5. Making adult learning more inclusive

Participation in training differs substantially between various groups of adults. OECD (2019[1]) showed that in all OECD countries, low-skill adults participate less in formal or non-formal job-related training than higher-skilled adults, and older adults participate less than prime age adults. Unemployed adults also have lower access to adult learning opportunities than employed adults in many OECD countries, and among employed adults those who work in SMEs generally have lower access to training than those working in large firms. Moreover, non-standard workers, including self-employed, temporary employees and part-time workers, are found to have lower training participation than full-time permanent workers across OECD countries (OECD, 2019[2]).

As shown in Figure 5.1, participation in adult learning increases with education level in Japan, with adults with tertiary education qualifications having a participation rate that is 30 percentage points higher than among adults without an upper-secondary education degree. Women are much less likely to participate in training than men, and this gap is larger in Japan than on average across OECD countries. Older adults participate less in training than prime age adults in Japan, and this is consistent with what is observed across OECD countries. Unemployed and inactive adults have much lower participation in training than employed adults, but there are also substantial inequalities in training access among employed adults. Permanent employees in Japan have higher participation rates in training than temporary employees and self-employed workers. The gap between permanent and temporary employees is larger in Japan than on average in OECD countries, but the gap between self-employed workers and permanent employees is smaller. Part-time workers are much less likely to train than full-time workers, and the gap is substantially larger in Japan than on average across OECD countries. Finally, training participation increases with wage level and with firm size, both in Japan and on average in OECD countries. The difference in training participation between micro-firms and small firms is smaller in Japan than on average across OECD countries.

Training participation is highest among managers and professionals and technicians and associate professionals in Japan. In these high-skill occupations, training rates in Japan are similar to the OECD average. Participation is lowest among elementary workers, agricultural workers, and plant and machine operators and assemblers. The difference between Japan and the OECD average is largest for clerical support workers, elementary workers, and plant and machine operators and assemblers. At the industry level, the highest training participation rates are found in Japan in the finance and insurance sector, the education sector, and the human health and social work sector. Training is least common in the agricultural sector, construction sector and accommodation and food services sector. Japanese workers in the construction, transport and storage, and wholesale and retail sectors have substantially lower participation rates than the OECD average, while participation rates are above average in Japan in the real estate sector.

Using econometric analysis to isolate the relationship between training participation and individual work and socio-demographic characteristics, shows that women are significantly less likely to train, and this effect is substantially larger in Japan than on average in OECD countries (see Annex Table 5.A.1). In addition, older adults are less likely to train than younger ones, and again this relationship between age and training participation is found to be stronger in Japan than on average across OECD countries. This shows that women and older adults have low access to training in Japan, even when compared to men and younger adults with similar employment status, skill and education levels, health status, willingness to learn and other socio-demographic factors. When looking at employed adults only and further controlling for work characteristics (including occupation and industry, see Annex Table 5.A.2), the difference between men and women disappears in Japan, while it remains significant on average across OECD countries. This shows that gender differences in training participation in Japan are fully due to women working in occupations and sectors that have lower access to training. In a similar vein, also lower educated individuals present lower rates of training participation, but controlling for their work characteristics removes the statistical significance of such gap, stressing again that industries and occupations play a key role in shaping participation rates. The gap between older and younger workers remains larger in Japan than the OECD average. Interestingly, temporary workers in Japan are found to have a higher probability to train than permanent workers when controlling for these other factors (while on average in OECD countries they are less likely to train). By contrast, part-time workers are found to participate less in training than full-time workers in similar jobs, and the difference is larger in Japan than on average in OECD countries. Finally, training participation in Japan increases with firm size.

Differences between the groups shown in Figure 5.1 are much smaller for informal learning, but similar patterns can be observed. Older workers in Japan are less engaged in informal learning at work than their younger colleagues, and self-employed workers are less engaged in these learning activities than employees. Informal learning is less common in smaller firms than in larger firms. The differences between groups observed in Japan are broadly similar to those found on average across OECD countries, with the exception of the difference between self-employed and employees (which have roughly the same informal learning rate on average). The differences between age groups and firm sizes remain significant when controlling for other personal and work characteristics.

Training participation is substantially lower among non-regular workers in Japan than among regular workers. The gap is particularly large between full-time and part-time workers, and exists for both formal and non-formal training and for informal learning. This is in line with findings from OECD (2019[2]), that showed that atypical workers, and especially part-time and self-employed workers, are less likely to participate in training across OECD countries. As the group of non-regular workers is predominantly made up of women and older workers, this implies that there are substantial gender and age gaps in access to training.

