copy the linklink copied!3. Coverage and impact of reforms
This chapter analyses the coverage of the selected reforms and the participation increase that could be attributed to them. It discusses the extent to which the observed increase in adult learning participation in the six countries might be attributed to the introduction of these reforms and highlights the importance of impact evaluations to identify causal effects and ensure cost-effectiveness of adult learning investments.
copy the linklink copied!Introduction
The policies included in this review were selected based on their potential link to increased participation in adult learning. Yet, there remain the open questions of if and how much of the increase in learning participation can actually be attributed to the introduction of the reforms analysed. This chapter analyses the coverage of the selected reforms and the participation increase that could be attributed to them. It discusses the extent to which the observed increase in adult learning participation in the six countries might be attributed to the introduction of these reforms and highlights the importance of impact evaluations to identify causal effects and ensure cost-effectiveness of adult learning investments.
copy the linklink copied!Coverage of reforms
The number of participants reached by the policies under review varies widely, from less than 2 000 in the early years of the Austrian Paid Educational Leave reform, to more than 1 million per year in the Italian Training Funds (see Table 3.1). These numbers vary between countries and reforms and need to be contextualised to account for the country’s adult population size and the size of each reform’s target group.
Comparing participants to overall increase in adult learning
For each country included in this study, Table 3.1 shows the increase in the estimated number of adults who participated in formal and non-formal learning activities in the past four weeks between 2006 and 2017. These numbers relate back to Figure 1.3 in Chapter 1, and provide an indication of the size of the observed increase in participation in each country. It shows that the increase in the number of adult learners varies from more than 76 000 in Estonia to over 600 000 in Italy, which is in large part related to differences in population size.
To understand to what extent the reforms under review might have contributed to the observed increase in adult learning, one must compare the number of participants in the reforms with the numbers of ‘additional learners’ between 2006 and 2017 (please see below for a reflection on causal interpretation of the results in this report). For example, the average annual number of participants in Hungary’s Open Learning Centres (2 000), the Dutch Training Vouchers (6 000) and Singapore’s SkillsFuture Series (7 500) is relatively small compared to the observed increase in adults’ training participation in these countries (HUN: 110 000, NLD: 296 000, SGP: 518 000). The yearly number of participants in the Expansion of ALMPs in Austria (max. 219 000) and the Italian Training Funds (1.56 million), on the other hand, is larger than the observed increase in participation (AUT: 167 000, ITA: 617 000). This may indicate that some participants substituted participation in a different type of training with a training delivered in the context of one of the analysed reforms.
Another way of benchmarking the number of policy participants is to compare them to the size of the entire adult population aged 25 to 64. This provides a more general overview of the size or coverage of the reforms in the adult population. The Italian Training Funds have reached by far the largest share of adults, at about 15% of the adult population in any given year. Other reforms attaining relatively high participation rates are the Singaporean SkillsFuture Credit, the Estonian Expansion of ALMPs, and the Austrian Expansion of ALMPs. Nevertheless, these policies engage at most around 5% of the adult population in any given year. The smallest reforms in this respect are the Dutch Training Vouchers (0.06% of the adult population), the Hungarian Free Second Vocational Degree and Open Learning Centres (around 0.04%) and the Austrian Initiative for Adult Education (max. around 0.2%).
The results in Table 3.1 suggest that it is unlikely that one particular reform is solely responsible for the observed increase in education and training participation in any country (Italy’s Training Funds perhaps being an exception). This highlights the need to evaluate the reforms within their context. It is possible that as a policy package, these reforms had a larger contribution to the observed increase in participation than they would have if implemented in isolation.
Comparing participants to increase of learning in the target populations
Relative to the average target group size, the Italian Training Funds remain one of the reforms with the largest coverage relative to the target group: around 31% of the target group (i.e. employed adults) is reached each year. The table shows that the Austrian and Estonian Expansion of ALMPs also have a relatively high participation rate among the target group (i.e. reaching 75% and 26% of employed and unemployed adults at the highest point, respectively). However, these numbers are less precise, because the target group varies across measures that fall under the reforms. The Dutch Network Training (reaching more than 38% of unemployed older workers) and the Hungarian Basic Skill Courses (maximum 23% of unemployed and low-skilled adults, depending on the definition of ‘low-skilled’) also have relatively large participation rates compared to their target group. Reforms with the smallest target group coverage include the Singaporean SkillsFuture Series (around 0.3% of Singapore citizens and permanent residents), the Austrian Paid Educational Leave (between 0.05 and 0.5% of employed adults), and the Dutch Sector Plans (around 0.6% of employed adults). It should be noted that the main reason for reaching relatively small shares of the target group could be that the policies are universal, i.e. they are targeted at the entire (working) population, instead of a very specific sub-group.
