Transcript Lifelong Learning and the Knowledge Economy/Society in

Models of Lifelong Learning and the
Knowledge Economy/Society in
Europe
Andy Green
Institute of Education, University of London
Presentation at Comparative IP, Madrid
July 26th 2005
Regional Patterns in Europe
The European Union is a union of les regions as well les
pays
Social Scientists and historians have long been aware of Europe’s
distinctive regions and regional models in term of:
 Economies and labour markets (Braudel; Maurice and
Sellier; Leonardi)
 Geo-political Systems (Mackinder; Rokkan)
 Citizenship concepts (Brubaker; Kohn)
 Welfare Regimes (Esping-Andersen)
The Approach to Analysing regional
Models
This paper seeks to examine whether there are regional
models of LLL in Europe and how these relate to
models of the Knowledge Economy/Society.
We have insufficient units of comparison (in terms of
regions) to analyse this statistically, so the following
uses a logical qualitative approach to comparison using
statistical data descriptively ie ascertaining what the
different regions have in common and how far they
differ from other regions in terms of lifelong learning
systems and their outputs and outcomes.
The Parameters
 The paper limits itself to countries in western Europe
since the fluidity of systems in the East makes their
analysis difficult at this point.
 Regions are normally defined in geographical terms but
not exclusively since cultural and historical affinities
may over-ride geography (as with the English-speaking
countries)
 Countries outside of Europe are included where the
datasets include them and where they exhibit interesting
patterns
Models of High Skills
Traditional models of ‘high skills economies’ have usually been
binary:
• Sharehlder v. stakeholder capitalism (Hutton)
• Stockmarket v. welfare capitalism (Dore)
• High skills/low skills economies v. High Skills
Economies/Societies (Brown, Green and Lauder)
In most analyses the first types are exemplified by the USA, the
UK and some other English speaking countries – hence the
designation anglo-saxon model capitalism.
The second type are variously represented by Germany, Japan
and Sweden
Anglo Saxon Shareholder Model
High Skills Economies
Shareholder economies give primacy to market mechanisms and to the overriding
rights of investors. Innovation and competitiveness achieved through:
•
•
•
•
•
Flexible labour markets
Light regulation
High employment rates
Long working hours
Lower rates of social expenditure
The skills formation systems which serve them produce high skills elites – which serve
the high skills sectors – but are typically highly polarised, producing long tail of low
skilled who serve the cost-based competition strategies of the low skills sectors.
The system is said to promote rapid economic growth but may come at the price of
poorer public services, product and service standards, greater income inequality and
lower levels of social cohesion.
Stakeholder Economies (social
Market Model)
Stakeholder economies, which balance the rights of investors with the rights
of other social interest groups and work through social partnership have:
•
•
•
•
Higher social expenditure
More labour Market and other regulation
Lower employment rates
Shorter working hours
Economic competitiveness is enhanced through high labour productivity but
low employment rates and shorter working hours constrain economic growth.
Labour market regulation enhances wage equality but increases inequality
between the employed and unemployed.
Skills formation systems produce high skilled elites but also wider
disperpersion of skills which serves the wide variety of high skills sectors
Trade Offs 1
Policy makers typically see the two models as being characterised by a series of trade
offs.
High GDP per capita and economic growth depend on high labour productivity
(output per hour), high employment rates and long working hours.
In the shareholder model:
•
High employment rates may be achieved by flexible labour markets but these may
reduce job protection, work quality and increase wage inequality.
•
Longer working hours may increase average incomes but lower leisure time and life
quality.
•
Low levels of regulation may increase opportunities for innovation and economic
dynamism but may also lower produce and service standards and pose a threat to the
environment.
•
Higher employment levels from flexible labour markets may increase social inclusion
through work but also increase wage inequality which undermines social cohesion,
Trade Off 2
•
•
•
•
In the social market model, more regulation and higher social
spending contribute to:
High labour productivity (through HC investment)
Higher wage equality
Better product, service and environmental standards
Higher life quality
But also:
• Slower job growth
• Higher umemployment (which lower pc GDP)
• Greater inequality better employed and unemployed
Tripodic Model
However recent research (de Mooig and Tang) suggests that this dualistic
conception of high skills economies/societies with inevitable trade offs
between employment levels and equality is over-simplified.
While some aspects of labour market regulation do reduce employment at the
same time as increasing wage equality (such as high union membership and
employment protection) other aspects (such as centralised concerted bargain
and active LM policy) infact increase employment and wage equality.
The Nordic countries typically fit this pattern. This suggest that we should we
thinking of not two but three models of the Knowledge Economy/Society in
Europe not two:
• Anglo-American Model (high employment low equality)
• Core Europe social market model (lower employment higher equality)
• Nordic social democratic model (higher employment lower inequality)
Country groupings
We can examine how different countries fit the
three models by looking at their relative
performance in terms of the three constitutents
of national income. Following de Mooig and
Tang we do this by showing National rates in
relation to the USA but using a larger range of
EU states.