Employers provide fewer training opportunities to non-regular workers than to regular workers in Japan. According to the Basic Survey of Human Resource Development, 76% of firms provided off-the-job training to their regular workers, but only 40% of them provided this type of training to their non-regular workers. Similarly, while 63% of employers provide planned on-the-job training to their regular workers, only 28% do so for their non-regular workers. The evolution of participation in the last 10 years has been roughly the same for both groups of workers, with on-the-job training provision staying roughly stable and off-the-job training increasing slightly. The gap between regular and non-regular workers is larger in SMEs than in large firms. The difference is largest in the information and communication sector, and in the construction sector, and is smallest in the medical, health and welfare sector and in the sector that groups postal services and activities of cooperative associations. Among those workers who participate in off-the-job training, training hours are substantially shorter for non-regular than for regular workers. When asking employers whether the responsibility for skills development should lie with them or with the worker, 77% replied it should be fully or mainly the employer’s responsibility in the case of regular workers, but only 66% in the case of non-regular workers. Hence, employers feel lower responsibility for the skills development of their non-regular workers than their regular workers.

In addition to having lower access to employer-provided training, non-regular workers are also less likely to engage in job-related self-development activities. In 2017, 45% of regular workers participated in self-development activities, while only 19% of non-regular workers did so. Regarding the type of self-development activities, non-regular workers who engaged in self-development are more likely than regular workers to report self-study activities (e.g. reading technical manuals, consulting the internet) (54% versus 51%), but they are substantially less likely to participate in more organised forms of training (e.g. internal and external study groups, seminars). By contrast, they are slightly more likely to participate in certain forms of formal training, i.e. participating in special training school, college, university and graduate courses, but the share of workers in this type of training remains very low (4.4% of non-regular workers who engaged in self-development participated in courses in special training schools, and 2.9% in college, university and graduate courses). Employers are less likely to support the self-development of their non-regular employees: only 55% of employers say they provide support for self-development to non-regular employees, compared to 83% to regular employees. Employers are especially less likely to provide financial support for self-development to non-regular workers.

Many workers report having issues related to engagement in self-development activities. This is the case for 80% of regular workers and 70.5% of non-regular workers. However, the issues faced by both types of workers are fairly different, see Figure 5.3. While the main issue identified by both groups of workers is a lack of time due to work responsibilities, this is reported much less frequently by non-regular worker than by regular workers. The second most important issue for non-regular workers is a lack of time due to family responsibilities, and they are more likely to report this issue than regular workers. Non-regular workers are also slightly more likely to report that training is too expensive, that they have issues in understanding their career pathway, that there is a lack of suitable training institutions, and that there is not enough information about self-development opportunities.

Lower access to training for non-regular workers creates important inequalities in the labour market. Since this group of workers has been growing, a large and growing share of workers have limited opportunities for upskilling and reskilling. As such, these workers might have difficulties in adapting to changing skill needs and might face more difficulties in maintaining or finding employment. As a result, employers might also find it increasingly difficult to hire workers with the right skills.

Many OECD countries include non-discrimination rules in their legal frameworks, with a view to promote equal treatment, including training rights, between permanent workers and workers on fixed-term contracts, and/or between full-time and part-time workers (OECD, 2019[2]). This is also the case in Japan, where the Part-Time/Fixed-Term Workers Act revised by the legislation on work-style reforms bans unreasonable differences in working conditions of regular and non-regular employees (entering into force in 2020-21, depending on firm size). The act further details the fair treatment requirements and expands them to other types of non-regular workers. However, in practice in many countries, some adult learning policies explicitly exclude temporary or part-time workers, and others exclude them by design by, for example, basing eligibility on tenure or hours worked. As discussed in Chapter 4, the subsidies that Japanese employers can receive when providing education and training leave exclude the majority of non-regular workers.

Moreover, non-standard workers often lack representation, leaving little room to negotiate better training rights and more adequate training opportunities through collective bargaining. In Japan, collective agreements are legally binding for regular employees but often neglect the working conditions of non-regular employees (Eurofound, 2019[3]). Data from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare show that in 2017, only 46% of unions have collective agreements for non-regular workers, and only 14% have agreements related to education and training for non-regular workers (Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, 2017[4]). It remains to be seen how the recent work-style reform will impact collective agreements. To secure equal and balanced treatment for non-regular workers, Equal Employment sections of Prefectural Labor Bureaus hold one-on-one counselling sessions for non-regular workers and provide advice and support for employers. As the data presented above show, the gap in access to training between regular and non-regular workers persists in spite of these equal treatment regulations. Encouraging employers to provide more training to non-regular workers and supporting this group of work in their own training activities is therefore of crucial importance.

