copy the linklink copied!6. Making adult learning systems future-ready for all

copy the linklink copied!Introduction

In a rapidly changing world of work, adult learning systems are under strain. Skill demands have been gradually, but consistently, shifting towards a more intensive use of cognitive and interpersonal skills under the combined forces of technology and globalisation. In this context, there is an urgent need to scale up and strengthen training opportunities for adults to keep their skills up to date or acquire new ones over longer working lives.

Low-skilled adults1 are likely to bear the brunt of changes in skill needs unless they can engage in high-quality reskilling and upskilling programmes. Similarly, as new forms of work emerge at the border between self-employment and employee status, it is important to ensure that this does not translate into growing inequality in access to training based on employment status.

While some countries are better prepared than others to address these changes, all face challenges – be it on participation, inclusiveness, financing or relevance and quality of the training provided (OECD, 2019[1]). On average, two in five adults (40%) participate in job-related formal and non-formal training in any given year,2 and this often only involves training for only few hours, according to data from the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC). The figure ranges from 20% or less in Greece, Italy and Turkey to just short of 60% in New Zealand and Norway, pointing to a need for a significant scaling-up in several countries to catch up with the best performers.3

If participation in training varies widely across OECD countries, what is common to all countries is that it remains very unequally distributed. Participation is especially low amongst those most in need of new or additional skills and among the rising number of workers in non-standard employment arrangements (see Chapters 2 and 4). To give a few examples, participation by low-skilled adults is a staggering 40 percentage points below that of high-skilled adults, in the OECD on average. Older adults are 25 percentage points less likely to train than 25-34 year-olds. Workers whose jobs are at high risk of automation are 30 percentage points less likely to engage in adult learning than their peers in less exposed jobs. Only 35% of own-account workers participate in training yearly compared with 57% of full-time permanent employees. A better understanding of the specific barriers faced by these groups is essential to design effective measures adapted to their needs.

This chapter builds on recent OECD work on the functioning, effectiveness and resilience of adult learning systems across countries (Box 6.1) and focusses on disadvantaged groups most affected by the changes that the future of work will bring. The chapter is structured as follows. Section 6.1 looks at how various megatrends are changing job content and skill requirements. Section 6.2 identifies groups of adults who are under-represented in training and discusses the barriers to participation they face, such as motivation, time or money. For each group, Section 6.3 discusses policy options to increase participation in training based on the specific barriers they face. Section 6.4 discusses the potential role of individual learning accounts and Section 6.5 highlights the importance of aligning training to labour market needs, building governance structures involving all relevant stakeholders, and ensuring adequate and equitable financing mechanisms.

copy the linklink copied!6.1. How megatrends are influencing the demand and supply for skills

The demand for skills in the labour market is undergoing substantial change as a result of technological progress, globalisation and population ageing. In parallel, developments such as rising levels of educational attainment, higher labour market participation of women, and greater migration flows are altering the supply of skills.

Technological progress is reshaping the content and tasks of many occupations. In 2013, Frey and Osborne (2017[6]) interviewed experts to identify occupations that were at high risk of automation based on their task content over the following two decades. High-level cognitive tasks as well as complex social interaction skills were found to be crucial bottlenecks to automation. As a result, jobs are likely to become more intensive in these tasks as new technologies are adopted in the workplace to automate more repetitive ones.

Looking at the presence and frequency of these bottleneck tasks in individual jobs, Nedelkoska and Quintini (2018[7]) find that, on average across OECD countries, about 14% of jobs could change so dramatically as to disappear entirely and an additional 32% could change significantly. Occupations at low risk of automation correspond to those where high-level cognitive skills and complex social interactions are required most frequently, and the opposite is true for occupations at high risk (Figure 6.1) (Nedelkoska and Quintini, 2018[7]).4

Based on these findings, one can expect technological change to impact skill requirements through changes in the nature and content of jobs. On the one hand, it would affect employment composition as the share of jobs at high risk of automation decreases as automation takes place. On the other, the content of remaining jobs – those not at risk of disappearing entirely but still affected by automation – is likely to change in favour of bottleneck tasks as more routine tasks are automated.5

Shortages in bottleneck skills and surpluses in skills that are highly automatable are already emerging (Figure 6.2). Exploiting detailed information on skill requirements, the OECD Skills for Jobs database shows a gradual intensifying over the past decade of shortages in high-level cognitive skills (e.g. reasoning, fluency of ideas and originality) and the skills needed in complex social interactions (e.g. written and oral communication and time sharing skills).

copy the linklink copied!

Figure 6.1. Risk of automation and skill content of jobs, OECD average

Task frequency by occupation, top ten and bottom ten occupations by risk of automation

Note: For each task, frequency is measured on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 Never to 5 Every day. The value reported is the average frequency of respondents in each occupation. The ranking by risk of automation is derived from Nedelkoska, L. and G. Quintini (2018), “Automation, skills use and training”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 202, https://doi.org/10.1787/2e2f4eea-en.

Source: OECD calculations based on the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012, 2015), http://www.oecd.org/skills/piaac/.

 StatLink https://doi.org/10.1787/888933966863

copy the linklink copied!

Figure 6.2. Trends in skill shortages and surpluses, OECD unweighted average, 2004-17

Note: Positive values on the skill needs index represent shortages, while negative values correspond to surpluses. The index varies between -1 and +1. The maximum value represents the strongest shortage observed across OECD (31) countries and skill areas.

Source: OECD Skills for Jobs database, www.oecdskillsforjobsdatabase.org.

 StatLink https://doi.org/10.1787/888933966882

Technological change is also leading to substantial adjustments in how work is organised and the adoption of new business models. Across the OECD and EU countries, a significant proportion of workers are in workplaces that have introduced new technologies and/or undergone significant restructuring in the way jobs and tasks are carried out (Figure 6.3). Ongoing changes in work organisation include the adoption of high performance work practices and engagement of workers through mechanisms such as teamwork, employee’s voice, workers’ autonomy, multitasking and problem-solving. These management and organisational changes can foster skills use in the workplace but require more emphasis on workplace learning and workers with strong cognitive skills and motivation to learn (OECD, 2016[8]).

copy the linklink copied!

Figure 6.3. Share of workers in changing workplaces, 2015

Percentage of workers in workplaces that have introduced new technologies and/or undergone significant restructuring in the way jobs and tasks are carried out, EU countries

Note: Share of working answering affirmatively to the following question: During the last three years, has there been a restructuring or reorganisation at the workplace that has substantially affected your work?

Source: European Working Condition Survey, 2015, https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/surveys/european-working-conditions-surveys.

 StatLink https://doi.org/10.1787/888933966901

Indeed, countries that underwent substantial restructuring in the workplace (e.g. Finland, Sweden or Denmark and Estonia) have stronger shortages in administration and management knowledge as well as in other key skills requiring workers to develop autonomy in making decisions and independence in the organisation of tasks.6 Similarly, there is a positive correlation between organisational change and shortages of skills such as co-ordination with others and ability to lead others (see Figure 6.4).

In parallel, as highlighted in Chapter 2, the share of some non-standard forms of employment, such as temporary, part-time, own-account and platform workers, is increasing in many OECD countries, and across economic sectors and occupations.7 Not only does this change skill requirements – potentially raising the need for self-organisation and self-management skills – and make training particularly important to facilitate labour mobility, but it also shifts the responsibility for skills acquisition from employers to the workers themselves.

copy the linklink copied!

Figure 6.4. Organisational change and changing skill needs, EU countries

Note: Positive values on the skill needs index represent shortages, while negative values correspond to surpluses. The index varies between -1 and +1. The maximum value represents the most acute shortage observed across OECD (31) countries and skill areas.

Source: European Working Conditions Survey (2015), OECD Skills for Jobs database (2017), www.oecdskillsforjobsdatabase.org.

 StatLink https://doi.org/10.1787/888933966920

Similar changes in skill requirements are brought about by globalisation. Over the past decade, the discussion on international trade has moved away from the concept of globalisation – whereby the entire production of goods was being offshored to developing countries to take advantage of lower labour costs – and towards the participation in global value chains – i.e. the offshoring of specific stages of the production process. In this context, the set of tasks performed by workers at each given skill level and the intensity with which they are performed is likely to change (Acemoglu and Autor, 2010[9]). Evidence suggests that moving up global value chains raises the demand for high-level skills which are crucial for countries to specialise in the most technologically advanced industries and in complex business services (OECD, 2017[10]). For instance, Becker, Ekholm and Muendler (2013[11]) find that offshoring firms have relatively more domestic jobs involving non-routine and interactive tasks.

Demographic change is also raising challenges for adult learning systems. In the context of increasing life expectancy and reforms to keep pension systems financially sustainable, working lives are likely to become longer and job changes more frequent as people retire later. Thus, adult learning will become even more important in the future. Furthermore, the shrinking number of young people entering the labour market relative to the number retiring has already contributed to significant shortages of qualified labour in some countries. The ageing of the baby boom generation is also leading to a substantial rise in the elderly population and consequently to shortages in healthcare professionals and long-term care personnel in many countries. Indeed, the OECD Skills for Jobs database (OECD, 2017[12]) shows that healthcare and personal care related skills are in shortage in the large majority of countries, and the most acute shortages of healthcare professionals are found in countries experiencing more rapid population ageing. Finally, population ageing is likely to contribute to further shifts in the structure of the economy, as demand for goods and services changes to accommodate the preferences of older consumers, indirectly affecting the occupational structure of employment and skill needs of employers.

copy the linklink copied!6.2. Some groups are more affected than others

The changes in skill requirements described above have the potential to affect all workers. However, the growing demand for high-level cognitive skills and complex social interaction skills suggests that low-skilled adults working in jobs that are very intensive in simple and repetitive tasks are likely to bear the brunt of these changes. Many of them are at risk of losing their jobs as a result of automation. Others – denoted displaced workers in this chapter – will already be unemployed following dismissals for economic reasons.8 In all cases, the adults concerned are likely to need retraining for different jobs in different sectors, making the task particularly hard (OECD, 2019[13]; European Commission, 2018[14]).

