Editorial: training and the limits of supply‐side skill development

The acquisition, development and use of vocational skills have assumed a growing importance as part of the employment relationship. Employers, especially those engaged in high value-added production, are concerned about the supply of appropriately skilled employees and employees themselves are concerned about their levels of skill development as they seek employment in increasingly deregulated labour markets. Skills at and for work have assumed a greater importance for employers and employees, but the way in which these skills are developed is shaped by social institutions and social actors in the vocational education and training (VET) system and the industrial relations (IR) system. The development of vocational skills in educational institutions cannot be examined in isolation from the way in which skill utilisation and reward are shaped by the institutions that regulate the employment relationship. These simple considerations mean that access to training has important effects on employment outcomes, that the exercise of employee voice in relation to training is an important issue for the IR system and that the engagement of employers and employee representatives in the provision of training is an important issue for the VET system. The articles in this special issue all consider recent developments in VET and present fresh insights into these relatively under-examined concerns. It has long been argued that systems of training and skills make a significant contribution to the competitive position of nations, firms and industries. This concern with skills has intensified in recent years as policy makers have sought to respond to the increased challenges of globalisation, technological change and the rise of the so-called knowledge economy. In the context of EU policy formulation, for example, this is evident in the Lisbon agenda to make Europe the most competitive, knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010. The achievement of this goal has been linked to a drive to improve, through skills upgrading, the employability and mobility of labour (Stuart, 2007). In the specific case of the UK, the mantra has been to improve skills supply as a means to address long-standing deficits in comparative performance and significant gaps at the level of basic skills. Yet, the path of policy delivery never runs smooth. Simplistic assumptions that an increased supply of skills translate into a derived demand for skilled workers have been found wanting; along with the crude causality that a revolution in skill development translates seamlessly into productivity transformations (Keep et al., 2006). The articles that follow all, in some way, unpack the weaknesses inherent in a supply-side strategy for vocational training and skill development. First, they consider important questions of equality of access to training, notably in terms of basic skills and contingent labour, whether this is changing and the impact of training in terms of employment and earnings for the traditionally disadvantaged. Second, they shed new light on trade union and employer engagement around training matters through studies of the UK trade union learning representative (ULR) initiative and Group Training Organisations (GTOs) in the UK and Australia. Finally, developments in training policy and practice are explored through a comparative lens, in terms of the changing relationship between VET and general education in Canada, Denmark, Germany, the USA and South Korea. In comparative analysis, the UK case is typically presented as a liberal model, in contrast with the more coordinated systems of northern Europe. In such liberal regimes, training investment decisions are essentially left to the vicissitudes of the market and the economy is more exposed to the market failures that characterise training investments (Keep and Mayhew, 1999). Coordinated economies have, historically, mitigated market failures through complex institutional constraints on employer investment decisions and a range of social protections (Estevez-Abe et al., 2001). Vocational training tends therefore to be more widespread in coordinated systems, compared to the priority accorded general education in liberal economies. Yet, the forces of economic change and international competition are posing new challenges for the types of vocational training and skills needed in the future. Bosch and Charest (this issue) suggest this has promoted a renewed interest in vocational training in liberal economies and a modernisation of vocational training through the supply of more general education in coordinated economies. This raises a question over the potential convergence of systems, although differences remain deep. In practical terms, it is evident that individuals in all systems have been called upon to manage their own skill development, with associated supply-side support to facilitate this. But this raises key questions around the extent to which an increased skills supply is matched by a commensurate demand for such skills, and how the balance between the supply and demand for skills is coordinated within the changing dynamics of national training systems. The challenges posed are pertinent to all systems as the pace of institutional reform in VET systems and IR systems accelerates. The 1998 Moser report suggested that around one in five UK adults, around 7 million in total, have difficulties with basic literacy and numeracy. In response, the UK Labour government identified the need to raise the percentage of the population educated and trained to a Level 2 stage qualification [broadly equivalent to (five) qualifications attained at age 16] as central to its strategy for skills development. A variety of initiatives and entitlements have been introduced to support this strategy, most notably the Skills for Life programme. As Meadows and Metcalf explain, ‘Skills for Life aimed to improve the provision of basic skills training and to increase participation in that training. A wide range of literacy and numeracy courses were provided free of charge to those without Level 2 literacy or numeracy qualifications’. The recent Leitch Review and the subsequent government response suggested that around 1.7 million adults have gained such qualifications through the Skills for Life programme, with a million acquiring a Level 2 qualification. Despite this, Leitch concluded that the UK skills profile still has a long way to go before the economy can be considered in the world's premier league for skills (Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, 2007). In more prosaic terms, there has been little evaluation of the actual benefits for those that gain a qualification through Skills for Life. Meadows and Metcalf use a sophisticated method to examine this, based on a longitudinal evaluation that compares the outcomes of two surveys of Skills for Life participants, with a sample of non-participants. Skills for Life participants tend, by definition, to be low qualified and also disadvantaged in the labour market in a number of other ways. Thus, in addition to low levels of qualification, the