Japanese employers can receive financial support from the government when training their workers. Under the Human Resources Development Support Grant, employers receive subsidies to cover (part of) their training expenses and the wage costs of the employees on training. Approximately 57 000 subsidies were given in 2019. One of the subcomponents of this scheme is targeted specifically at training of non-regular workers. When employers provide certain types of training to their non-regular workers, they can receive subsidies to cover the expenses for off-the job training and wages subsidies of between JPY 475 and 760 per worker per training hour (depending on the type of training and the size of the firm).12 These subsidies are more generous than the subsidies foreseen under the other sub-components of the scheme. However, employers who want to receive subsidies under this subcomponent of the scheme need to submit a plan that specifies the criteria and timing for converting non-regular employees to regular employment after completion of the training. Although this requirement encourages employers to consider converting their non-regular workers, it could also deter employers from using the subsidies. More details on the Human Resources Development Support Grant are provided in Annex 5.B.

Adults can also receive financial support from the government directly to cover their training costs. The training benefit system pays part of the tuition fee for workers and recent job seekers participating in training (see Annex 5.B for details). The share of the tuition fee covered ranges between 20% and 50% depending on the type of training,3 with subsidies for general training being less generous than for specialised professional training. Only workers and recent job seekers who contributed to the employment insurance system for at least three years can receive these subsidies. In 2016, 111 800 adults received subsidies for general training and 21 000 for specialised professional training (OECD, 2018[5]). Among beneficiaries, 60% were in employment (almost all as regular workers) and the remaining 40% were unemployed. As non-regular workers often have relatively low wages and are less likely to benefit from financial support from their employer to undertake self-development activities, they could potentially have a strong need for financial support from the government. However, the eligibility requirements in terms of employment insurance contributions restrict access to the scheme for non-regular workers.4

Lower access to employment insurance also limits the participation of non-regular workers who become unemployed in government-financed public vocational training. Recognising the limited access to training opportunities for job seekers who are not eligible for employment insurance, the government introduced an additional Support System for Job Seekers in 2011. This system is available for job seekers who do not receive employment insurance, and gives access to training of between two and six months. This type of job seekers support training is delivered by private providers, and can take the form of basic skills courses and practical courses.

In light of the fact that many non-regular workers have difficulties combining training with their personal responsibilities, flexibility of training is of crucial importance to increase participation rates, see Chapter 4. As many non-regular workers have low wages, these costs could be difficult to bear. Therefore, non-regular workers, and especially those with the lowest incomes, might not only need access to financial support that covers tuition fees, but also to support measures to cover other costs that arise with training participation. Existing financial incentives for training could be expanded to also cover costs other than tuition fees. This is already the case in the Support System for Job Seekers, where certain low-income job seekers who do not receive employment insurance are eligible for an attendance benefit when they participate in training. In general, family policies that expand access to affordable early childhood education and care (ECEC) can free up time for parents to take up adult learning opportunities.

Older adults, aged 55 to 65, participate much less in training in Japan than prime age adults. As shown in Figure 5.1, only 22% of older adults participate in formal or non-formal training, compared to 40% of prime age adults. The lower training participation of older adults can be observed in all OECD countries, and the average gap in training participation is larger on average across OECD countries than in Japan (21 and 18 percentage points, respectively). However, when looking at employed older adults only, the OECD average gap declines substantially (to 10 percentage points), while it remains almost the same in Japan (17 percentage points). This age gap in training participation remains when controlling for personal and workplace characteristics (see Annex Table 5.A.2). Older workers in Japan are also less likely to participate in informal learning: 54% of older workers engage regularly in informal learning, compared to 68% of prime age workers. The gap in informal learning participation is larger in Japan than it is on average across OECD countries (15 and 8.5 percentage points, respectively).