Age plays a key role in the context of continuous skill development, particularly when it overlaps with low skills, jobs at high risk of automation or in sectors undergoing structural change. Older adults are likely to experience significant skills obsolescence, particularly in the context of technological change, unless further training is available to upgrade what they learnt in initial education. At the same time, incentives for adults to train and for employers to provide training opportunities tend to decline with age as there is less time to recoup the investment made before retirement (Martin, 2018[15]; OECD, 2017[16]).

With the share of workers in non-standard contractual arrangements rising in some countries, the challenges faced by this group in maintaining and updating their skills are receiving significant attention. As training is often provided by employers, workers with less attachment to the labour market have more difficulties accessing it. This is likely to be the case for temporary, part-time and own-account workers, including platform workers.

Despite their greater need for up-skilling and re-skilling, these groups receive less training than their counterparts. The largest differences are observed between low and high skilled adults and between adults in jobs at high and low risk of automation, but a significant gap also exists between older adults and younger people (Figure 6.5). Workers in non-standard contracts receive significantly less training than their counterparts in full-time permanent jobs, lending support to the concern that these workers find it particularly difficult to access training because of the lack of attachment to an individual employer. This is particularly the case for own-account workers.

One should be careful in interpreting the differences in the incidence of training between groups presented in Figure 6.5 as a causal relationship. Differences in training incidence by contract type are particularly difficult to analyse because, at any given point in time, less skilled workers are both less likely to have a regular open ended contract and less likely to participate in job-related training. To the extent that ability is not accounted for in simple descriptive statistics, one might incorrectly attribute the observed training pattern to contract type while, in fact, this might reflect differences in unobserved ability at least partly. Similar arguments apply to the other groups discussed above.

In light of these considerations, and given that many of the groups in Figure 6.5 are overlapping, running a pooled cross-country regression using PIAAC data of the probability of participating in job-related training on a set of individual, job and firm characteristics provides a way of better isolating the effect of each factor.9 The results presented in Table 6.1 confirm the descriptive relationships highlighted in Figure 6.5. Both educational attainment and proficiency in literacy are positively associated with the likelihood of participating in training for adults as well as workers, while controlling for other individual (and employer’s) characteristics. The effect is twice as large when the unemployed and the inactive are included suggesting that skill levels are more crucial determinants of these groups’ participation in training than of the participation of workers. The risk of automation is also a very strong predictor of the probability of training participation: workers in jobs at high risk of automation train less than their counterparts in jobs at low risk. Participation in training decreases with age. In terms of employment status, employees are the group participating the most in training.

copy the linklink copied!

Figure 6.5. Participation in job-related training by group, OECD average

Share of adults (age 16-65) in each group that participate in training, 2012/2015

Note: Share of adults who participated in formal or non-formal job-related training over the previous 12 months. Data refer to 2012 for most countries, except for Chile, Greece, Israel, Lithuania, New Zealand, Slovenia and Turkey where they refer to 2015. Low (high) skilled refers to adults who score at level 1 or below (levels 4 or 5) on the PIAAC literacy scale. High (low) automation refers to adults at high (low) risk of automation. Own-account workers are the self-employed without employees. Temporary refers to workers on fixed term or temporary work agency contracts. Part-time refers to adults who work less than 30 hours per week. Full-time permanent are adults in full-time jobs with an indefinite work contract. Unemployed refers to all unemployed who have not been dismissed for economic reasons in their last job; displaced refers to unemployed adults who have been dismissed for economic reasons in the last job. The OECD average (40%) refers to the unweighted average participation in job-related training among all adults among OECD countries participating in the Survey for Adult Skills (PIAAC).

Source: Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012, 2015), http://www.oecd.org/skills/piaac/.

 StatLink https://doi.org/10.1787/888933966939

The results in Table 6.1 also confirm that own-account workers and the unemployed receive significantly less training than employees in open-ended contracts, once other socio-demographic characteristics are controlled for. This is also the case for part-time workers.

Conversely, for fixed-term and temporary agency workers there is no statistically-significant difference with employees in open-ended contracts, suggesting that individual characteristics play a bigger role than their contract type in determining their likelihood of participation.10 However, this may hide further heterogeneity across types of training and firms characteristics. For instance, Fialho, Quintini and Vandeweyer (forthcoming[17]) find that fixed-term and temporary-agency workers receive less non-formal training11 but more formal training12 than their counterparts on open-ended contracts. This is probably due to the fact that formal training tends to be of a general nature and less likely to be employer-sponsored. Temporary workers may invest in formal training – by paying out of their own pocket or using available public funding – to compensate for the reduced amount of training they receive at work. They may also use temporary work as a short-term source of financing for expensive education courses and search for open-ended contracts after graduation: the causality in this case would run from formal training participation to temporary contract status.

Further evidence by the OECD (OECD, 2014[18]) shows a negative and statistically significant relationship between temporary contract status and participation in employer-sponsored13 non-formal training in the vast majority of OECD countries for which data is available.

Finally, among other factors, firms characteristics such as size, growth potential and sector also affect the changes of training participation, with larger firms, growing firms and firms operating in the public sector providing more training, ceteris paribus.

The reasons for lower participation of disadvantaged groups in training are complex and can come from either the demand (participants) or the supply (training provision) side. On average in the OECD, only 19% of adults who did not participate in training over the previous 12 months report that there were learning opportunities that they would have wanted to take up.

In this chapter, the term willingness to train will denote the likelihood that workers had learning opportunities that they wanted to take up but could not. Willingness to train varies across under-represented groups defined above (Figure 6.6). Low-skilled adults, workers in jobs at high risk of automation and older workers are significantly less willing to train than their counterparts, and so are dismissed workers although the difference is smaller. The willingness to train is also low for workers in non-standard forms of employment who, nevertheless, seem to have more appetite for training than full-time permanent employees.

Many reasons could explain why so many adults have low willingness to train, including the poor quality of the training offers they receive (or more generally lack of support from their employer), poor attitudes to learning, a lack of information on training opportunities, lack of understanding of the benefits that can derive from training, or the perception that existing barriers to participation are unsurmountable.

copy the linklink copied!

Figure 6.6. Willingness to train by group, OECD average

Share of adults (age 16-65) in each group who did not participate in training but would have liked to, 2012, 2015

Note: Share of adults who did not participate in training but report that, over the previous 12 months, there were learning activities that they would have wanted to participate in. Data refer to 2012 for most countries, except for Chile, Greece, Israel, Lithuania, New Zealand, Slovenia and Turkey where they refer to 2015. Low (high) skilled refers to adults who score at level 1 or below (levels 4 or 5) on the PIAAC literacy scale. High (low) automation refers to adults at high (low) risk of automation. Own account workers are the self-employed without employees. Temporary refers to workers on fixed term or temporary work agency contracts. Part-time refers to adults who work less than 30 hours per week. Full-time permanent are adults in full-time jobs with an indefinite work contract. Unemployed refers to all unemployed who have not been dismissed for economic reasons in their last job; displaced refers to unemployed adults who have been dismissed for economic reasons in the last job.

Source: Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012, 2015), http://www.oecd.org/skills/piaac/

 StatLink https://doi.org/10.1787/888933966958

Table 6.1 attempts to shed light on the factors determining the willingness to train. The dependent variable is constructed to take value 1 if the employee did not participate in training but would have liked to and 0 if the employee did not participate in training and there were no learning activities that he/she wanted to participate in. Results confirm that the willingness to participate in training is affected by individual, family, job and firm characteristics. It increases with educational attainment and skill level while it declines with age, suggesting that personal motivation may play a role. It is lower in jobs at high risk of automation and in jobs in the private sector which tend to receive less training overall, lending credit to the idea that the lack of willingness to train may have to do with the lack of valuable and interesting training options. On the other hand, the willingness to train among non-participants is lower in larger firms despite the fact that larger firms generally provide more opportunities to train.

Another key challenge to training participation is that even adults who would be willing to train in principle do not do so because they face several barriers. Lack of time for personal or work reasons is by far the main barrier cited by adults who would like to participate in training but do not. This tends to be the main barrier for all the groups considered, except for the unemployed and displaced workers who presumably have more time on their hands (Figure 6.7). For the latter, the main barrier turns out to be financial. The lack of pre-requisites – most likely minimum qualification requirements – represents a hurdle for about 11% of low-skilled adults and 8% displaced workers. For those who report that there were learning opportunities that they would have wanted to take up, lack of employer support does not stand out as a key barrier to training, although this is likely to be due to the fact that many of the adults considered are not in an employment relationship. This is the case for many low-skilled and older adults, for the unemployed and displaced workers as well as for own-account workers.

copy the linklink copied!

