[word version - full paper] - inequality in non-formal education participation: different patterns...

8/14/2019 [Word version - full paper] - Inequality in Non-Formal Education Participation: Different Patterns in Old and New European Union Member States

1/31

Inequality in Participating in Non-

Formal Education: Different Patterns in

Old and New European Union MemberStates

Ellu Saar, Jelena Heleme and Eve-Liis Roosmaa

ECER 2008, Gteborg


2/31

2

The Aim of the Paper Participation in non-formal (mainly work related)

education differs significantly across countries andwithin countries (OECD 2003)

The main aim of the paper is to reveal which impactcountry-specific institutional packages have oninequality in participation in non-formal education. Isthis impact different in old versus new EU member

states?


3/31

3

Approach For our point of departure we take the institutional

perspective approach that has provided a usefulparadigm for better understanding of social structural

impacts on the lifelong learning (Blossfeld 2003) more precisely the impact ofnational labour marketand educational system on participation in LLL and onits outcomes


4/31

Research Questions How does the structure of the educational system and

its interaction with the labour market affect the gap inadult non-formal education participation? Which

mechanisms, institutional differences explain inequalityin training opportunities between high-skilled and low-skilled adults?

How do new (EU-8) and old European Union member

states differin the way institutional systems shape theopportunities for participation in non-formal education?


5/31

5

Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Many studies (for example Bassanini et al. 2005;

Dieckhoff, Jungblut, OConnell 2007) have shown thatthose with higher skills and/or educational attainment

are more likely to participate in non-formal educationand in training paid by their employers. So in most casesparticipation in non-formal education does not respondto the need of training and is therefore more likely to

increase rather than mitigate existing inequalities


6/31

6

Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Human capital theory (Becker 1964) employers

decision to invest in employees training is based on theestimate of the future returns (increase in productivity).

Employers believe that training costs of low-skilledworkers are higher than for high-skilled workersbecause of the difference in ability low-skilledrequire more training hours, therefore training costs are

higher


7/31

7

Inequality in participation

in non-formal education

Skill formation:

- Stratification of educational system- Initial education higher proportion ofpeople with lower qualifications- Vocational specificity

Industrial relations:- Trade unions- Labour market regulations EPL index

Welfare state:

- Active labour market policies- Passive labour market policies

- inequality decreases

- inequality increases

Hypotheses


8/31

8

Theoretical Background and Hypotheses We also considerproduction regime perspective

(Estevez-Abe et al. 2001) inequality (e.g. in trainingparticipation opportunities) is greater in LME-s,

unregulated markets. Reasons: low employment,unemployment and wage protection; poaching oftrained workers individual and firm investments intraining are small

In CME-s firms depend on firm/industry specific skills;

employment, unemployment and wage security givesincentive for workers to invest in specific skills. Alsofirms will invest in training because they can expectworkers to remain in the same firm for a sufficientlength of time


9/31

9

Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Collective bargaining on training is more common in

CME-s; labour force in CME-s is less polarised than inLME-s skills are distributed more evenly between

occupational classes (see also Thlin 007) Among CME-countries: universalistic employment and

welfare models versus dualistic orconservative regimes.In universalistic, Scandinavian countries (Denmark,Finland, and Sweden) participation in non-formal

education is expected to be higher and more equal, asprovision of lifelong learning opportunities is regarded apart of socially responsible employment (see Dieckhoff,Jungblut, OConnell 2007)


10/31

10

EU-8 Countries as a Specific Case The question is whether there are differences in the

impact of institutional systems on the opportunities forparticipation in non-formal learning between new and

old EU member states.

We are asking to what extent the theories developedfor old member states are applicable to new ones?

Are the determinants of inequality in participation in n-f

education the same in old and new EU member states?


11/31

11

EU-8 Countries as a Specific Case Institutional packages in general and interrelations

between labour market institutions and educationalsystem in EU-8 are hardly defined as congruent due to

neither competitive market arrangements (as in LME-s)nor non-market relationships between collective actors(as in CME-s)

Due to the impact of the EU, the importance of labour

market institutions is increasing and the labour market inEU-8 countries is becoming less flexible. It is difficult topredict, how this factor might influence the linkagebetween the educational system and the labour market,

and hence, participation in non-formal education


12/31

12

Data Aggregate data about participation in non-formal learning

in different EU countries (2003 EU Labour Force Survey,ad hoc module). Target population was 25-64 year olds.

The key question was about whether the respondent hasparticipated in training courses in the past 12 months

Several other datasets to characterise educationsystems and labour market institutions in EU member

states


13/31

13

Data and Methodology

Indicators analysed:

Index of inequality = participation of high-skilled white collar workers/participation of low-skilled blue collar workers (dependent variable)

Percentage of the population with primary and basic education (25-

64) Percentage of the population with higher education (25-64) Percentage of upper secondary school students enrolled in

vocational education Degree of stratification of educational system Percentage of upper secondary school students enrolled in

vocational education Employment Protection Legislation index Public expenditures on active and passive LM policies (% from GDP) Trade union or similar organisation present at workplace


14/31

Empirical Findings

14Figure 1. Participation rate in non-formal learning in the European Union in 2003 (25-64 year-olds)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Participation rate, total Participation rate, high skilled white-collar Participation rate, low skilled white-collar

Participation rate, high ski lled blue-collar Participation rate, low ski lled blue-col lar


15/31

Empirical Findings

15Figure 2. Participation rate in non-formal learning; low-skilled versus high-skilled

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Particip ation rate, to tal (left axis) In eq uality in p artic ipation: lo w vs hig h skilled (right axis)


16/31

Empirical Findings

16Figure 3. Old EU member states: participation rate in non-formal learning; low-skilled versus high-skilled