Part of the reason why older workers in Japan have lower access to training is that many of them are non-regular workers. As discussed in Chapter 2, older workers often shift to non-regular jobs after mandatory retirement and as a result their workload and wages generally decline. As non-regular workers have more limited access to training, many older workers risk have limited opportunities for upskilling and reskilling. Hence, ensuring that non-regular workers are covered by existing financial incentives for employers and for workers can increase the participation rate of older workers. Moreover, employers should be encouraged to keep their workers as regular employees after retirement. The Japan Organisation for Employment of the Elderly, Persons with Disabilities and Job Seekers (JEED) provides advice and guidance on how to implement elderly employment security measures. They also give grants to employers who take measures to raise the retirement age, remove the compulsory retirement age system, establish a continued employment system for employees who desire to continue working after 65, or convert the contract of fixed-term employees aged 50 or over to an open-ended contract (JEED, n.d.[6]). The OECD (2019[7]) recommends to abolish the right of firms to set a mandatory retirement age and reinforce legislation against age discrimination.

However, the lower probability of training for older workers is also found when controlling for contract type and working hours (as shown in Annex Table 5.A.2), meaning that irrespective of contract type or working hours older workers are less likely to participate in training than their younger colleagues. Indeed, only 37% of older full-time permanent workers participate in formal or non-formal training, compared to 55% of prime age adults. Similarly, only 58% of older workers in full-time permanent jobs engage in informal learning, while this share reaches 71% among prime age workers. These differences are substantially larger in Japan than in the OECD average.

Ensuring that older workers have access to training opportunities is particularly important in light of rapid population ageing. As working lives get longer, older adults need to make sure that their skills remain up to date. One of the main reasons that older workers participate less in training is that older adults and their employers are less inclined to invest in adult learning given the short pay-back time on this investment before retirement (Martin, 2018[8]). However, as the content of jobs is changing due to automation and other structural factors, and jobs increasingly require the use of technology, it is important for adults to have access to upskilling and reskilling opportunities throughout their working lives to make sure that they are not left behind in a changing labour market.

JEED provides advice and guidance to employers who want to improve the working conditions of older workers, including their access to training opportunities (JEED, n.d.[6]). In some cases, JEED advisors visit companies to provide in-depth counselling, make proposals for practical improvements, and train managers and older workers to strengthen their motivation. JEED plans to visit 120 000 companies between 2018 and 2022 in this context. JEED also actively disseminates good practice examples of the implementation of elderly employment security measures among employers. As recommended by the OECD (2018[5]), JEED’s role in providing firms with lifelong learning counselling combined with other age management tools should be strengthened in order to promote training activities for older workers.

To further encourage employers to invest in the skills of their older workers, targeted financial incentives could be provided to firms that train older workers or existing incentives can be made more generous for the training of older workers. Similarly, financial incentives that are available to workers directly, could be made more generous for older adults taking up training. This type of targeting is implemented in some OECD countries (see Box 5.1 for examples from Australia and Germany), but not in Japan. Older workers could also benefit from specialised career guidance services to better understand their career potential and training needs, and this will be discussed in Chapter 7.

According to 2018 data from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare on the use of the Training Benefit, it is also important to improve the number of distance learning courses for older people (MHLW, 2019[9]). In fact, 60+ individuals appear to use distance learning substantially more than other age groups. For example, eight out of ten individuals aged 60+ receiving the Professional Practice component of the Training Benefit rely on distance learning, compared to only 10% of young people under the age of 25 and 61% of 25-59 individuals. Similarly, older people receiving Training Benefit are 22 percentage points more likely than the youth to use distance learning. Overall this evidence points at the importance of distance learning for older worker, and suggests that increasing the number of distance learning courses might be particularly beneficial for improving the training opportunities of older workers.

As shown in Figure 5.1 and Figure 5.2, training participation in Japan increases with firm size. This is the case for formal and non-formal training, but also for informal learning. These differences persist when controlling for personal and work characteristics (see Annex 5.A). While the differences are less marked in Japan than in the OECD average for formal and non-formal training, they are bigger in Japan in the case of informal learning. According to the Basic Survey of Human Resources Development, 82% of firms with more than 1 000 employees provided on-the-job training to their workers in 2017, compared to only 47% of firms with between 30 and 49 employees.5 Similar large differences are found for off-the-job training: 91% of firms with more than 1 000 employees provided off-the-job training to their workers, while only 59% of firms with between 30 and 49 employees did so.

Small firms might find it difficult to send employees away on training, as this could have a potentially large impact on the continuation of production and business processes. This is also the case – albeit potentially to a lesser extent – for on-the-job training, which requires dedicated time for training from the worker and the supervisor or co-worker who is providing the training. PIAAC data for Japan indeed show that among the workers that report having participated in formal or non-formal training, workers in SMEs are substantially less likely to have carried out their training fully or mostly during working hours. Only 54% of workers in firms with at most 10 employees who participated in training report that this was entirely or partially during working hours, compared to around 70% among trained workers in firms with between 11 and 1 000 employees and 76% in firms with more than 1 000 employees. These differences between firms with at most 10 employees and larger firms persist when controlling for individual and work characteristics.6 As discussed above, flexibly in training provision, such as modular training or distance learning, could help small firms provide training to their workers without them being away for extended periods of time. For longer training spells, job rotations schemes as the one discussed in Chapter 4, Box 4.2 could be a solution.