Figure 6.7. Reasons for not training by group, OECD average

Reasons for not training among adults (age 16-65) who did not train but would have liked to, by group, 2012, 2015

Note: Share of adults who participate in formal or non-formal job-related training over the previous 12 months. Data refer to 2012 for most countries, except for Chile, Greece, Israel, Lithuania, New Zealand, Slovenia and Turkey where they refer to 2015. Low (high) skilled refers to adults who score at level 1 or below (levels 4 or 5) on the PIAAC literacy scale. High (low) automation refers to adults at high (low) risk of automation. Own-account workers are the self-employed without employees. Temporary refers to workers on fixed term or temporary work agency contracts. Part-time refers to adults who work less than 30 hours per week. Full-time permanent are adults in full-time jobs with an indefinite work contract. Unemployed refers to all unemployed who have not been dismissed for economic reasons in their last job; displaced refers to unemployed adults who have been dismissed for economic reasons in the last job. Lack of time for personal or work reasons refers to lack of time due to “being too busy at work” or due to “childcare or family responsibilities”.

Source: Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012, 2015) http://www.oecd.org/skills/piaac/

 StatLink https://doi.org/10.1787/888933966977

Participation is also influenced by the supply of training by firms. The European Continuing Vocational Training Survey (CVTS) provides some insights into how many firms train and the reasons for not training or for not training more. Analysis of CVTS data shows that the share of training firms has increased gradually over the past decade. However, today like in the past, smaller firms tend to train less than larger firms: the share of training firms with 10 to 49 employees – the smallest category covered by CVTS – is almost 35 percentage points lower than the share of training firms with 250 employees or more (Figure 6.8), confirming the results presented in Table 6.1. It is worth noting that while many firms train, only about half of the firms that provide training do so for at least 50% of their workforce. This prompts the questions of whether training provided by firms actually reaches the most disadvantaged workers.14

copy the linklink copied!

Figure 6.8. Training provision by firm size, EU28, 2005-15

Share of firms that provide CVT training and share of firms that provide CVT training to at least 50% of their employees

Note: Data excludes firms with less than 10 employees. CVT: continuing vocational training.

Source: Eurostat (2019[19]), CVTS Database – Eurostat, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/education-and-training/data/database.

 StatLink https://doi.org/10.1787/888933966996

The vast majority of employers who do not train cite the fact that continuing vocational training (CVT) is not necessary because: either existing qualifications are considered sufficient or initial vocational training – such as apprenticeships for younger employees – is preferred. The other key reasons are reported in Figure 6.9. A preference for recruiting over training existing employees, the cost of training and the workload of employees leaving little time to train are the most frequently cited reasons for not training. A similar ranking applies to firms that already provide training to justify why they do not train more. Despite the expectation that costs and time might be a bigger issue for smaller firms, the ranking of barriers to training provision does not vary much by firm size. This could be due to fact that CVTS excludes the smallest firms for which the pattern of barriers might differ more markedly.

Firms’ training efforts may also vary across different industries, reflecting the fact that each industry may face different training needs. For instance, industries vary in the speed with which new technologies are developed and adopted, giving rise to different reskilling needs. Differences in training efforts may also reflect differences in sectoral collective bargaining arrangements around training, training cultures, and the skill-intensity of jobs in the industry.

copy the linklink copied!

Figure 6.9. Reasons for not providing training or limiting training provision, by firm size, EU 28

Percentages

Note: Multiple choices allowed. Data excludes firms with less than 10 employees.

Source: Eurostat (2019[19]), CVTS Database – Eurostat, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/education-and-training/data/database.

 StatLink https://doi.org/10.1787/888933967015

copy the linklink copied!

Figure 6.10. Adults’ participation in training, by industry

Share of adults (16-65) in each industry that participate in training, OECD average, 2012/2015

Note: Share of adults who participate in formal or non-formal job-related training over the previous 12 months. Data refer to 2012 for most countries, except for Chile, Greece, Israel, Lithuania, New Zealand, Slovenia and Turkey where they refer to 2015.

Source: Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012, 2015), http://www.oecd.org/skills/piaac/

 StatLink https://doi.org/10.1787/888933967034

Across OECD countries on average, participation to training is lowest in the agriculture, accommodation and food sectors, where around 30% of workers train in a given year, and highest in the financial and insurance, education, and electricity supply sectors, where around 70% of workers train in a given year (Figure 6.10).

Training needs also vary across regions – requiring different policy responses. For example, regions with a high level of adoption of new technologies may need to reskill many workers to cope with automation (OECD, 2018[20]). Conversely, in regions experiencing structural adjustment problems, adult learning policies that try to upskill workers for the future of work will fail to succeed if they are not complemented by regional development policies that favour entrepreneurship and increasing the value-added content of existing firms.

copy the linklink copied!6.3. Encouraging participation in adult learning by under-represented groups

The analysis presented in the previous section identifies the groups of adults most likely to bear the brunt of the changes in skill needs, assesses their willingness to train and explores barriers to training participation.

Overall, the analysis suggests that in order to increase access to training, it will be crucial for countries to implement policies that enhance the willingness to train of individuals, tackle barriers to training related to lack of time, money or prerequisites for entry, and encourage firms to train groups at risk. Several policy options exist to address these challenges. For example:

• To enhance the willingness to train of individuals, countries can strengthen career guidance that helps adults navigate different training options available; raise awareness on the benefits of learning, for example through awareness campaigns; and ensure that wages more closely reflect productivity gains resulting from training participation. Taken together, these measures may help foster a learning culture and a mind-set for learning among adults.

• To tackle lack of time, countries can provide flexible training options, delivered online or outside of working hours (during week-ends or evenings), so that training can fit into busy schedules. Modular training options can also allow adults to learn at their own pace by completing self-contained (and shorter) learning modules that together ultimately lead to a full qualification. Education and training leave – mandated by law or negotiated through collective bargaining – is another policy option that allows workers to take time off work to train.

• To tackle financial constraints, countries can provide free training programmes, and/or develop financial incentives that help adults meet the direct cost of training (e.g. subsidies, tax deductions), and cover the opportunity costs of not working (e.g. through wage replacement schemes).

• To address the lack of prerequisites, the recognition of prior learning allows (low-qualified) adults to have the skills they have learnt through work experience certified. This formal recognition allows them to access those adult learning programmes that impose entry requirements.

• To encourage employers to provide training to groups at risk, countries can introduce financial incentives that lower the cost of organising training and implement policies to provide better information to firms about the benefits of training and the availability of training opportunities.

While policies along these lines already exist in many OECD countries (OECD, 2019[1]), it is crucial that they do not exclude disadvantaged groups and that they are designed in a way that allows disadvantaged groups to benefit. The following sections describe policy initiatives for each group, with a particular focus on addressing the barriers outlined in Section 6.2.15

It is noteworthy that, in order to be effective, these policies need to be considered together and not in isolation. For example, because lack of time is a key barrier for training participation for many adults, any adult learning policy, in order to be effective, needs to make time for training. Similarly, without enhancing the willingness to train and building a culture of learning, take-up of adult learning programmes may be low irrespective of costs or quality. Adult learning programmes that do not provide sufficient financial assistance for adults and firms to meet the cost of training may also end up being ineffective. Finally, because it is challenging to take up training while working full-time, a culture of learning can only be fostered with the support of employers.

6.3.1. Low-skilled adults

In all OECD countries, low-skilled adults are less likely to train than the high skilled, although the difference between the two groups varies across countries. The gap in participation between high and low-skilled adults in largest in Denmark, Germany, and Turkey where it is around 50 percentage points. It is lowest in Greece where participation in adult learning is very low for both high- and low-skilled adults (Figure 6.11).

copy the linklink copied!

Figure 6.11. Differences in training participation and willingness to train between low and high-skilled adults, by country, 2012, 2015

Percentage point difference in training participation and willingness to train, high-skilled minus low-skilled adults (age 16-65)

Note: The difference in willingness to train is the percentage point difference in the share of adults who did not participate in training but would have liked to (positive values indicate that this share is higher for high-skilled adults than for low-skilled adults). The difference in participation is the percentage point difference in the share of adults who participated in training over the previous 12 months (positive values indicate that this share is higher for high-skilled adults than for low-skilled adults).

Source: Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012, 2015), http://www.oecd.org/skills/piaac/.

 StatLink https://doi.org/10.1787/888933967053

The low skilled are also less willing to train than high skilled adults, although this gap varies significantly across the OECD. For example, in Chile and Italy, the low-skilled who did not take part in training are over 30 percentage points less likely to report that they would have liked to train than their high-skilled counterparts (Figure 6.11). However, this difference is less than 10 percentage points in New Zealand, Lithuania, France, Greece, Norway and Sweden.

Improving the willingness to train among low-skilled adults

Reaching out to the low-skilled and raising awareness of the benefits of learning is crucial to engage them more proactively in training. While public awareness campaigns on adult learning have been implemented in many OECD countries over the past years, they have often proved ineffective in reaching out to the low-skilled (OECD, 2019[5]; European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2015[21]).16

To address this challenge, several OECD countries have started to put in place more proactive initiatives to reach the low-skilled in the places they frequent regularly – such as workplaces, kindergartens and schools, and public spaces (OECD, 2019[5]) (see Box 6.2).

More than other population groups, the low-skilled may find it challenging to identify their training needs and navigate the plethora of adult learning options available to them. Several countries across the OECD have taken steps to offer targeted career guidance to help the low-skilled identify their needs and the training programmes that are most appropriate for them (see Box 6.2).