GDP/ capita, GDP/ hour, hours worked and labour force participation for selected European
countries as a percentage difference with the United States for 2003
15.0
US-
-85.0
Countries
GDP per Capita
GDP per hour
Hours worked
Labour force participation
Poland
-60.0
Hungary
-35.0
Czech
Republic
U.K.
Turkey
Switzerland
Sweden
Spain
Portugal
Norway
Netherlands
Luxembourg
Italy
Ireland
Greece
Germany
France
Finland
Denmark
Belgium
-10.0
Austria
Percentage difference with the US
40.0
Interpreting the data
• Many European countries achieve higher rates of labour productivity than US
(inc: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg,
Netherlands and Norway)
• All countries (except Lux.) fall behind US in national income because of
either lower labour productivity or lower employment rates or shorter
working hours or a combination of these. Four groups emerge
• Countries which lower GDP mainly because of low labour productivity
(Greece, Portugal, Spain, Czech R., Hungary, Turkey, Poland) - not taken to
be High Skills economies yet.
• Countries with high labour productivity but low employment rates (core
Europe: Austria, France, Germany Italy) or shorter working hours (Belgium
and Netherlands).
• Countries with high labour productivity and high employment rates but
shorter working hours, except Sweden - Nordics
Public Social Expenditure as % of GDP
35
Social Expenditure as % of GDP
30
25
Scandinavia
Southern Europe
Anglo-Saxon
Core Europe
EU-15
20
15
10
5
0
1980
1985
1990
1995
Year
2000
2001
Anglo-Saxon
Income Inequality
Southern Europe
Core Europe
Region/Country
Scandinavia
US 2000
UK 1999
1
Switzerland 1992
Sweden 2000
Spain 1990
Portugal 1997
0
10
20
30
Gini
40
50
Norway 2000
Italy 2000
Greece 1998
Parameters of Comparisons
System Characteristics:
•
•
•
•
Visions of LLL and the Knowledge Economy
Institutional Structures
Curricula and Assessment
Modes of Regulation
Outcomes:
 Participation rates
 Levels of attainment
 Distribution of attainment
Types of Knowledge Economy
Modes of Regulation
State………………………………………………………… ……………………….Civil Society
State
Centralized
State-led SP
Formalised SP
Voluntary Partnership
LUXEMBOURG
GREECE
PORTUGAL
FRANCE
AUSTRIA
ITALY
Regionalized
SPAIN
Localised
GERMANY
BELGIUM
SWEDEN FINLAND
NORWAY DENMARK
Institutionalized
NETHERLANDS
UK
Market
Southern Europe: Institutional
Structures
• Comprehensive zoned lower secondary schools (except
Mata) with limited school choice
• Some tracking and grade repeating
• Dedicated upper secondary schools of different types
with monotechnic vocational high schools (come comp
in Greece and France)
• Residual apprenticeship system
• Limited work-based training
• Mixture of unitary and binary HE
Curricula and Assessment
• Encyclopeidic school knowledge tradition
• Compulsory core of general subjects through all
upper secondary
• Group awards with wide range of subjects
• Some with overarching qualification systems
giving entitlements to HE access to grads
• Universalistic
Modes of Regulation
School systems:
• Centralised with some regionalisation
• National curricula and school text book authorisation in Greece
• Limited school choice and diversity
• Limited financial delegation to schools (teachers as civil servants
• State allocation of teachers to schools
CVT:
• State guided social partnership
• Levies, employee training rights etc
German Region - Institutions
• Mostly state schools
• Selective lower secondary schools
• Dominant apprenticeship systems in upper
secondary
• Binary HE systems
• High levels of work-based training
Curricula and Assessment
• Particularistic knowledge traditions with more
specialisation
• Sharper distinction between vocational and
general knowledge
• Grouped awards through schools with common
core but quite specialised
• Particularistic non-integrated system of awards
Modes of Regulation
• Mostly regional control of schools but high levels of
regulation at regional level
• School diveristy by types but limited school choice
within types
• Limited financial delegation to schools with teachers as
civil servants. Text book authorization in some.
• Formalised social partner model of work-based training
with social partners involved in :
- standard setting; monitoring; assessment; sectoral
bargaining over pay and qualification rates for jobs.
Extensive license to practise provisions.
