goal as well as values associated with the consequences of attaining the goal (e.g., social approval, material reward), and the costs one incurs while pursuing it. Values of particular goals such as attaining a university degree or getting into a career, depend on how members of the social community the individual holds in high regard (e.g., parents or the peer group a youth identifies with) view the goal (Eccles and Wigfield 2002).

To comprehensively understand the role of individual agency in the school-to-work transition, it is thus important to consider the multiple components underlying the capability to intentionally select goals. These components include expectancies, values, underlying motive strengths for achievement, power and affiliation. In addition, it is necessary to consider the dynamics of goal pursuit, i.e. the tendency to persist in the face of adversity, the capacity to disengage from futile goals, or to re-engage when the conditions are favorable. Our approach uses the conceptual framework of the Motivational Theory of Lifespan Development (MTD) (for a comprehensive review see Heckhausen and Buchmann 2018; Heckhausen et al. 2010, 2019) which conceptualizes developmental agency in the action field of societal socio-structural and age-graded constraints and comprises an expectancy-value model of goal selection as well as an action-phase model of motivational and volitional self-regulation during goal(re)selection, goal engagement, goal disengagement and re-engagement.

The action-phase model of developmental regulation specifies a set of motivational and volitional phases individuals get involved in as they progress through a developmental action cycle. When first approaching a critical time period for decision making (e.g., during the final year before graduating from school), youth consider alternative possible paths and goals to pursue. During this phase of optimization, individuals are well advised to consider the actual opportunities and constraints as well as the consequences of choosing one or another path. After an individual has made a choice and thus passed the decisional Rubicon, it is most adaptive to stop pondering pros and cons of alternatives, but instead invest full throttle into the chosen path. This is particularly true under difficult conditions, for example when job or training opportunities are scarce. Under such conditions of threatened yet urgent goal pursuit, individuals may need to use extra meta-volitional strategies to keep themselves committed and focused. In addition, it may be advantageous to think out-of-the-box and come up with compensatory means of getting extra help from others or using detours or unusual means. We will come back to this later.

If these enhanced means of goal engagement fail, individuals may need to adjust their goals (e.g., look for a different or less prestigious apprenticeship, enroll for a different program of studies, or hope to get accepted at a later time point)—or even give up certain goals altogether (e.g., if certain options hold no prospects). Indeed, under circumstances of high opportunity costs, that is when alternative goal engagements are time sensitive, decisive goal disengagement is essential to cut one’s losses with the futile goal pursuit and move on to a more realistic goal before it is too late (Tomasik and Salmela-Aro 2012). Thus goal engagement and disengagement has to be synchronized with available opportunity structures.

Societies vary regarding the opportunity structures and support they provide to young people engaging in the school-to-work transition, variations which have been conceptualized by the term societal channeling or canalization (Heckhausen and Buchmann 2018). The wider socio-historical context, institutional arrangements and social inequality at the family level all play a role in shaping the contours of the life course, setting up the potential pathways for individuals to aspire to and to follow, specifying relevant requirements for achievement and defining key deadlines to do so (Buchmann and Steinhoff 2017; Heckhausen et al. 2010, 2019; Schoon and Bynner 2017; Wrosch and Heckhausen 1999). Transition experiences are largely shaped by opportunities and constraints presented by the socio-historical context and economic conditions, and within this context are dependent on individual decision making and agency.

The wider socio-historical context refers to the overall economic circumstances (e.g., boom or bust), the cultural climate or current “Zeitgeist” (i.e. ideas and beliefs relevant at the time), or political settings (e.g., collective versus individualistic orientations, periods of stability versus rapid social change) that shape available transition pathways. Generally, over the past four decades most Western countries have witnessed dramatic changes in employment opportunities following the introduction of new technologies, the disappearance of manual jobs, the increasing participation of women in the labor market (Blossfeld et al. 2005), the gradual shift towards automatization and increasing precariousness of transitions (Ashton 2017; Bell and Blanchflower 2011; Schoon and Bynner 2019). As a consequence of massive restructuring and changes in the labour market since the 1980s, there has been increasing fragmentation, uncertainty and unpredictability regarding employment careers, and that in turn required increased individual agency in proactively shaping one’s career (Heckhausen 2010; Schoon 2007).

Most developed countries have responded to the economic changes by placing greater emphasis on participation in education and training, to equip young people with the necessary skills for making the transition into the world of work. Increasing numbers of young people participated in higher education, including those from relatively disadvantaged social backgrounds (Blossfeld et al. 2005; Schoon and Bynner 2017). The observation of extended education participation, often until the mid or late 20 s, stimulated the introduction of the term “emerging adulthood” (Arnett 2000) as a synonym for a new, universal developmental period, characterized by identity exploration and delay of responsibility. However, the assumption of emerging adulthood solely based on intentional choice, does not take into account the role of socio-historical and economic conditions that produce the setting for extended transitions.