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Gre

ece

Italy

Portu

gal

Spai

n

Neth

erla

nds

Ger

man

y

Irela

nd

Belg

ium

Fran

ce

Aust

ria UK

Finl

and

Denm

ark

Swed

en

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Participation rate, total (left axis) Inequality in participation: low vs high skilled (right axis)


17/31

Empirical Findings

17Figure 4. New EU member states: participation rate in non-formal learning; low-skilled versus high-skilled

0

5

10

15

20

25

Hungary Lithuania Poland Czech R Latvia Estonia Slovakia Slovenia

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Participation rate, total (left axis) Inequality in participation: low vs high skilled (right axis)


18/31

Old EU member states New EU member states

18

Inequality inparticipation in

non-formaleducation

Trade union

Active LMmeasures

Adult population

with primary andbasic education

Adult populationwith highereducation

Inequality inparticipation in

non-formaleducation

Active LMmeasures

Adult populationwith primary andbasic education

Adult populationwith highereducation

EPL index

Figure 5. Determinants of inequality in participation in non-formal education in old and new EU member states

(discriminat analysis)

Stratification ofeducational

system


19/31

Empirical Findings

19

Inequality in

participation in

n-f education

All member

states

Old EU

member states

New EU

member states

4.00 39.7 25.7

All countries: P = 0.05Old: P = 0.005

New: P = 0.07

Table 1. Trade union or similar present at workplace


20/31

Empirical Findings

20

Inequality in

participation in

n-f education

All member

states

Old EU

member states

New EU

member states

4.00 2.57 - 2.53

All: P = 0.03Old: P = 0.09

New: P = 0.21

Table 2. EPL index


21/31

Empirical Findings

21

Inequality in

participation in

n-f education

All member

states

Old EU

member states

New EU

member states

4.00 0.30 - 0.09

All: P = 0.40Old: P = 0.06

New: P = 0.02

Table 3. Public expenditures on active LM policies (% from GDP)


22/31

Empirical Findings

22

Inequality in

participation in

n-f education

All member

states

Old EU

member states

New EU

member states

4.00 18.8 - 8.7

All: P = 0.15Old: P = 0.05

New: P=0.04

Table 4. Percentage of workers with ISCED levels 0-2


23/31

Empirical Findings

23

Inequality in

participation in

n-f education

All member

states

Old EU

member states

New EU

member states

4.00 28.6 - 30.9

All: P = 0.40Old: P = 0.07

New: P = 0.04

Table 5. Percentage of workers with ISCED levels 5-6


24/31

Empirical Findings

24

Inequality in

participation in

n-f education

All member

states

Old EU

member states

New EU

member states

4.00 2.2 - 2.0

All: P = 0.50Old: P = 0.07

New: P = 0.53

Table 6. Degree of stratification of educational system


25/31

25

Conclusions The list ofimportant factors and the way they influence

inequality in participation in non-formal education differbetween old and new EU member states

In EU-15 countries where the participation in non-formaleducation is higherthe differences between variousoccupational groups are smaller. This has been achievedby involving the less qualified

Expenditures on active LM measuresdecrease inequality,

but this impact is different: in the old EU member statesmore intense spending benefits first of all the participationof low-skilled persons, but in new EU member states thisis not so


26/31

26

Conclusions

EU-15:higherEPL index increases inequality in participation in n-f

educationhighertrade union coverage decreases inequality

countries with more comprehensive educational systemshave lower inequality in participation in n-f education

In old EU member states higher percentage of peoplewith higher education decreases inequality, in new EUmember states the impact is opposite. This could beexplained by the greatermismatch in EU-8 countries

between occupations and educational level achieved. Thecomparatively high level of available qualifications is notused within the LM.Incidence of training reflects more thedistribution of occupational groups than the availablequalification of the workforce


27/31

27

Conclusions

As suggested by theory, institutional factors matter first ofall for old EU member states. The predictive power ofthese factors for new member states is rather low and

varies significantly by countries (institutional changes arestill ongoing; inconsistency in newly emergedinstitutional packages)


28/31

28

Conclusions

Among EU-15 Nordic countries and the UK have the lowestlevel of inequality in participation in n-f education. This ismainly achieved via flexible labour markets (lowemployment protection in the UK; medium employment

protection and high unemployment protection inScandinavian countries). Here comprehensive (thus flexible)educational system provides flexible labour markets withlabour force that is educated enough to be able to update

skills for reasonable costs


29/31

29

Conclusions

High inequality in Southern European countries: due to highemployment protection the labour markets are stronglysegmented into insiders and outsiders. Labour force ishighly differentiated according to the level of education,

while the significant majority of working-age population hadnot achieved upper secondary education. Educationalsystem is ratherstratified.

It could be suggested that employers are reluctant to invest

into heterogeneous labour force and especially into lowerskilled workers.


30/31

30

Conclusions

Among EU-8 Slovakia and the Czech Republic have thelowest inequality in participation in n-f education. Here thesegmentation of the labour force according to the level ofeducation is low. Trade union coverage is ratherhighcompared to other new member states and labour market is

quite flexible High inequality in participation is in Baltic countries. Comparedto other EU-8 countries segmentation of the labour forceaccording to the level of education is stronger and trade unioncoverage is very low. Overwhelming general schoolingassumes a large role of employers in skill formation. However

their role is quite small, employers expect educational systemto provide them with rather specialised workers, but arereluctant to train themselves. The state provides furthertraining mainly to professionals, so this increases rather thenmitigates inequalities in participation


31/31

Thank You for the Attention!

[word version - full paper] - inequality in non-formal education participation: different patterns...

Documents