Another key challenge is that the low-skilled often have experienced failure in their initial education and may find returning to the classroom unattractive. Ensuring that adult learning is delivered in innovative ways (e.g. outside of classroom settings) and that it is closely linked to the context of the learner (e.g. their workplace), is key to ensure that low-skilled adults are motivated to train and that training meets their needs. Some OECD countries have started to explore more innovative ways to deliver learning for the low-skilled (see Box 6.2).

copy the linklink copied!

Box 6.2. Improving the willingness to train of the low-skilled

Reaching out to the low-skilled in innovative ways:

• In the United Kingdom, Unionlearn uses Union Learning Representatives (ULRs) to reach out to workers in workplaces and provides training to about 250 000 workers every year, including many low-qualified workers (Stuart et al., 2016[22]; Stuart et al., 2013[23]).

• In Vienna (Austria), the project Mama lernt Deutsch! provides basic skills courses for mothers with low-qualifications and for whom German is not their first language, and takes place in their child’s educational institution (OECD, 2019[5]).

• In Brussels (Belgium), Formtruck is a mobile information centre on training opportunities, which aims to engage with low-qualified jobseekers in public locations, e.g. at events, parks and public squares. Since its introduction in 2017, the truck has been used around 20 times per year. There are no evaluations on the effectiveness of this approach (OECD, 2019[5]).

Career guidance targeted to the low-skilled:

• In Iceland, Lifelong Learning Centres provide education counselling with a focus on the adults with low-qualifications. Guidance services are provided by highly qualified counsellors, who typically have a degree in education and vocational counselling. Every year Lifelong Learning Centres conduct around 10 000 guidance-counselling sessions with low-qualified people (OECD, 2019[5]).

• The European project GOAL (Guidance and Orientation Interventions for Low-Educated Adults) ran between February 2015 and January 2018 in a number of OECD countries – e.g. Flanders (Belgium), Czech Republic, Iceland, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Slovenia – with the aim to develop and expand educational guidance services for adults without upper secondary education. The project had four primary objectives: (i) enhancing partnerships and networks with other organisations serving the target groups; (ii) engaging in outreach activities designed to bring guidance services to those target groups; (iii) defining the competences which counsellors require to enable them to address the specific needs of GOAL clients; and (iv) developing and effectively using guidance tools tailored to low-educated adults. The evaluation of the programme emphasises two findings: (i) partnerships can ensure that guidance addresses the full range of issues faced by adults, but also comes with coordination costs; (ii) there is no one-size-fits-all approach to providing advice and guidance, and the type of guidance provided must be tailored to the individual needs and context of the adult (Carpentieri et al., 2018[24]; OECD, 2019[5]).

Delivering training in innovative ways:

• In Norway, Skills Plus Work combines work and basic skill training – e.g. reading, writing, numeracy and digital skills. Guidance for the design of programmes is provided in the form of profiles of basic job-related skills for different professions, learning materials and national standards for basic skills for adults. Since 2006, the programme has supported more than 30 000 adults in acquiring reading, writing, numeracy and digital skills (OECD, 2019[5]).

• In Germany the project eVideoTransfer, co-funded by the Germany Ministry of Education, offers mobile learning opportunities for workers with low basic skills. The programme combines industry-specific and basic skills training. In order to ensure that those with low basic digital skills can participate, a learning module was developed on how to use mouse and keyboard (OECD, 2019[5]).

Making training more accessible to the low-skilled

The importance of barriers to training for the low-skilled, such as lack of time (due to work or family reasons), financial constraints and entry requirements, varies across countries. The lack of time due to work reasons plays a central role in Korea while it is cited as a barrier by just 10% of adults who did not train in France (Figure 6.12). Lack of time due to family constraints play a major role in Turkey where it appears to be more important than lack of time due to work constraints. Financial constraints are a key barrier to training among the low-skilled in Estonia, France, Greece and Slovenia. Finally, the lack of prerequisites represents a sizeable barrier for the low-skilled particularly in Chile, Finland and Slovenia. This variation across countries partly reflects different situations in each country such as attitudes to training but also differences in policy settings.

Dealing with entry requirements

Most low-skilled adults are low-qualified and only hold lower-secondary educational qualification. Despite this, many among them have gained knowledge and competences through years of work experience. For this group, the recognition of prior learning can be particularly valuable to ensure access to training courses with entry-level requirements.

The recognition of prior learning can help to re-engage individuals in training and limit the time and costs needed to complete a formal credential. Recognition programmes can also help individuals improve their labour mobility by providing proof to a new employer of the skills they have obtained informally (OECD, 2019[1]).

copy the linklink copied!

Figure 6.12. Reasons why the low-skilled do not train, by country

Share of adults (age 16-65) citing each reason for not training among low-skilled adults who did not train but would have liked to, by country, 2012, 2015

Note: Lack of time – work, refers to a lack of time due to “being too busy at work”. Lack of time – personal refers to a lack of time due to childcare of family responsibilities. Only countries with at least 10 observations are shown in the figure.

Source: Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012, 2015) http://www.oecd.org/skills/piaac/.

 StatLink https://doi.org/10.1787/888933967072

But while programmes for the recognition of prior learning exist in most OECD countries, they can often be too difficult to navigate for the low-qualified, due to complex procedures, or the high number of complementary classes needed to obtain a final certification. To facilitate take-up, some OECD countries have put in place guidance services that support the low-qualified throughout the process of having their skills recognised and certified (Box 6.3).

copy the linklink copied!

Box 6.3. Broadening the use of recognition prior learning among adult with low qualifications

• In France, in recent years, the system for the recognition and certification of skills (Validation des acquis de l'expérience – VAE) has been made more accessible for the low-qualified. Firms have an obligation to inform their workers about VAE every second year, in the context of their mandated professional development assessment (Entretien professionnel) (Mathou, 2016[25]). Adults also have access to specific VAE leave.

• In Portugal, Qualifica Centres target low-qualified adults among other groups, and the recognition of prior learning is embedded in their overall guidance offer. One key characteristic of the programme is that the low-qualified receive assistance throughout the whole skills recognition procedures. In 2017, 28 804 adults enrolled in recognition procedures and 10 157 received a certificate (OECD, 2019[5]).

Making time for training or making training less time-consuming

More than other groups, many low-skilled adults are busy with work and family responsibilities and lack the time to participate in lengthy training programmes (Fouarge, Schils and de Grip, 2013[26]). The lack of financial means to pay for childcare or take time off work aggravates the situation for the low-skilled who tend to work in low-wage jobs.

Modular training, which divides a learning programme into self-contained and certified modules, can encourage the low skilled to find the time to learn at their own pace. Several OECD countries have been taking steps to provide modular training options to adults, although these programmes are generally not targeted specifically to the low-skilled (Box 6.4).

Digital and online training programmes can also help make time for training, broadening access to training while containing training costs. However, these training options have limitations, because many low-skilled people (especially adults with low digital skills) may find it more difficult to access them.

Education and training leave, i.e. a regulatory instrument which sets out the conditions under which workers may be granted time away from work for leaning purposes, is another policy tool to ensure that adults – including the low-skilled – have the right to put aside sufficient time for training (OECD, 2019[1]).

Although education and training leave exists in many OECD countries, take-up tends to be low, especially for the low-skilled. Indeed, adults with low skills are often in low-wage blue-collar jobs with limited bargaining power vis-à-vis their employer and may feel reluctant to ask for education and training leave. Employers themselves – that in many OECD countries (e.g. Italy) are not obliged to accept the training leave request – may be reluctant to grant education and training leave to the low-skilled, especially if it is to upskill for a different job with another employer. Finally, it can be particularly challenging for a financially-constrained, low-skilled worker to actually use education and training leave, if adequate financial support (e.g. in the form of wage compensation during training; or subsidies to cover the direct costs of training) is not provided.

copy the linklink copied!

Box 6.4. Modular training to accommodate time constraints

• In Denmark, learners are able to combine modules from different types of adult learning programmes – e.g. ALMPs, basic skills courses, higher education, VET and non-formal liberal education programmes – to obtain a formal qualification (OECD, 2019[1]).

• In Flanders (Belgium), Centres for Adult Education (Centra voor Volwassenonderwijs, CAE) provide education in a wide range of skills such as technical skills and languages. The courses are fully modular: after completing a module, the learner receives a partial certificate, and after completing an entire programme, the learner receives a formal certificate recognised by the Flemish government (OECD, 2019[27]).

• In Mexico, the Model for Life and Work Programme (MEVyT)17 allows low-skilled adults to gain qualification through different modules at initial, intermediate (primary education) and advanced (lower secondary education) level (OECD, 2019[5]).

• In Switzerland, modular programmes have started to develop in the mid-1990s and today are available throughout the adult learning sector. Adults can take part in individual modules or combine different modules to form a full training programme (OECD, 2019[1]).

Reducing the financial barrier to training

Financial constraints can be particularly important for the low-skilled and may prevent them from participating in training. In fact, the low-skilled often alternate between work and periods of unemployment, have low-quality jobs with limited access to employer-sponsored training, and/or are in low-wage jobs which leave them little financial resources to invest in training. When they train, their investment in training – in terms of time and cost – does not always pay off in terms of better, higher paid jobs.18

To address these challenges, many OECD countries have put in place a number of measures – e.g. training vouchers, allowances, fully-funded training programmes – specifically targeted to the low-skilled with a view to make training more affordable for them (Box 6.5). These schemes include programmes for the employed and the unemployed with low skills.

copy the linklink copied!