For example, in most developed countries, the number and proportion of full-time employees with contracts of indeterminate duration has decreased constantly since the mid 1980s, unemployment rates and the proportion of insecure jobs including “zero hours contracts” and precarious employment is growing even among graduates (Standing 2011; Schoon and Bynner 2019). The 2008 Great Recession added another blow. Young people have been hit particularly hard by this downturn, as unemployment and flexible employment among the young (under 25 years) is generally higher than average (Bell and Blanchflower 2011; Blossfeld et al. 2005). These developments prolonged the step into financial independence and brought with them a prolonged dependence on parents for financial, social and emotional support (Schoon and Bynner 2017). There were, however, country-specific variations in the extent to which young people were affected by the economic downturn, associated with different “transition regimes” or “institutional filters”, such as regulations regarding opportunities for employment, education and training (Schoon and Bynner 2019).

Different societies provide different sets of possible pathways for the school-to-work transition, along with their institutional support systems. These pathways generate the main “action field” for young people to find their way in. Given pathways are partially age-graded, e.g., regarding variations in legal age of entering and leaving full-time education and paid employment, and are regulated by social institutions based on cultural beliefs and social norms about age-appropriate behavior, timing, and sequencing of social roles or status (Blossfeld et al. 2005; Buchmann and Kriesi 2011; Heckhausen and Buchmann 2018). Institutional regulations regarding the school-to-work transition are also referred to as “transition regimes” (Raffe 2008; Walther 2006; Schoon and Bynner 2019), or “institutional filters” (Blossfeld et al. 2005), reflecting the relative enduring features of a country’s institutional and policy arrangements, including the structure of education and training systems, features of employment regulation, social welfare systems and the assumptions underlying youth policy regulating transition patterns. For example, building on Esping-Andersen’s (1990) model of welfare regimes Walther (2006) differentiates between sub-protective, universalistic, liberal, and employment centered transition regimes. This differentiation has been highly influential in European comparative youth research, yet more recent approaches have advanced a “welfare mix” approach, to clarify the different contributions made by the state, the family and the labor market in supporting young people’s school-to-work transitions (Antonucci et al. 2014).

The sub-protective transition regime applies primarily to southern European countries, such as Spain, Portugal, Italy, or Greece. These countries are characterized by a high share of informal or insecure employment conditions and the lack of a comprehensive social safety net. Education is mostly comprehensive, although with relatively high rates of early school leaving (i.e. below upper secondary qualifications) (Eurostat 2017). Vocational training is not well developed, nor highly valued, mainly provided by professional schools and the involvement of companies is low. Due to the economic weakness of many regions, there are high rates of youth unemployment (Schoon and Bynner 2019), prolonged periods of job search and a long waiting phase during which young people depend primarily on their families for support.

Universalistic transition regimes, prevalent in Scandinavian countries such as Sweden, Norway or Finland are characterized by a comprehensive and inclusive education system with diversified post-compulsory routes into general and vocational education and high levels of investment in tertiary education. Many students combine work and study, smoothing the transition to employment (Eurofound 2013). The employment system is typified by an extended public sector and a strong emphasis on equal opportunities. Collective agreements constitute important driving forces for labor market regulations, wage setting and social assistance programs. Counselling is widely institutionalized at all stages of education, training, and the transition to employment, aiming to identify individual motivation and support personal development. Young people have the right to social assistance from 18 years onward, regardless of the socio-economic status of their families. If they are participating in either formal education or training they receive an educational allowance.

The liberal transition regime, predominant in Anglophone countries, such as the UK and the USA, is characterized by a comprehensive education system, as well as high flexibility and fragmentation in post-compulsory education. It values individual rights and responsibilities more than collective provisions. The labor market is largely deregulated with a large segment of low-skilled and non-standard jobs, and checkered attempts to establish a vocational training system. Vocational training is mostly focused on delivering particular occupational skills, albeit with relative low quality standards. The poor quality of much of the work-based training available to teenagers, and low credibility of the certification arising from it, has yet to convince employers and families that apprenticeship is a high value alternative to staying on in academic education. For example, youth in the US face a system that provides no structured path into skilled employment without college, strongly favoring college education as a prerequisite for any worthwhile occupational career (Heckhausen and Shane 2015). Attempts to introduce what are described as non- or applied baccalaureate level programs (i.e. non-college bound youth) have so far not succeeded in creating opportunities for a smooth school-to-work transition (Dougherty and Lombardi 2016).