sample investigated by Meadows and Metcalf were over-represented with ethnic minorities, women and those reporting an illness or disability. Skills for Life participants (learners) were compared to a sample with a similar profile that did not follow any relevant courses (non-learners), to evaluate ‘the change in a range of employment and employability measures for those undertaking basic skills training’. When asked to simply self-report experiences, learners reported higher levels of improvement in literacy and numeracy over the previous year, and around a quarter reported that their employment prospects had improved. Deeper analysis suggested, however, that improvements in employment status were not significant. The authors found that while the employability of learners had improved, in terms of increased self-esteem, reduced levels of long-term illness and increased commitment to employment, there were no improvements in employment or earnings one year after participating in Skills for Life courses. Meadows and Metcalf conclude on a cautionary note, suggesting that the value of such courses should not be written off, as any impacts may take time to occur. Yet, set against the findings of the recent Skills Survey that show rising levels of overqualification in certain job grades in the UK (Felstead et al., 2007), such findings are of concern. They suggest a need to look closely not just at the experiences of those undertaking learning, but also the context of training and employment within the workplace and the factors that influence employers in relation to training provision and the recruitment and selection of new employees. It is well known that there is inequality of access with regard to employer-provided training (Hoque, 2008). The article by Forde, MacKenzie and Robinson examines the training disadvantages experienced by contingent workers in the UK construction industry. The construction industry is noted not only for its use of contingent labour, but also for a degree of sectoral coordination around training via the Construction Industry Training Board that should encourage greater equality of access to training. The article by Forde, MacKenzie and Robinson compares the provision of training for contingent labour with directly employed labour, and also, in a novel approach, seeks to unpack the experiences of different forms of contingent labour (agency, self-employed and subcontract). Forde, MacKenzie and Robinson seek to identify the structural and organisational factors that ‘shape the provision of training to different contingent labour forms’. They find, unsurprisingly, that those employed on direct contracts are more likely to receive training (particularly off-the-job provision) than those on contingent contracts. Yet, of greater interest, the training of contingent workers varied by form and was found to be associated with potentially different operational imperatives. In general, the study found that the training of contingent labour did not seem to be associated with a strategic view of skills development among employers. However, there was an association with training for contingent workers and the approach of the firm to training direct labour. ‘Firms that provide training to agency and self-employed labour are those that tend to favour lower cost, non-certified approaches to the training of direct staff’. Thus, ‘the training of contingent labour seems to offer a short-term response to operational need’. In contrast, the longer-term relationships that firms sought to advance with subcontractors were more conducive to higher levels of investments in training for this type of contingent labour. Trade unions have an important role to play in the design of national training systems and in influencing workplace investment decisions (Stuart and Cooney, 2004). Their role tends to be more embedded in highly coordinated and corporatist systems, such as Germany, than in liberal training systems. In the UK, trade union involvement was marginalised during the 1980s and for much of the 1990s as successive Conservative governments sought to entrench the power of employers in the training system. While Labour governments since 1997 have not sought to radically depart from this position, they have, nonetheless, accepted that the union movement has a role to play in raising the demand for learning among individuals (Rainbird, 2005; Stuart, forthcoming). This objective has been supported through two high-profile initiatives. First, a Trade Union Learning Fund (ULF) has been established to support, through pump priming, trade union projects that facilitate learning opportunities and individual demand for learning. As Hollinrake, Antcliff and Saundry note, now its 11th year, the ULF has so far provided over £90 million ‘in support of union-led projects many of which have provided innovative ways of accessing learning for hard-to-reach groups’. Initially administered via central government, the ULF has been overseen by the Trade Union Congress learning academy, Unionlearn, since 2007. Second, a new brand of union representative, the trade Union Learning Representative (ULR), has, since 2002, received statutory support to engage in a range of activities that further demand for learning at the workplace (see Wallis et al., 2005, for a detailed overview). The TUC target is for a network of 22,000 ULRs by 2010 that will assist 250,000 people a year into learning. Around 18,000 ULRs were in place by March 2007 (Stuart, forthcoming). But what is the impact of ULRs on employee voice in regard to training? How have they contributed to the distribution of learning opportunities in UK workplaces and what effect have they had on union activity at the workplace level? The article by Hollinrake and her colleagues presents the findings of the largest study of ULRs conducted to date. Drawing on a mix of survey and interview evidence, they explore the nature of ULR activity and the factors that shape such activity. Their study offers some encouragement for the efficacy of this new union role, but this is underscored by the evident challenges that ULRs face. The ULR role appears to be encouraging ‘new blood’ into union activism—with just under 4 in 10 ULRs having never previously held a representative position in a union—and includes activists from under-represented groups such as ethnic minorities. Problematically, it takes time for ULR activity to get started in the workplace and inactivity is high—around a third of ULRs—even after three years in the role. The main factors associated with high levels of ULR activity appear to be strong workplace support systems, including learning agreements, working groups and paid time off. Often these support systems are built by ULRs themselves and, as a number of commentators argue, are important mechanisms for sustaining union-led learning activity and delivering positive learning outcomes (Munro and Rainbird, 2004; Wallis and Stuart, 2007). Yet Hollinrake et al. suggest they will not be enough in themselves, since ultimately ULR activity is shaped by the attitudes and practices of employers, and these are shaped by specific production imperatives. In