Box 6.5. Making training more affordable for the low-skilled

• In France, the individual learning account (Compte Personnel de Formation) provides more generous credits to the low-skilled, i.e. EUR 800 per year against EUR 500 for the rest of the labour force (see Section 6.4) (OECD, forthcoming[28]).

• In Estonia, the public employment services offer a Degree Study Allowance to employed and unemployed adults with insufficient or outdated skills, who may have trouble finding a job or be at risk of redundancy. The monthly allowance is only paid for skills that are in demand according to the analysis of sectoral skill needs conducted by the Estonian Qualifications Authority, and the amount is income dependent (OECD, 2019[1]).

• In Sweden, an education entry grant was introduced in mid-2017, targeting low-qualified unemployed persons aged 25-56. It consists of approximately EUR 210 per week that can be received for 50 weeks and allows adults to study at the primary or secondary levels (European Commission, 2019[29]).

• In the United Kingdom, from 2020 onwards, low-skilled adults will have access to fully-funded digital skills programmes, in line with the already existing maths and English programmes (OECD, 2019[1]).

• In the United States, unemployed low-skilled adults have access to training vouchers – called Individual Training Accounts (ITAs) – for training programmes that prepare participants for work in in-demand sectors (OECD, forthcoming[28]).

Encouraging employers to provide training to the low-skilled

Employers may be reluctant to train the low-skilled, or support them to undertake training. They may prefer to focus training efforts on higher-skilled workers, for whom they can expect to reap greater returns on investments, and/or they might find it less costly to hire high-skilled people rather than upskill existing low-skilled employees (Figure 6.9).

In this context, encouraging firms to train low-skilled workers – e.g. by lowering the cost of training them – is key. Many policy measures across the OECD focus on encouraging employers to hire and then train the low-skilled – often through financial incentives. An interesting example of such a programme was the Emplois d’avenir (Jobs of the Future) in France. Until early 2018, the programme encouraged firms to hire low-skilled, unemployed, youth for a period of three years. The government covered 75% of the wage costs (paid at the minimum wage) on the condition that the employer provided a tutor to help train the young person. However, a recent evaluation shows that to be beneficial to workers in the medium run, the received training needs to lead to a certification (Cahuc, Carcillo and Minea, forthcoming[30]). Similar programmes exist in Greece (training voucher for young unemployed aged 18-24), Italy (Tirocini in Garanzia Giovani), Wallonia and the Flanders (Belgium – Formation Alternée and the Programme de Transition Professionnelle, which also targets the low-skilled) (OECD, 2017[31]).

6.3.4. Temporary workers

As the share of temporary workers – namely workers under fixed-term and temporary work agency (TWA) contracts – is large and, in some countries, increasing (see Chapter 2), ensuring that they participate in adult learning represents a major policy priority.

While temporary workers train less than full-time workers across the OECD on average, it has to be acknowledged that gaps in training participation are lower than for other groups (e.g. low-skilled versus high-skilled) (Figure 6.5). Moreover, as discussed in Section 6.2, these differences tend to be due to socio-demographic characteristics as opposed to contractual status itself. This is particularly the case for participation in formal training, often provided by educational institutions, while contractual status carries an important weight in the participation in non-formal training, often provided by employers.

Overall, there are large differences across countries, with gaps in participation between temporary and full-time employees spanning from under 5 percentage points in Ireland, Israel, Lithuania and New Zealand to 15 percentage points or more in Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands and the Slovak Republic (Figure 6.13). In four countries – Austria, Greece, Denmark, and the United States – the gap is positive.21

Substantial differences exist not only across countries but also within countries between employees on different types of temporary contracts themselves. Indeed, unlike workers with fixed-term contracts, often TWA workers benefit from targeted adult learning programmes.

Unlike other population groups, temporary workers are significantly more likely to report that they were willing to train than full-time permanent workers. This is true across all OECD countries, with the exception of Australia, Israel and Korea (Figure 6.13). Time and cost are the most frequently cited barriers to training participation for employees in temporary contracts in most OECD countries. Lack of support from the employer appears to play a major role in Turkey as well as in the Netherlands, Poland and Denmark (Figure 6.14).

copy the linklink copied!

Figure 6.13. Differences in training participation and willingness to train between temporary and full-time permanent workers, by country, 2012, 2015

Percentage point difference in training participation and willingness to train, full-time permanent workers minus temporary workers (age 16-65)

Note: The difference in willingness to train is the percentage point difference in the share of adults who did not participate in train but would have liked to (positive values indicate that this share is higher for full-time permanent employee than for temporary workers). The difference in participation is the percentage point difference in the share of adults who participated in training over the previous 12 months (positive values indicate that this share is higher for full-time permanent employees than for temporary workers).

Source: Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012, 2015), http://www.oecd.org/skills/piaac/.

 StatLink https://doi.org/10.1787/888933967091

Equal treatment: rights, entitlements and representation

Many OECD countries include non-discrimination rules in their legal frameworks, with a view to promote equal training rights between permanent workers and workers on fixed-term contracts. For example, in Poland, the Labour Code states that fixed-term and permanent employees shall be treated equally as regards to the promotion and access to training. Similarly, in Greece, the legal framework states that employers should facilitate fixed-term workers’ access to appropriate training opportunities, with a view to strengthen their skills, improve their career development, and enhance their professional mobility.22

copy the linklink copied!

Figure 6.14. Reasons why temporary workers do not train, by country

Reasons for not training among temporary workers (age 16-65) who did not train but would have liked to, 2012, 2015.

Note: Lack of time for work, refers to a lack of time due to “being too busy at work”. Lack of time – personal refers to a lack of time due to childcare of family responsibilities. Only countries with at least 10 observations are shown in the figure.

Source: Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012, 2015), http://www.oecd.org/skills/piaac/.

 StatLink https://doi.org/10.1787/888933967110

Similarly, several OECD countries have also taken steps to ensure that the legal framework establishes equal training rights between permanent and TWA workers. For example, the German law on TWA workers is based on the principle of equal treatment, including on training opportunities (Finn, 2016[38]). Similarly, in Belgium, TWA workers have access to the paid education and training leave as standard employees (IDEAconsult, 2015[39]). In France, individual learning accounts (compte personnel de formation) are open to all, including to TWA workers (see Section 6.4).23 Equal training rights are also often agreed through collective agreements. For example, in France, the temporary agency work employers’ confederation (PRISME) and the five main union organisations, signed an agreement24 in 2007, which establishes that both the agency and the user companies should promote equal training as a means for equality of opportunities (Ebisui, 2012[40]) – see also Chapter 5.

Despite these positive examples, there are still significant challenges to ensuring that temporary workers benefit from adult learning policies as much as permanent workers. Indeed, some adult learning measures explicitly exclude temporary workers altogether. For example, in Canada, the Job Training Grant – a programme which offers firms funding towards the cost of training their workers – is reserved to the training of permanent staff (Busby and Muthukumaran, 2016[41]). Similarly, in the United Kingdom, TWA workers are not entitled to education and training leave.

Even when equal rules are in place in the legal framework, in several countries, collective bargaining may still stipulate different on-the-job-training rights for temporary and permanent workers in the same sector (OECD, 2018[42]). For example, in Italy, the collective agreement for the metalwork industry has recently established an individual training right of 24 hours in the period 2017-2019 (see Chapter 5) – but the right is reserved to permanent workers only and excludes temporary staff.

Moreover, temporary workers often lack representation – i.e. there are virtually no unions dedicated to represent the interests of temporary workers as such, irrespective of the economic sector they belong to. While there are several reasons for this (see Chapters 4 and 5), lack of representation results into temporary workers having little room to negotiate better training rights and more adequate training opportunities through collective bargaining.

Even when equal training rights are in place through legislation and/or collective bargaining agreements, entitlements are often based on tenure, which in practice excludes many temporary workers with contracts of short duration. To give one example, in some OECD countries education and training leave entitlements are provided to workers after a minimum tenure within the company (e.g. five years in Italy, two in Norway, six months in Sweden) (OECD, 2019[1]).

Finally, holding a temporary job may imply having weaker training rights in case of unemployment, compared to standard employees, hence less access to training provided by public employment services. Indeed, while in many OECD countries, displaced workers often receive preferential training support, there do not seem to be similar measures for the unemployed whose previous (temporary) contract was not renewed. For example, in Sweden, Job Security Councils – which provide transition services to dismissed workers – are available to employees who have been employed for a minimum period (normally over one year) on a permanent (not temporary) contract (Eurofound, 2018[43]).

Targeted programmes

All else being equal, many employers still prefer to invest in the training of permanent employees, who are expected to stay with the company for longer, and from whom they can expect to reap greater benefits from their skills investments.

This may be particularly true in countries with dual labour market, with significant differences in dismissal legislation between temporary and permanent workers (e.g. Spain, Italy, France), and where firms hire temporary contracts in sequence to bypass conversion rules (Cabrales, Dolado and Mora, 2014[44]). In these contexts, reforming EPL to address labour market segmentation may have the spillover effect of encouraging firms to train temporary workers.