English- Speaking Countries:
Institutions
• Autonomous private schools
• Comprehensive lower sec schools (except in N.I)
but with creeping selection and high levels of
diversification and choice in several countries
(less so Scotland)
• Mixed institutional pattern of upper secondary
with residual to growing apprentice sector
• Unitary HE in UK
• Relatively high levels of work-based training
Curricula and assessment
• Traditional student-centred approach
• High level of (early) specialisation with elective
subjects and non common core in English upper
secondary
• Vocational streams without general education
tradition in vocational education
• Dominance of elective examinations within
highly fragmented assessment system
Modes of Regulation
• School system combines centralised control over standards and
performance with institutional autonomy in delivery
• Financial delegation to schools with school hire and fire
• High level of school diversification and choice
• Voluntary partnership model of CVT:
- Limited union involvement in standards and sectoral agreements
over pay and qualifications; limited licence to practise; few levies,
limited training rights; few obligations on employers to train
BUT
- Emphasis in information and small financial incentives for
targetted groups
- Gov’t encouragement of networking between partners
The Nordic Countries - Institutions
• Overwhelmingly state system throughout with few
private schools
• Comprehensive all-through neighbourhood primary
and lower secondary schools
• Almost no streaming and setting
• Dedicated general and vocational high schools
(combined in Sweden)
• State funded extensive adult learning (including the
adult folk schools)
• Binary higher education
Curricula and Assesment
• Encyclopeidic traditions
• Late specialisation in upper secondary with
common core general education
• Overarching matriculation system at end of
upper secondary
Modes of Regulation
• Predominance of local level control in state
school sector
• Limited school diversity and choice (not least
since no break between primary and secondary)
• Limited financial delegation to school since
teachers are civil servants – although some
curricula autonomy at school level
• Social partner based system of CVT regulation
with strong legislation in key areas
300
290
280
270
260
250
240
Prose Mean
Document Mean
Country Group
US
,
UK
Quantitative Mean
Sc
an
din
av
ian
Co
re
Eu
En
ro
pe
gli
sh
-s
pe
ak
UK
ing
,U
S,
Ir e
lan
d
Average Scores
Scores on Prose, Document and Quantitative
Literacy
Standard Deviations of Scores for Country
Groups
25
15
10
Prose SD
0
Document SD
na
vi
C
an
or
e
En
Eu
gl
ro
is
pe
hsp
ea
U
K,
ki
ng
U
S
,I
re
la
nd
U
S,
U
K
5
Sc
an
di
SD
20
Country Group
Quantitative SD
Average SD
Dispersal of Scores for Reading, Maths and
Science by Country Group
105
100
95
90
Average of SDs
85
80
75
70
Standard Deviation
120
100
Combined Reading
80
Mathematical
60
Scientif ic Literacy
40
Average all
20
Country Group
No
rdic
Eu
rop
An
e
g lo
pho
ne
UK
,U
S
As
ian
S.
Eu
rop
e
Co
re
No
rdi
c
Eu
rop
An
e
glo
pho
ne
UK
,U
S
As
ian
S.
Eu
rop
e
0
Co
re
Average of SDs
Average of SDs
Country Group
Finland
Participation of 16-65 Year Olds in Adult
Education During the Previous Year. 1994-1998.
Norway
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
New Zealand
Anglo-Saxon
Core Europe
150
Scandinavia
Region
Proportion of 16-65 Year Olds Participating in
Denmark
Adult Education During the Previous Year. 1994Sweden
1998
Total
Participation
Rate
Total Participation
Rate
Mean Hours per Adult
UK
Switzeralnd
100
US
50
Canada
Netherlands
0
Total Participation Rate * Mean number of Hours per
Adult **
Countries/Regions
Ireland
Belgium (FL)
Portugal
Scandinavia
Core Europe
What Processes Contribute to SocioEconomic Effects in Each Model?
Lifelong learning contributes directly and indirectly to
Competitiveness and Social Cohesion in conjunction
with:
• Welfare systems
• Labour market regimes
Many causal relationships work in two directions
Labour Market Regime
Welfare Regime
Skills Distribution
LLL System
Income Distribution
Status Distribution
Employment Rate
Socialisation
Social Cohesion Regime
Lifelong Learning System Effects
The contributions of LLL systems work in three ways
(leaving aside the socialisation process not analyses
here)
• Produce high levels of aggregate levels of skills which
contribute towards labour productivity
• Produce skills distributions where more equal
educational outcomes contribute to income quality and,
indirectly, to social cohesion
• Renew adult skills which contributes to employment,
and indirectly to social inclusion.
Proportion of Workers in High Skilled Jobs
Proportion of Workers in High Skilled Jobs
50
40
30
1
20
10
Series1
S1
Anglo-Saxon
Country / Region
Core Europe
Scandinavia
0
0
20
40
Country/Region
60
Anglo-Saxon
Core Europe
Scandinavia
Portugal
Ireland
Austria
New Zealand
Germany
USA
UK
Canada
Denmark
Norway
Switzerland
Finland
Netherlands
Sweden
Skills Distribution in the Models
Anglo-American model of LLL produce high inequality
of skills outcomes through welfare systems and
diversity and choice in education system.
This has negative effects on social cohesion.
On the other and, high rates of adult learning
contributes towards higher employment rates and
therefore social inclusion. Effects limited, however,
because of wage inequality.
Core Europe Model of Social Market
Education system produce unequal outcomes but these
are mitigated by Apprenticeship system.
Overall the skills system produces less inequality than
Anglo-American one but more than Nordic one.
The relative skills equality reduces wage inequality
which has positive effects on social cohesion. However,
labour market regime creates barriers to employment
and increases inequality between waged and unwaged
thus constraining positive effects on social cohesion
Nordic Model
Egalitarian school system generates highly equal
educational outcomes which contribute directly
to income equality and indirectly to social
cohesion
Adult learning contributes to high employment
rates and also to social inclusion through
employment.