common with other commentators in this area, Hollinrake et al. conclude that statutory supports for ULRs are not enough for this new union role to effect significant change. In the absence of corresponding obligations on employers (e.g. to consult and bargain with ULRs), the effectiveness of ULRs is likely to be limited. While few would contest this line of reasoning (and certainly not unions themselves), this should not be used to deride the valuable role that ULRs have played within such a relatively short period of time (see McIlroy, 2008). It may be too much, given the current weaknesses of the UK labour movement in general, to position ULRs in the vanguard of union renewal. More pertinently, there is strong evidence that they are playing an important role in raising demand for, and involvement in, learning and training opportunities for those most in need and those most likely to be disadvantaged. Certainly, much ULR activity has focused on those with lower-level skills and basic skills needs, an area which, as noted above, is a key priority within the UK economy. Getting employers to buy in and support this activity, however, remains an ongoing challenge. It is the role of employers that informs the contribution by Cooney and Gospel. Their study looks at the under-researched activity of ‘group training’ as a form of employer collective action in the UK and Australia. This study is of particular interest because while employer cooperation is regarded as pervasive in systems such as the German VET system, it is less well-understood in more liberal systems. Yet, the authors assert that examples of group training are more prevalent in market-based, voluntarist systems like the UK and Australia than previously thought. Thus, in the UK case, around 10,500 firms are involved in such arrangements covering around 20,000 trainees, while in Australia, some 26,500 firms are included covering 36,000 trainees. Consistent with the employer voluntarism of more liberal market VET systems, however, this form of employer action is heavily dependent upon state support. Group training has received particular support from the Australian state in recent years to stimulate its growth, although in both countries, group training is heavily reliant on state funding. Group providers are defined ‘as is upon that may or in a or They offer a way, through the of training and the inherent in on a to address the market failures that the production of skills. Thus, they heavily on skills and training in particular and are most highly in training. In the UK case, is high in the while in Australia it is more prevalent in the construction are some differences between group training in the two In the UK, group training is far more likely to actual training Training is and via the with the between the that trainees. In Australia, are far more likely to be employed by the and are a higher level of support during work and the to and gain a greater of In both it is argued that the of training, the experiences of and of qualifications are higher than of Group training, it is is also more directly to employer need and this too may be a in the of the training The weaknesses of group to their on state and with such the actual levels of and coordination remain with the group training more as of training than as of direct employer examples of more engaged and involved employer activity, need to take a comparative and training practice with that in more coordinated systems. The contribution by Bosch and Charest examines developments in general and vocational training and its to the labour and in five countries, Denmark, Germany, Canada, the USA and Korea. The main of their analysis is on the production of skills and the labour market of such skills in to skills in Bosch and Charest that some differences between national training systems are of relatively recent just after the both the USA and had systems, while the German system only from the Yet, the for change are of a because the vocational systems of and are with modernisation and for more general while the for more vocational training is on the agenda in like and the USA in response to in skills. while there was a strong on vocational training in during the period of this has more as the of has This comparative study how the modernisation of vocational training systems is shaped by the degree of involvement of the key social actors and the extent to which VET is linked to the labour A key given the increased of is the value to VET in the and its to trainees. to and vocational training in the and have as the of with the labour market are and social and in the system is In response, in and the VET has been into the system, while rising inequality has to in skills, the of vocational training. training is therefore as a lower for In unions and employers are also but the state has played a far more role, employer investment in VET through a system. with the labour market is and such training less as the social have no role in training reform within the reform of systems and This has to be the of the modernisation of VET systems in and systems significant but VET has been (and to some general education have been and remains because of the involvement of the social in that training are linked with new systems of work along with and with opportunities for The supply-side response of governments in more liberal market systems of VET is evident in all of the to this support for basic skills development to social through such as Skills for is but state support to encourage the engagement of unions and employers in VET systems is more to stimulate demand for training through support for union learning ULRs and are of the supply-side by government to address market in the development of skills. such supply derived demand on the part of employers however, to The that employers take a strategic view of skill development is in many and, while examples of practice in skill development can be found in more voluntarist VET systems, these are not by other employers. In the context of of workplace skill development through the VET and IR systems, raising demand in any remains The outcomes of such supply-side approaches have also been demand for basic skills training may be by government and union but there is little evidence that this is into employment and little improvement in their employment prospects from participation in training and while group training may stimulate some to take on more trainees, such arrangements a form of employer action and not stimulate greater employer involvement in the VET system. Despite the increased paid to VET in more liberal market systems, there seems to be evidence of outcomes from training for employees, little evidence of any derived demand by employers for training and little evidence of a of the engagement of social in institutions in the VET system. The comparative evidence that while coordinated economies seem to be with a similar set of they have a greater for in The central at play is however, VET reform in common of the liberal but how VET is within the complex of institutions that the labour

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.