As equal rules may not be sufficient to ensure that temporary workers access training opportunities at least as much as permanent workers, there may also be a need to target adult learning programmes more specifically on them. Apart from a few notable exceptions, most adult learning measures in place across the OECD do not provide particular targeting to workers with fixed-term contracts, and are – at best – open to both fixed-term and permanent staff.

One example of adult learning policy specifically targeted to fixed-term workers is implemented in France. By law, when a fixed-term contract ends, the firm must pay an indemnity to the worker (“Prime de précarité”), equal to at least 10% of the total pay the worker received during the entire duration of the contract. However, if the firm can prove that it sponsored/provided training to the fixed-term worker, the indemnity’s minimum amount goes down to 6%. This programme should, at least in principle, provide firms with an incentive to train fixed-term workers, although no evaluation of the programme was conducted so far.

If targeted training support is limited for fixed-term workers, many initiatives are in place for TWA workers. Temporary work agencies themselves often provide training opportunities for workers.25 For example, staffing companies such as Adecco, Randstad, and Manpower offer thousands of online courses for their staff (Spermann, 2016[45]). Several studies show how training provided by TWAs can lead to good employment outcomes in the longer-term (Ehlert, 2012[46]) and can improve the productivity of workers (De Grip, 2012[47]).

In addition to the training programmes provided directly by TWAs, many OECD countries – such as Austria, Belgium, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and Switzerland – have set up dedicated training funds to finance the training of TWA workers (Box 6.8).

In OECD countries where training funds are not in place, the training of TWA workers can be partly financed through public resources (Voss et al., 2013[48]). In Germany, for example, vouchers co-financed by public employment services can be used to finance TWA workers’ training (Spermann, 2016[45]).

copy the linklink copied!

Box 6.8. Training funds for temporary work agency workers

Many OECD countries have set up dedicated training funds to finance the training of temporary work agency (TWA) workers. Examples of these training funds include Forma.Temp in Italy; the FAF-TT in France; the Training and Development Foundation for the Flex-sector (STOOF) in the Netherlands; Fonds de Formation pour les Intérimaires (FFI) in Belgium; and Temptraining in Switzerland. The funds are mainly financed by compulsory contributions paid by TWAs (Voss et al., 2013[48]), and more than EUR 500 million is invested by these funds every year in the skills of TWA workers (WEC, 2016[49]).

These training funds provide specific services for TWA workers, such as training vouchers, career guidance, and wage replacement schemes during training. For example, Forma.Temp in Italy has developed a training voucher system which provides EUR 5 000 worth of training to TWA workers. The voucher is accompanied with guidance and information support (e.g. on training opportunities available), which is provided by local Forma.Temp branches or through a dedicated electronic platform26 (OECD, 2019[50]). To give another example, in Switzerland, Temptraining provides financial support to TWA workers, by covering training costs and reimbursing for lost earnings during training.

6.3.5. Own-account workers

Own-account workers, i.e. self-employed workers without employees, often fall between the cracks of adult learning measures that are typically conceived for dependent employees or the unemployed who can rely on training initiatives by their employers or the public employment service.27

While willingness to train remains generally close to that of full-time permanent employees, in all OECD countries own-account workers are less likely to train, with the size of the gap varying significantly across countries (Figure 6.15), possibly reflecting different policies towards this group of workers.28 The largest participation gap is found in the Netherlands, where only 18% of own-account workers train compared to 72% of full-time permanent employees. At the other extreme, the smallest difference is found in Italy where 32% of own-account workers train compared with 33% of full-time permanent employees.

Barriers to training for own-account workers

Own-account workers face two major, and partly interlinked, barriers to learning: they lack time and do not have the financial means to train (Figure 6.7). These barriers are often more important for them than for full-time permanent workers and most other groups which are under-represented in training. The cost of training appears to represent a particularly important barrier in Canada, Israel and the United States. And while the lack of time is a major barrier in most countries, it is particularly acute in Korea and the Czech Republic (Figure 6.16).

Adapting the legislative and collective bargaining framework

Own-account workers often have fewer training rights than employees. Indeed, in virtually all OECD countries own-account workers (and the self-employed more generally) are not covered by most of the provisions of labour law (see Chapter 4). Therefore, they do not benefit from the training rights set in labour laws as employees do.

Moreover, unlike employees, own-account workers often lack representation, and therefore are not entitled to training rights negotiated through collective bargaining (see Chapter 5). Indeed, legal restrictions often prevent bargaining for own-account workers (and the self-employed more generally). For example, in the Netherlands, self-employed workers (including own-account workers) remain outside the reach of collective agreements on topics related to education and training (Bekker and Posthumus, 2010[51]).

copy the linklink copied!

Figure 6.15. Differences in training participation and willingness to train between own-account workers and full-time permanent employees, by country, 2012, 2015

Percentage point difference in training participation and willingness to train, full-time permanent employees minus own-account workers (age 16-65)

Note: The difference in willingness to train is the percentage point difference in the share of adults who did not participate in training but would have liked to (positive values indicate that this share is higher for full-time permanent employee than for own-account workers). The difference in participation is the percentage point difference in the share of adults who participated in training over the previous 12 months (positive values indicate that this share is higher for full-time permanent employees than for own-account workers).

Source: Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012, 2015), http://www.oecd.org/skills/piaac/.

 StatLink https://doi.org/10.1787/888933967129

While practically no business representation exists for own-account workers as such, in some OECD countries own-account workers can voluntary enrol in professional associations or public representation bodies (see Chapter 5), which often provide a number of services for the skills development of their members (see Box 6.9). Other than providing training to members, these associations often also operate as pressure groups to influence policymaking – at state and local levels – in all areas of interest for own-account workers, including training (Pedersini and Coletto, 2010[52]).

On top of national initiatives, some cross-national organisations have started to emerge, too. For example, SMart – a cooperative dedicated to the needs of freelancers which was created in Belgium in 1998 and is now active in 9 European countries – offers discounted training to members among other services (Lejeune, 2017[53]) (see Chapter 5).

copy the linklink copied!

Figure 6.16. Reasons why own-account workers do not participate in training, by country

Reasons for not training among own-account workers (age 16-65) who did not train but would have liked to, 2012, 2015

Note: Lack of time for work, refers to a lack of time due to “being too busy at work”. Lack of time – personal refers to a lack of time due to childcare of family responsibilities. Only countries with at least 10 observations are shown in the figure.

Source: Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012, 2015), http://www.oecd.org/skills/piaac/.

 StatLink https://doi.org/10.1787/888933967148

copy the linklink copied!

Box 6.9. Training for own-account workers through professional associations

• In Austria, membership in one-person company’s union includes a training package.29

• In Italy, the freelancers association ACTA provides free or discounted training courses for members. ACTA has also elaborated several proposals to support the training of freelancers, which have been presented to parliamentary committees on adult learning, and which have pushed some regions to finance training opportunities for the self-employed (Bologna, 2016[54]).

• In Luxembourg, self-employed workers registered with a professional association (e.g. Chamber of Trade, Chamber of Agriculture), are offered training guidance and advice (European Commission, 2010[55]).

• In the Netherlands, several organisations represent the needs of solo-entrepreneurs and some offer training to members (Jansen, 2017[56]).

• In Portugal, self-employed who are part of a chamber of commerce and professional chambers, can be given assistance with regards to training (Eurofound, 2017[57]).

• In the United Kingdom, Equity – one of the oldest unions for self-employed entertainment professionals – developed a professional pension scheme for its members which also provides access to training courses (Eurofound, 2017[57]).

• In the United States, trade unions for Hollywood writers and movie professionals provide training for members (WEC, 2016[49]).

Putting time aside for training

As shown in Figure 6.16, lack of time is a key barrier to training for own-account workers in many OECD countries. Long working hours may prevent own-account workers from investing in training and developing strategies for the longer term. Moreover, they may also have to invest considerable time looking for the next job assignment, which further diminishes their time available for training.

There are several policy tools OECD countries can put in place to help own-account workers put aside sufficient time off work for training. While education and training leave is available in many OECD countries for employees, it is not always clear whether own-account workers can also benefit. Moreover, to be meaningful for them, it is fundamental that education and training leave is paid or accompanied by adequate income support measures. One good practice example can be found in Luxembourg, where education and training leave is available not only to employees but also to own-account workers and those in liberal professions (provided they have been registered with social security for at least two years), and includes a financial compensation paid by the state based on the income of the previous tax year.30

Providing flexible training arrangements is also key for allowing own-account workers to find the time to combine work with training. Some OECD countries offer adult learning opportunities that are specifically conceived for the needs of the self-employed, and are delivered in flexible ways, e.g. outside of regular working hours. For example, in Flanders (Belgium), the Flemish agency for Entrepreneurial Training (Syntra Flanders) is developing ‘innovative entrepreneurship programmes’, which provide flexible training options, including evening or week-end courses, specifically targeted to the self-employed population.

Making training more affordable

As highlighted in Figure 6.16, the cost of training is another major barrier to training for the own-account workers in several OECD countries. This is not surprising, considering that own-account workers often have no or limited access to public financial support for training, typically conceived for employees or the unemployed population. Those who work regularly for the same employers are also less likely to receive employer-sponsored training as employers tend to privilege investment in the skills of their employees instead. As a result, the own-account workers often have to pay for training themselves (Bologna, 2016[54]).

