The Neutrality Trap: Challenging the Status Quo in Institutional Youth Engagement

I've worked with various institutions and organisations promoting socio-economic opportunities for underserved groups. However, I’ve become increasingly concerned about how many international development organisations position themselves in youth engagement.

While these organisations are not neutral actors when working with young people, many adopt a stance that suggests otherwise. Through both implicit and explicit strategies, they foreground and background aspects of their role in ways that create a perception of neutrality. By presenting themselves as facilitators, they may inadvertently obscure their influence, reinforcing power dynamics and limiting genuine opportunities for youth to shape their identities and futures.

Common academic and policy recommendations for youth engagement stress the importance of amplifying youth voice, avoiding harmful stereotypes, and recognising the role of organisations in providing resources and support. These principles are valuable and aim to protect and promote vulnerable or marginalised groups; however, the choices institutions make regarding what and how to implement these principles can be shaped by broader institutional and sectoral agendas. For instance, sector-wide priorities to enhance the 'do no harm' ethos and equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) agendas, along with the need to respond to recent abuse scandals, can create conditions for reform that lead some organisations to adopt more disengaged approaches as a form of protection—both for the youth they serve and for themselves.

As a result, organisations may assume they should prioritise youth participation while minimising their own influence on outcomes. Though well-intentioned, this approach often foregrounds visible forms of youth engagement while obscuring the organisation's deeper impact on the broader conditions of that engagement. In their desire to avoid harm, organisations risk distancing themselves from the more active and impactful roles they could play.

This dynamic is evident in the rise of institutional frameworks designed to support youth engagement. While these frameworks promote inclusion and ethical practices, they often overlook how institutional behaviours shape the entire engagement process. Consequently, organisations may adopt a 'neutral' stance, focusing on listening to youth and enhancing participation without fully acknowledging their influence on the broader system. While this approach may reduce harm, it can inadvertently constrain youth agency by downplaying the organisation’s role in shaping the conditions for engagement.

This practice is part of a broader phenomenon known as institutional isomorphism, which describes how institutions, over time, come to resemble one another due to shared external pressures. This can arise from regulatory demands, imitation of successful models, or professional norms. A specific aspect of institutional isomorphism is protective decoupling. This occurs when organisations adopt certain policies primarily in response to external pressures, aiming to both safeguard their reputation as well as avoid potential or further risks to those they serve, such as young people, but at the expense of perhaps implementing different alternative forms of meaningful change. In youth engagement, this can manifest as organisations appearing to empower youth while actually disengaging from deeper, transformative change within wider roles and functions.

Institutions do more than provide resources or guidance. They influence roles, norms, and identities—they are active partners in the constructing of what it means for a young person to be a "youth" within the contexts they work in. Akerlof and Kranton's research into Identity Economics shows this in how institutions play an active role in shaping identities through the roles they offer and the ways they engage with individuals.

Thus, international development organisations are not neutral actors. They inevitably influence the construction of youth identities by informing how young people should perceive themselves and their roles within broader social structures. This process goes far beyond simply avoiding harm or promoting participation.

Moving Beyond Neutrality to Empowerment

In conclusion, the current emphasis on neutrality in engaging with youth by institutions not only oversimplifies the complexities of youth identity formation but also risks perpetuating existing power dynamics. While prioritising increased youth voice and avoiding harmful stereotypes is crucial, it is ultimately insufficient.

I am not arguing that neutrality and empowerment are inherently opposed; rather, there can be degrees of neutrality that allow youth space to shape their own identities. However, the danger lies in how neutrality can manifest in the context of institutional engagement. In environments with entrenched power dynamics, neutrality—or disengagement from certain roles—can allow organisations to sidestep their responsibility in shaping youth identities, unintentionally reinforcing existing hierarchies.

The key argument here is that international development organisations must actively acknowledge their influence and shift from being passive facilitators to becoming open co-creators with youth. This shift is not only necessary but can also be a positive organisational stance that empowers young people to shape their own futures.

Organisations need to recognise their significant role in shaping how young people perceive themselves and their place within the community. To become genuine allies to youth, international development organisations must change their approach, seeing youth not merely as beneficiaries of support but as co-creators of their own narratives.

To truly empower young people, organisations must acknowledge their responsibility in constructing youth identities. This requires creating environments that promote positive, multifaceted identities rather than adhering to scripts of neutrality that dull their roles and responsibilities. By embracing this proactive role, organisations can become catalysts for meaningful and transformative change in the lives of young people. Ultimately, this shift can lead to more vibrant and resilient communities where youth are not only heard but are integral in shaping their own futures.