A review of occupational regulation and its impact
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Evidence Report develops a deeper understanding of the nature and impact of occupational regulation in the UK. The term, occupational regulation, is a broad heading for various mechanisms (including licence to practice and voluntary forms) through which minimum skill standards are applied within occupations. As such, occupational regulation is one of a range of levers, or best market solutions, which are designed to encourage employers to train on a collective basis. The use of occupational regulation as a mechanism for increasing the demand for, and supply of, skills was considered alongside other measures, as part of the UK Commission for Employment and Skills’ Review of Employer Collective Measures. However, that Review acknowledged the general topic of occupational regulation was under researched in the UK. This research, conducted by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, helps to address this and deepens our knowledge of the area by: providing a discussion on the existing theory on occupational regulation by examining existing economic literature; providing a detailed review of the existing evidence on occupational regulation in the UK, America, Canada and Europe (Germany, France and Italy), again via existing literature; providing a comprehensive map of occupational regulation in the UK, through the mapping of managerial, professional and non-professional occupations at the Unit Group level of the Standard Occupational Classification (2000); producing estimates of the labour market impact of occupational regulation in the UK. Its prevalence is estimated by comparing the mapping output with Unit Group data obtained from the Quarterly Labour Force Survey (QLFS). Further analysis, via cross-sectional analysis, produces estimates on levels of qualifications, wages and rates of job-related training between workers in regulated and unregulated occupations. This uses QLFS 2010 data. And a Difference-in-Differences analysis is employed to evaluate the impact of switches in regulation status on skill levels, job-related education and training, wages and employment. This uses QLFS data between 2001 and 2010.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".