Some OECD countries have financial incentives in place that apply to own-account workers and the self-employed more generally (e.g. tax deductions, subsidies). Tax deductions are one of the most common tools to support training for the own-account workers. In many OECD countries (e.g. Belgium, Italy, the United Kingdom), professional development and training expenses are accounted as business costs and therefore are tax deductible. However, there are often restrictions on the type of training that that is eligible for deduction, e.g. on the type of training courses, or on the type of skills developed.

Subsidies are another tool sometimes used by OECD countries to financially support the training of own-account workers. They are rarely conceived exclusively to benefit the own-account workers population, or as a means to address their specific needs. At best, they are targeted to the self-employed alongside other vulnerable population groups (e.g. the subsidy BRAWO in Belgium), or are open to all individuals regardless of their employment status (e.g. reimbursement of training costs to prepare federal exams in Switzerland; Individual Learning Accounts in France).

Another key approach adopted across the OECD to help the own-account workers meet the cost of training, is to make certain subsidies dependent on the payment of social security contributions (e.g. Contribution à la Formation Professionnelle, in France), or conditional on enrolment in an employment insurance plan (e.g. Korea, and some schemes in Austria and Belgium) (see Box 6.10).

Putting in place voluntary saving schemes that can be accessed for training purposes is another measure countries can put in place to help own-account workers put money aside for training. However, the international experience seems to suggest that when withdrawals are not bound to finance training, and if individuals are not assisted in their choices, savings are rarely used for training. For example, in the Netherlands, the Dutch Life Course Savings Scheme allowed own-account workers/freelancers31 to save tax free, however training was the least mentioned reason to participate and most individuals chose to use their funds to retire early instead (OECD, 2018[42]).

Finally, on top of direct training costs, own-account workers also face high opportunity costs of not working. Unlike employed workers, own-account workers most likely have to forgo paid employment opportunities in order to access training. To address this challenge, some OECD countries (e.g. Austria, Finland, Luxembourg), have put in place subsidies to help own-account workers sustain their incomes during training.

Despite these positive efforts, today many of the financial incentives available to employees and the unemployed are still not available to own-account workers (and the self-employed more generally). To address this challenge, some OECD countries (e.g. Ireland, France) have already been taking steps to extend eligibility criteria of existing financial incentives also to the self-employed.

Box 6.10 provides some policy examples on tax deductions, subsidies, employment insurance plans, and wage replacement schemes implemented in OECD countries to help the self-employed meet the cost of training.

copy the linklink copied!

Box 6.10. Making training more affordable for the self-employed (including own-account)

Tax deductions

• In Belgium, the self-employed are eligible for tax deductions for training expenses, provided they can show that the training is necessary to perform the job (OECD, 2019[27]).

• In the United Kingdom, the self-employed can claim a tax deduction for training that maintains or updates existing skills, while training that introduces new skills is regarded as a capital cost and therefore does not qualify for tax relief (HR Tresury, 2018[58]).

• In 2017 Italy introduced a Jobs Act for Autonomous Workers, which allows the self-employed to deduct certain training (e.g. post-graduate studies, professional training, conferences and seminars) and skills certification expenditures from their taxes (for a maximum of EUR 10 000 and EUR 5 000 respectively per year) (Casano et al., 2018[59]).

Subsidies

• In Belgium, the training subsidy BRAWO32 is an initiative from the German speaking community which subsidises one third of training costs (for a maximum of EUR 1 000) and is targeted to several vulnerable groups, including the self-employed and freelancers (Allinckx and Monico, 2016[60]).

• In Switzerland, since January 2018, all individuals (including the self-employed) who have taken training to pass a federal examination can receive a reimbursement of training costs after the exam has taken place.33

Employment insurance plans

• In France, independent workers (such as craftsmen and traders) and micro-entrepreneurs have to pay a social security contribution for professional development, which allows them to receive funding for training (OECD, 2018[42]).

• In Vienna (Austria), the Waff Training Account provides training grants to certain workers – including the “new self-employed” (i.e. holders of a ‘contract for work’ without a trade licence) provided they are insured under the Commercial Social Security Act (OECD, 2019[61]).

• In Wallonia (Belgium), certain workers – including the self-employed – can have access to the Chèque-Formation to co-finance training (OECD, 2017[31]), and the number of cheques available per year depend on employment status alongside other criteria. In order to benefit, the self-employed need to be affiliated to the Institut national d’Assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants.

• In Korea, the self-employed who have voluntarily subscribed to employment insurance can have access to a skills development subsidy, which covers 60-100% of training costs (depending on the economic sector) and a training allowance of KWR 18 000 (approximately EUR 15) per day (OECD, 2014[62]).

Extending financial incentives to the self-employed

• In France, since January 2018, entitlements to the Individual Learning Account is extended to independent workers (see Section 6.4) (OECD, forthcoming[28]).

• In Ireland, in 2017, Springboard+ (a programme originally conceived for the unemployed population which offers free courses leading to qualification) was extended to the self-employed who want to upskill in certain sectors (Biopharma/Med Tech, and ICTs).34

Wage replacement schemes

• In Austria the Skilled Workers’ Grant35 provides incomes (from three months to three years) to a number of target groups, including the self-employed, who are enrolled in full-time training (OECD, 2017[31]).

• In Finland, the Adult Education Allowance provides an income support during training not only to employees but also to self-employed persons who attend training (OECD, 2019[1]).

• In Luxembourg, the government provides wage compensation to self-employed workers taking education and training leave (European Commission, 2010[55]).

Providing skills advice and guidance

On top of providing financial support for training, ensuring that own-account workers have access to skills advice services is also crucial to help them navigate through the available training options and accompany them in their training choices.

One key challenge is that, unlike employees, own-account workers have no or limited access to skills advice provided by employers, firms’ HR departments, and/or trade unions; and the self-employed may not benefit from guidance services offered by the PES, which are often reserved to the unemployed.

Recognising these challenges, some OECD countries are already taking steps to ensure that skills advice and guidance are also available to own-account workers. These efforts focus mainly on extending skills advice and guidance services provided by the PES (see Box 6.11). Similar efforts in this direction have been undertaken by professional associations (see Box 6.9).

6.3.8. Older adults

Older adults across the OECD participate less in training than younger adults (Figure 6.17). The largest differences are found in Austria, Belgium, Korea and the Netherlands where they exceed 30 percentage points. The smallest differences are observed in Israel, the Slovak Republic and the United States, where they are below 15 percentage points.

Older adults have also lower willingness to train than younger adults. This gap is particularly high in Denmark where it reaches 20 percentage points, and is lower than 5 percentage points in Turkey, Korea, and Japan (Figure 6.17). Lack of willingness to train among older adults may be due to a mix of limited interest in training and limited training offers received. In fact, proximity to retirement age may discourage older people from seeking training opportunities and firms to invest in the skills development of older workers.

copy the linklink copied!

Figure 6.17. Differences in training participation and willingness to train between young and older adults, by country, 2012, 2015

Percentage point difference in training participation and willingness to train, young adults (age 25-34) minus older adults (age 55-64)

Note: The difference in willingness to train is the percentage point difference in the share of adults who did not participate in training but would have liked to (positive values indicate that this share is higher for young adults than for older adults). The difference in participation is the percentage point difference in the share of adults who participated in training over the previous 12 months (positive values indicate that this share is higher for young adults than for older adults).

Source: Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012, 2015), http://www.oecd.org/skills/piaac/.

 StatLink https://doi.org/10.1787/888933967167

Even older adults who would be willing to train in principle face several obstacles in doing so (Figure 6.18).40 Lack of time for work reasons is most frequently cited barrier to training, particularly so in Australia, Korea and Sweden. Cost appears to pay a major role in Israel, Slovenia and the United States. A lack of prerequisites – due to outdated skills or to lower levels of formal education – appear to be an issue in Chile and Estonia.

copy the linklink copied!

Figure 6.18. Reasons why older adults do not participate in training, by country

Reasons for not training among older adults (age 55-64) who did not train but would have liked to, by country, 2012, 2015

Note: Lack of time for work, refers to a lack of time due to “being too busy at work”. Lack of time – personal refers to a lack of time due to childcare of family responsibilities.

Source: Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012, 2015), http://www.oecd.org/skills/piaac/.

 StatLink https://doi.org/10.1787/888933967186

Training needs to be made more attractive for older workers and their employers. Longer working lives resulting from increases in retirement age adopted in many OECD countries, are expected to strengthen the willingness of firms to train older workers and encourage older workers to invest in their skills development.

Additional adult learning measures can be implemented to enhance firms’ willingness to train older workers. One policy option is to reduce the cost of training older workers relative to other employees, for example through financial incentives targeted to firms that train older workers (Box 6.13).

Efforts on the firm side need to be complemented by adequate mechanisms to support the interest and motivation of older adults to invest in their skills. In this context, targeted career advice and guidance services can help older adults understand the benefits of learning and make informed decisions about their investment in further skill development (Box 6.13).

Targeted training support is important not only for older employees but also for those who are unemployed, for example because they were made redundant. Redundancy may be particularly challenging for older people, whose skills may be obsolete and who may need intensive re-training and guidance to be able to find a new job. Canada offers several programmes specifically for older and/or long-tenured displaced workers (Box 6.13).

copy the linklink copied!

Box 6.13. Policies to increase training participation among older adults

Career advice and guidance services targeted to older adults

• Since mid-2018, Australia has been trialling a new programme “Career Transition Assistance” for job-seekers aged 50 and above in five regions, with the perspective of national roll-out for everyone aged 45 and above in 2019. The programme will combine tailored career assistance and functional digital literacy training using different types of technology (OECD, 2019[1]).