When reforms are targeted to specific groups, it is easier to check whether these groups are driving the increase in participation, suggesting a key role played by the reforms. This is the case in a number of countries, where the observed increase in adults’ participation in learning activities is largely driven by the target group of one of the selected reforms. For instance, the observed increase in adults’ training participation in the Netherlands is mostly driven by older individuals, whose participation rates have increased much faster than for younger workers (see Table A A.3 in the Annex). This suggests that the Dutch Training Vouchers, and in particular the Network Training (considering the relatively large target group coverage), which specifically target older individuals, may have contributed to the observed steeper increase in older individuals’ participation rates. Another example is Austria, where the Initiative for Adult Education specifically targets low-skilled adults, and where the data indeed show that the difference in participation between low- and high-educated adults has become smaller in the past decade (see Table A A.3 in the Annex). Low-educated adults in Italy, on the other hand, show a smaller increase in their participation rate compared to higher-educated adults, despite the specific focus of the Adult Education Centres on this group of individuals.
copy the linklink copied!Impact of reforms
Although participation numbers provide interesting insights into the outreach of the reforms, they need to be interpreted with caution. While most of the reforms have been monitored and evaluated (see Chapter 2), there is only little research evidence available about their causal effect on education and training participation. The lack of causal evidence means that what would have happened to adults’ education and training participation in the absence of the reforms is uncertain. For instance, participation may have increased in the absence of the reforms under review, due to other adult learning reforms that are not included in this study. Other examples of potential reasons for increases in training participation in the absence of the reforms under review include the implementation of other reforms that affect adult learning indirectly, business cycle fluctuations, and, more generally, an increased awareness of the importance of lifelong learning.
It is unlikely that the selected reforms are the only policy drivers of the observed increase in education and training participation. The broader policy context may entail several minor adult learning reforms, which did not come up in the exploratory expert interviews as potentially successful reforms, because of relatively low participation rates in the individual reforms. Nevertheless, in combination, these minor reforms may have increased participation at the margin. Further, the broader policy context may include policies that are not directly related to adult learning, but which do affect education and training participation. For instance, changes in social security benefits can impact the propensity of adults to train. Another example are reforms that increase the legal retirement age, which may increase training participation through increased need to keep skills up-to-date throughout a longer working life. However, these policies were excluded from the analysis because they do not directly target adult learning.
Economic downturns can have two important – and contradictory – effects on training participation: On the one hand, training participation may be pro-cyclical. Employers may be less likely to invest in the training of their staff, due to heightened uncertainty and financial constraints, and training participation can decline amongst the employed. On the other hand, training participation may be counter-cyclical, either because employers are more likely to fund training in these times of creation/destruction of jobs, individual focus on updating their skills or because there are more unemployed individuals that participate in training measures through the public employment services. There is evidence for both effects and there may be variation between countries, see e.g. (Brunello, 2009[1]; Bassanini et al., 2005[2]; UKCES, 2013[3]).
One must also take into account that the awareness of the importance of adult learning more generally has increased over the period under observation, which may have contributed to increased take-up of learning opportunities. As outlined in Chapter 1, increasing attention to the topic has been paid internationally in particular since the early 2000s, both at the OECD and EU level (OECD, 1996[4]; OECD, 2009[5]; Council of the European Union, 2008[6]; Council of the European Union, 2011[7]). At the same time, the economic imperative of taking part in training to stay employable has become stronger in the context of technological change, integration of global value chains and demographic changes (OECD, 2019[8]). It is reasonable to assume that these developments have increased the propensity of individuals to train independent of the reforms analysed.
-
Most reforms have a relatively limited coverage of the adult population as a whole. The reach of the policies under review varies widely, engaging between more than 15% of the adult population to less than 0.5% in many cases.
-
This indicates that it is unlikely that one particular reform is solely responsible for the observed increases in education and training participation
-
The reforms need to be evaluated within their broader policy context, including business cycle fluctuations, reforms that are excluded from this study because they are not directly related to adult learning or an increased awareness of the importance of lifelong learning.
References
[2] Bassanini, A. et al. (2005), “Workplace Training in Europe”, Discussion paper series, No. 1640, IZA.
[1] Brunello, G. (2009), “The Effect of Economic Downturns on Apprenticeships and Initial Workplace Training: A Review of the Evidence”, Discussion paper series, No. 4326, IZA, http://www.oecd.org/document/42/0,3343,en_2649_39263238_40344106_1_1_1_1,00.html. (accessed on 28 November 2019).
[7] Council of the European Union (2011), Council Resolution on a renewed European agenda for adult learning.
[6] Council of the European Union (2008), Council conclusions of 22 May 2008 on adult learning.
[8] OECD (2019), Getting Skills Right: Future-Ready Adult Learning Systems, Getting Skills Right, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264311756-en.
[5] OECD (2009), Final communiqué - Tackling the jobs crisis: the labour market and social policy response, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/employment/finalcommunique-tacklingthejobscrisisthelabourmarketandsocialpolicyresponse.htm (accessed on 8 November 2019).
[4] OECD (1996), Lifelong learning for all. Meeting of the Education Committee at Ministerial Level, 16-17 January 1996, OECD Publishing, Paris.
[3] UKCES (2013), Training in recession: The impact of the 2008-2009 recession on training at work.
Metadata, Legal and Rights
https://doi.org/10.1787/cf5d9c21-en
© OECD 2020
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.