Employment-centered transition regimes are typical for Germany (and most German speaking countries including Austria and Switzerland). Education is organized more selectively, allocating young people to occupational careers and associated social position at an early age. For example, in Germany young people are channeled into different tracks leading to low-skilled occupations, skilled vocational careers requiring apprenticeships, and professional careers requiring university degrees. By the age of 10 most pupils in Germany are selected into one of these three tracks. It is possible to switch tracks, yet that is not a very easy route to take (Hillmert and Jacob 2010). Vocational training plays a central role and is relatively standardized. It is mostly company based, involving a “social partnership” comprising local government, vocation-oriented schools (i.e., Berufsschule), employers’ organizations, and trade unions in maintaining and reforming the apprenticeship pathways, with a direct link to the employment system.

Where did young people fare best in the aftermath of the 2008 recession? A central purpose in the specification of “transition regimes” is to identify features of “successful” transition systems, which enable a smooth integration into the labor market (Raffe 2008). Generally, the labor-market integration of new entrants tends to be faster in countries characterized by strong institutional linkages between education and the labor market, and strong institutional networks which can support transitions from education to work. And indeed, employment focused countries, such as Austria, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland have been most successful in keeping young people engaged in the labor market with youth unemployment rates mostly stayed around 10% (Schoon and Bynner 2019; OECD 2019). This was mostly due to the efficient use of vocational training programs and well-organized pathways that connect initial education with work and further study, but also due to a strong economy and robust employment protection regulations. Youth coming of age in countries with a sub-protective transition regime (e.g., Spain, Greece and Portugal) have been hit hardest by the 2008 recession, suffering the highest levels of youth unemployment (between 30 and 55%), and high levels of temporary employment. Employment opportunities for young people in countries with a liberal or a universalistic transition regime were less severely affected, yet unemployment rates reached over 30% in Ireland, and around 20% in the UK and the US. Finland and Sweden, representatives of a universalistic transition regime, also suffered high youth unemployment rates (over 20%). At times when there is exceptional economic strain, the institutions concerned with managing the education and training system of any country become the key agents of social policy concerned with ensuring that young people have opportunities to participate and engage in society. In particular, clear pathways between the education system and the labor market play an important role in buffering the negative effect of the recession on employment prospects, and outline a transparent path of choices and required behaviors for young people to follow (Schoon and Bynner 2017, 2019).

In addition to institutional arrangements offering distinct transition pathways, the social structure of a given society regulates access to these pathways through the influence of social status on material, cultural and social resources, and the “horizon of perceived possibilities” (i.e. the perception about what career options are available and appropriate to strive for). Even though most modern societies uphold an ideal of equal life chances for everyone, each of them provides SES-differential landscapes for pursuing major developmental goals regarding education and career development (Heckhausen and Buchmann 2018). Indeed, a range of indicators of family SES, including parental education, occupational status and income are associated with young people’s education and employment aspirations and subsequent experiences in the education system and labor market. Parents in a higher social position generally have more access to financial resources which enable them to inspire and support the aspirations of their offspring by purchasing study materials or tutoring or even simply providing them with a room or desk to study, financing their extended education participation and associated tuition and living costs, or supporting them through unpaid internships or volunteering to acquire relevant skills and competencies. Moreover, high-SES parents might have the relevant cultural knowledge of how different institutions work, facilitating negotiations with gate keepers and handling institutional requirements, and they have connections to social networks facilitating access to important information and contacts. Thus, young people from the most privileged backgrounds tend to have higher level resources and ambitions than their less privileged peers (Eccles 2008; Schoon 2010, 2014).

There have, however, been significant changes regarding the association between parental socio-economic background and young people’s ambitions in the aftermath of the massive education expansion and changing employment opportunities described above. In the course of this social change, individuals independent of their social background were encouraged to raise their achievement orientation and ambitions for upward social mobility. Increasingly young people from disadvantaged background aspire to go to university and to enter a professional career, thus climbing the social ladder (Reynolds and Johnson 2011; Schoon 2010, 2012; Shane and Heckhausen 2013), in particular young women and those from ethnic minority background (Schoon and Lyons-Amos 2017). Indeed, a new norm of “college for all” (Rosenbaum 2001) has been emerging, encouraging high education expectations regardless of academic aptitude or social background. Currently, most young people in the Global North are striving to obtain a college degree qualification, and the association between parental socio-economic status and achievement orientations has weakened (Johnson and Reynolds 2013; Reynolds and Johnson 2011; Schoon 2010,