• In the Netherlands, workers aged 45 and more can participate in subsidised career development guidance (Ontwikkeladvies). These guidance activities help older workers understand the future prospects of their current job, and give insight into their skills profile and career opportunities. Participants develop a personal development plan that describes the actions that will be taken to ensure employment until retirement age (OECD, 2019[1]).

• In Korea, Job Hope Centres offer re-employment services for vulnerable individuals aged 40, including counselling and guidance services for older workers who need (re)training before starting their job search, and often lack the basic ICT skills needed to use online services. Almost 30 000 people benefited from this programme in 2017 (OECD, 2018[80]).

Encouraging employers to train older workers

• In Estonia, there is a training grant for employers to train employees upon changing circumstances, or to train a worker previously registered as long-term unemployed within one year of the start of employment. Subsidises equal 50% of training costs, but are higher (at 80%) for certain disadvantaged groups including older workers (Estonian Unemployment Insurance Fund, 2019[33]).

• In Germany, the public employment agency supports training of low-skilled and older workers in SMEs through the programme WeGebAU. SMEs receive a 75% subsidy to the training costs of workers 45 years of age and older, while micro-enterprises (with less than 10 employees) receive a 100% subsidy. Evaluations of the programme find that it helps participants to increase their time spend in employment, although it has no effect on wages and the probability of receiving benefits later on (Dauth, 2017[81]; OECD, 2019[1]).

• In Luxembourg, private sector companies can receive training aid up to 15% of the yearly amount invested in training, while 35% of salary expenses of trained employees are subsidies for certain workers, including workers older than 45 (Luxembourg Government, 2019[82]).

• In Slovenia, the “Comprehensive Support for Companies for Active Ageing of Employees Programme” provides financial incentives for employers to prepare action plans and strategies for better management of older workers as well as financial incentives for older workers for upskilling (aged above 45). Capacity building workshops for HR managers and CEOs are organised to build their competencies for effective human resource management of ageing workforce (OECD, 2017[83]).

Programmes for older/long-tenured displaced workers in Canada

• The federal-provincial/territorial cost-shared programme Targeted Initiative for Older Workers (TIOW) is specifically designed to support retraining for unemployed older workers (aged 55-64), living in small communities which have been affected by high unemployment, significant downsizing/closures, unfulfilled employer demand and/or skills mismatches (OECD, 2015[37]).

• The Career Transition Assistance (CTA), temporarily introduced during the economic crisis, extended duration of Employment Insurance benefits to up to two years for eligible long-tenured displaced workers who participate in longer-term training; and earlier access to Employment Insurance regular benefits for displaced workers investing in their own training using all or part of their severance package (OECD, 2015[37]).41 More recently, as of fall 2018, eligible EI claimants who lose their jobs after several years in the workforce will have more opportunities to continue to receive EI benefits while taking a self-funded full-time training.

• In Ontario (Canada), the Second Career programme provides training assistance to older or long-tenured workers affected by economic restructuring to help them train for new careers in high-demand fields (OECD, 2015[37]).

copy the linklink copied!6.4. Can individual learning accounts make adult learning accessible to a broader group of adults?

Individual learning accounts (ILAs) have sometimes been touted as an alternative and more radical way of overhauling the adult learning system. These are schemes that provide an individual with resources he/she can use to take-up training of his/her own initiative. One of the key objectives of real ILAs is also to make training right portable/transferable from jobs to jobs, which is particularly important in the context of the future of work.

They can be “real” individual accounts – financed by the state, the individual and/or the employer – where rights/saving for training are accumulated over a certain period of time, or voucher schemes which support training through direct governmental payments, sometimes with a contribution from the participant.

ILA schemes aim to make individuals more responsible for their training, and more autonomous in defining their skills needs and finding training opportunities among a set of courses offered by providers competing against one another. In many countries, these schemes aim to reduce inequalities in access to training, either directly by restricting access to under-represented groups or indirectly by motivating competing training organisations to propose training modalities more adapted to the needs of under-represented groups and by attaching training rights to individuals rather than jobs. The latter is particularly important for workers in new forms of work and on non-standard employment contracts more generally: by making training rights portable between jobs and from one employment status to another, ILAs de facto broaden training rights to workers who have a limited attachment to their employer.

However, while many countries are looking at ILAs for their potential to broaden training participation, this was not the original objective of most of these schemes. Indeed, when several countries introduced ILAs in the 1990s, they were aimed at promoting competition amongst training providers to improve the match between individual needs and service provision and improve value for money in training provision. Policy makers hoped that this could be achieved by providing choice to the individuals on which training they receive and who delivers it. This needs to be kept in mind when drawing conclusions on how successful ILAs have been so far in engaging under-represented groups in training. Box 6.14 provides an overview of existing schemes including a description of the sources of funding, training content and quality and governance arrangements.

The extent to which ILAs cover under-represented groups differs significantly across countries (OECD, forthcoming[28]). SkillsFuture Credits in Singapore and the Chèque annuel de formation in the Geneva Canton are almost universal as they cover all adults above a certain age. However, most schemes limit eligibility to active individuals, with some focusing exclusively on jobseekers or employees, while others combine different employment status (Table 6.2). The French scheme covers all active persons. The self-employed are less likely to be covered than employees, limiting the role that ILAs could play for own-account and platform workers.

Besides employment status, ILA schemes sometimes restrict eligibility according to income or skill level in order to target under-represented groups. For example, only low-income individuals are eligible to the Bildungsprämie in Germany, the ITA in Scotland and the ITA in the United States. The Flemish scheme has been restricted to low- and medium skill workers since 2015 as was the Scottish scheme until recently and the Austrian Bildungskonto at various times since its inception.

Other ways of targeting priority groups are through modulating the amount of support provided. In France for example, employees with no qualifications and early school leavers benefit from higher rights, as do, in the Austrian Bildungskonto, women returning from child-related career breaks, low-income employees above 50 years of age, individuals with only compulsory education level and no vocational credential, and immigrants studying German.

These targeting mechanisms are key as there is evidence that, as in other types of training schemes, low-skilled workers participate less than the high-skilled where access is not restricted to them. This bias partly reflects the difficulty of solving the under-representation issue through an instrument based on the ability of participants to be autonomous and navigate complex training access rules. It also points to the importance of providing quality information/counselling mechanisms. However, restricting access to some groups at the same time reduces the transferability property of the schemes.

Irrespective of the potential to serve under-represented groups, actual participation in ILAs remains modest in most cases (OECD, forthcoming[28]). In France and Singapore, the two recently implemented real ILA schemes with rather large potential coverage, about 1.7% and 4.2% of the labour force respectively participated in the scheme in 2016 and 2017, partly reflecting their very recent implementation. In Upper Austria, about 2% of the labour force got training financing from the Bildungskonto in 2017, and participation to the Scottish ITA declined from a maximum of 2% of the labour force in 2010-11 to 0.7% in 2017-18. In the United States, participants to the ITA represented 1.2% and 0.6% of the unemployed in the states of Michigan and Washington respectively. The former Lifelong Learning Accounts in the United States concerned only a few hundred workers in total. For the time being, existing schemes are far too modest in scale to be able, on their own, to increase training participation overall, even less so to reduce the gap between high-skilled, full-time permanent employees and the rest, at least in the absence of adequate counselling. The French scheme is promising because of its large potential coverage and generosity. In addition, the recent changes aiming to make it more accessible and improve take up. Nevertheless, it is too early to draw conclusions on its effectiveness.

copy the linklink copied!6.5. Building adequate financing, governance, and quality assessment mechanisms

Increasing the coverage and inclusiveness of adult learning systems to meet the increasing needs of changing labour markets requires a significant increase in financial resources, a good governance structure and the provision of high-quality training. This section explores policy options to: (i) ensure that training is of good quality and is aligned to current and future labour market needs; (ii) build financing mechanisms that are adequate and equitable; and (iii) set governance arrangements that make different parts of adult learning systems work well together. It provides a short summary of recent OECD work on the functioning, effectiveness and resilience of adult learning systems across countries (Box 6.1).

copy the linklink copied!6.6. Concluding remarks

The future of work will bring about substantial changes in skill requirements, and better access to adult learning opportunities will be crucial for workers to benefit from these changes. Yet many adults today do not participate in training. Participation is especially low amongst those most in need of upskilling and reskilling and among the rising number of workers in non-standard employment arrangements. Moreover, training programmes available are not always relevant and useful, so there is a need to improve training quality and make adult learning systems more aligned to changing skills needs.

Adjustments at the margins of existing adult learning systems are unlikely to be sufficient. In view of the scope and the speed of the changes taking place, a significant overhaul of adult learning policies is needed to make adult learning systems future-ready for all.

Several policy options exist to start going in this direction (Box 6.15). Because each policy should not be taken in isolation, countries should develop comprehensive adult learning strategies, which not only aim to make adult learning systems more inclusive with regards to groups at highest risk of being left behind, but also include measures to align training content more closely with changing skill needs and to improve its quality. An adult learning strategy should be built on good governance and financing structures involving all relevant stakeholders, and embed adult learning within a broader framework of policies – e.g. labour market regulation, social policy, collective bargaining – to help make the future of work more rewarding and inclusive.