At the same time, small firms might face larger financial barriers to training provision than large firms. Small firms do not benefit from the same scale effect as large firms do when providing internal training, and are therefore more likely to need to rely on external providers. This could be particularly costly. To overcome this issue, several OECD countries have put in place specific targeted financial incentives for SMEs, or have made incentive that are available to all types of employers more generous for SMEs. This is also the case in Japan, where the subsidy employers can receive when training their workers (under the Human Resources Development Support Grant, see Annex 5.B) is larger for SMEs than in larger firms. Moreover, Japanese SMEs that establish certified training centres, either independently or jointly with other SMEs, can receive subsidies to cover part of the facility and equipment costs and the operational costs. A slightly different but related approach is taken in Korea, where large firms, employers’ associations and universities establish joint training centres, which conduct projects to provide customised training for workers or participating SMEs (see Box 5.2). The Japanese Government should consider a similar approach to foster coordination between SMEs and large firms for training provision.

Informal learning can be a less disruptive and costly way for workers to develop their skills. Nonetheless, workers in firms with more than 1 000 employees engage much more in the different forms of informal learning, i.e. learning by doing, learning from other, keeping up to date with new products or services, than workers in smaller firms. Improving the learning culture in the workplace can serve as a means of fostering human capital development in firms. Workers who are exposed to high performance work practices (HPWP) are found to be more likely to engage in informal learning, and this effect is larger in Japan than on average across OECD countries. Moreover, according to Fialho, Quintini and Vandeweyer (2019[13]) these practices increase the wage returns to informal training, possibly through more opportunities to apply what has been learnt. This is in line with the economic literature on high-performance workplaces that suggests that delegating responsibility to autonomous problem-solving teams and creating jobs with a wide range of tasks and frequent job rotation can improve worker performance through informal learning and greater involvement in the firm.

High-performance work practices include both aspects of work organisation – team work, autonomy, task discretion, mentoring, job rotation, applying new learning – and management practices – employee participation, incentive pay and flexibility in working hours (OECD, 2016[14]).7 As shown in Figure 5.5, in almost all OECD countries the use of HPWP increases with firm size. The use of HPWP in small firms is higher in Japan than the OECD average, but the gap between large firms (with more than 1 000 employees) and smaller ones is much larger in Japan than the OECD average. In fact, Japan is one of the countries with the highest HPWP score among large firms, with only Denmark, Finland and Sweden having higher scores.

In OECD countries, most initiatives to foster a learning culture by encouraging innovative human resource management have focused on: i) raising awareness of the beneficial role that high performance work practices can play in fostering a learning culture and a better use of skills at work; ii) disseminating good practice and creating opportunities for knowledge transfer and for sharing expert advice; and iii) identifying role models (Fialho, Quintini and Vandeweyer, 2019[13]). Given that large firms in Japan score very well in terms of HPWP adoption, knowledge transfer between large firms and smaller firms could help the latter adopt effective HPWP practices. At the same time, the governments could develop diagnostic tools to help companies identify bottlenecks and measures that would promote a better use of the skills of their workforce. Tax policy could also be leveraged to incentivise and support firms in adopting high performance work practices, especially considering that some firms may not have the incentive or financial capacity to promote workplace innovation. As smaller employers are less likely to implement these practices and may find it more difficult/costly to adopt them, it is important to target interventions on small and medium enterprises that are facing issues with skills development of their workers.


[10] Bundesrepublik Deutschland (2020), § 82 SGB III Förderung beschäftigter Arbeitnehmerinnen und Arbeitnehmer, https://www.buzer.de/gesetz/6003/a82895.htm (accessed on 24 March 2020).

[11] Department of Education, Skills and Employment (2019), Skills and Training Incentive, https://www.employment.gov.au/skills-and-training-incentive (accessed on 24 March 2020).

[3] Eurofound (2019), Working Life in Japan, https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/country/japan#collective-bargaining (accessed on 1 May 2020).

