Models of Lifelong Learning and the Knowledge Economy/Society in Europe. Andy Green Institute of Education, University of London Presentation at Comparative IP, Madrid July 26 th 2005. Regional Patterns in Europe. The European Union is a union of les regions as well les pays
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Institute of Education, University of London
Presentation at Comparative IP, Madrid
July 26th 2005
The European Union is a union of les regions as well les pays
Social Scientists and historians have long been aware of Europe’s distinctive regions and regional models in term of:
This paper seeks to examine whether there are regional models of LLL in Europe and how these relate to models of the Knowledge Economy/Society.
We have insufficient units of comparison (in terms of regions) to analyse this statistically, so the following uses a logical qualitative approach to comparison using statistical data descriptively ie ascertaining what the different regions have in common and how far they differ from other regions in terms of lifelong learning systems and their outputs and outcomes.
Traditional models of ‘high skills economies’ have usually been binary:
In most analyses the first types are exemplified by the USA, the UK and some other English speaking countries – hence the designation anglo-saxon model capitalism.
The second type are variously represented by Germany, Japan and Sweden
Shareholder economies give primacy to market mechanisms and to the overriding rights of investors. Innovation and competitiveness achieved through:
The skills formation systems which serve them produce high skills elites – which serve the high skills sectors – but are typically highly polarised, producing long tail of low skilled who serve the cost-based competition strategies of the low skills sectors.
The system is said to promote rapid economic growth but may come at the price of poorer public services, product and service standards, greater income inequality and lower levels of social cohesion.
Stakeholder economies, which balance the rights of investors with the rights of other social interest groups and work through social partnership have:
Economic competitiveness is enhanced through high labour productivity but low employment rates and shorter working hours constrain economic growth. Labour market regulation enhances wage equality but increases inequality between the employed and unemployed.
Skills formation systems produce high skilled elites but also wider disperpersion of skills which serves the wide variety of high skills sectors
Policy makers typically see the two models as being characterised by a series of trade offs.
High GDP per capita and economic growth depend on high labour productivity (output per hour), high employment rates and long working hours.
In the shareholder model:
In the social market model, more regulation and higher social spending contribute to:
However recent research (de Mooig and Tang) suggests that this dualistic conception of high skills economies/societies with inevitable trade offs between employment levels and equality is over-simplified.
While some aspects of labour market regulation do reduce employment at the same time as increasing wage equality (such as high union membership and employment protection) other aspects (such as centralised concerted bargain and active LM policy) infact increase employment and wage equality.
The Nordic countries typically fit this pattern. This suggest that we should we thinking of not two but three models of the Knowledge Economy/Society in Europe not two:
We can examine how different countries fit the three models by looking at their relative performance in terms of the three constitutents of national income. Following de Mooig and Tang we do this by showing National rates in relation to the USA but using a larger range of EU states.
Visions of LLL and the Knowledge Economy
Curricula and Assessment
Modes of Regulation
Levels of attainment
Distribution of attainment
Types of Knowledge Economy
State………………………………………………………… ……………………….Civil Society
State State-led SP Formalised SP Voluntary Partnership Market
Localised SWEDEN FINLAND
Institutionalized NETHERLANDS UK
- standard setting; monitoring; assessment; sectoral bargaining over pay and qualification rates for jobs. Extensive license to practise provisions.
Lifelong learning contributes directly and indirectly to Competitiveness and Social Cohesion in conjunction with:
Many causal relationships work in two directions
The contributions of LLL systems work in three ways (leaving aside the socialisation process not analyses here)
Anglo-American model of LLL produce high inequality of skills outcomes through welfare systems and diversity and choice in education system.
This has negative effects on social cohesion.
On the other and, high rates of adult learning contributes towards higher employment rates and therefore social inclusion. Effects limited, however, because of wage inequality.
Education system produce unequal outcomes but these are mitigated by Apprenticeship system.
Overall the skills system produces less inequality than Anglo-American one but more than Nordic one.
The relative skills equality reduces wage inequality which has positive effects on social cohesion. However, labour market regime creates barriers to employment and increases inequality between waged and unwaged thus constraining positive effects on social cohesion
Egalitarian school system generates highly equal educational outcomes which contribute directly to income equality and indirectly to social cohesion
Adult learning contributes to high employment rates and also to social inclusion through employment.