[13] Fialho, P., G. Quintini and M. Vandeweyer (2019), “Returns to different forms of job related training: Factoring in informal learning”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers 231, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/b21807e9-en.

[6] JEED (n.d.), Support for Employers Concerning Elderly Employment, JEED.

[8] Martin, J. (2018), Live Longer, Work Longer: The Changing Nature of the Labour Market for Older Workers in OECD Countries, http://www.iza.org (accessed on 13 August 2020).

[9] MHLW (2019), Employment Insurance Business Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2018, https://www.mhlw.go.jp/bunya/koyou/koyouhoken02/pdf/all_h30.pdf.

[4] Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare (2017), Year Book of Labor Statistics 2017.

[12] OECD (2020), Enhancing Training Opportunities in SMEs in Korea, Getting Skills Right, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/7aa1c1db-en.

[1] OECD (2019), Getting Skills Right: Future-Ready Adult Learning Systems, Getting Skills Right, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264311756-en.

[7] OECD (2019), OECD Economic Surveys: Japan 2019, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/fd63f374-en.

[2] OECD (2019), OECD Employment Outlook 2019: The Future of Work, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9ee00155-en.

[5] OECD (2018), Working Better with Age: Japan, Ageing and Employment Policies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264201996-en.

[14] OECD (2016), OECD Employment Outlook 2016, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/empl_outlook-2016-en.

The Human Resource Support Grant is available to employers that provide certain types of training to their workers to cover (part of) the training costs and wage costs. The scheme is divided into three subcomponents, with different subsidy rates applying to these subcomponent. SMEs benefit from more generous subsidies than large firms. Annex Table 5.B.1 describes the type of training that can benefit from the Human Resource Support Grant and the associated subsidy amounts (and caps on those amounts).

To be able to benefit from the Human Resource Support Grant, the workers need to be registered for employment insurance.8 Moreover, in the case of specific and general training courses the employer needs to submit a training plan to benefit from the grant and the final training hours need to be at least 80% of the planned training hours. Grants for Special training courses for non-regular workers are limited to employers that aim to convert these non-regular workers to regular employment, and employers need to submit a conversion plan. To receive a grant for a combination of on-the-job and off-the-job training, workers need to be provided with career guidance and create a Job Card, and the workers cannot have more than three years of work experience (as a regular worker) in the field of the training.

Under the Training Benefit System employed adults and recent jobseekers can receive subsidies to cover part of their training costs. The subsidies are limited to a list of training programmes approved by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, which is divided into three subcomponents: i) General education, ii) Specified General Education, and iii) Professional Practice. The subsidy amounts differ between the subcomponents, as do certain eligibility requirements, see Annex Table 5.B.2.


← 1. In the case of on-the-job training, the wage subsidy is referred to as implementation grant, as in this case workers are not absent from their work.

← 2. The total amount of subsidies that an employer can receive is capped, with the cap depending on the number of hours of training provided and the type of training (and a higher cap applying to SMEs).

← 3. The subsidy covers 20% of the tuition fee for general training, 40% for general training in certain priority fields and 50% for professional practice training. For the latter, 20% extra is covered if a qualification is obtained and the person finds a job within one year after completing the training. The subsidies for all types of training are capped at a maximum amount.

← 4. Some non-regular workers are excluded from the employment insurance system. This is the case for short-hours workers (fewer than 20 regular weekly hours of work), workers whose jobs are not expected to last more than 31 days, workers who are employed seasonally with a temporary contract of up to four months or working hours not exceeding 30 hours per week, and day labourers. In 2014, the employment insurance coverage rate for non-regular workers was 67.7%. To be eligible for employment insurance payments, job seekers must have contributed for at least 12 months in the two years preceding the leaving date. This requirement is different for workers who lost their job because of the non-renewal of a temporary contract (and some other cases such as dismissal due to bankruptcy), in which case the requirement is set at six months in the previous 12-month period.

← 5. No comparable data are available for firms with less than 30 employees.

← 6. The same controls are included as in the analysis in Annex 5.A.

← 7. HPWP also includes training practices in the original framework. However, as this report looks at the link between HPWP and training participation, the training component is taken out of the HPWP index.

← 8. In the case of special training courses for non-regular workers, the worker needs to be registered for employment insurance at the date of training completion or the date of grant application.

Metadata, Legal and Rights

This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. Extracts from publications may be subject to additional disclaimers, which are set out in the complete version of the publication, available at the link provided.

© OECD 2021

The use of this work, whether digital or print, is governed by the Terms and Conditions to be found at http://www.oecd.org/termsandconditions.