Participating in non‐formal learning: patterns of inequality in EU‐15 and the new EU‐8 member countries

Abstract

We concentrate on the following research questions: (1) Do the structure of the educational system and its interaction with the labour market affect the training gap between low‐skilled blue collar workers and high‐skilled white collar workers? and (2) Do the ways that institutional systems shape opportunities for lifelong learning differ between EU‐8 and EU‐15 member countries? We used aggregate and national data on participation in non‐formal learning from European Union countries, based on an ad‐hoc module included in the European Union Labour Force Survey (EU‐LFS) 2003. Analysis indicated that, as suggested by theory, institutional factors are significant for EU‐15 member countries. The predictive power of these factors for EU‐8 member countries is rather low and varies significantly by countries.

Keywords:

• non‐formal learning participation
• inequality
• institutional impact
• EU member countries

Acknowledgements

This study has been prepared as part of the research project and network of excellence funded by the European Commission (6th Framework Programme: Integrated Project LLL2010, No. 513321 and EQUALSOC Network of Excellence) and the Estonian Science Foundation (Grant Number 6893).

Notes

1. Non‐formal learning, as opposed to formal learning, does not lead to a recognised qualification or certificate. Non‐formal learning takes place alongside the formal system of adult education and may be provided by employers, civil society (e.g. youth associations, trade unions and political parties) or by other organisations or institutions.

2. The percentage of people indicating that they have participated in non‐formal training by mainly job‐related reasons fluctuate from 93.7 in Lithuania, 93.3 in France and 93.0 in Slovakia to 72.7 in Greece and 61.7 in Spain. The average percentage across the EU (EU‐15 and EU‐8) was 83.9.

3. Pischke (2005) questions the separation of initial and further education and training and argues that this may create an artificial training gap, because the additional vocational training received by high‐skilled adults may simply involve compensatory on the job training.

4. Bills (2005) indicates the activity of trade unions have the implications for occupational closure.

5. Aggregated country‐level data provided by Eurostat only allow making the distinction between formal, non‐formal and informal forms of learning. More specifically, the distinction between work‐related versus non‐work related learning activities would yield a much clearer understanding of the inequalities in participation between various population groups.

6. However, this measure of inequality in participation in non‐formal education does not reveal differences by the intensity of participation, for instance the average length of the course. EU‐LFS (2003) data show that training in countries with high overall participation rates tend to be of rather short duration, for example in the UK, Slovenia and Scandinavian countries. By contrast, training is longest in Hungary, Spain and Portugal, where courses are available only for a few individuals (see also Helemäe, Roosmaa, and Saar 2008). Thus, in further studies, the effect of the duration of training should be taken into account as well.

7. We are aware that the results will depend on the choice between a relative and an absolute measure of inequality. The key issue is whether unskilled workers, in comparison with skilled workers, should have a high rate of training or have a small difference in training rate. We decided to use a relative measure because training is a purely relative good. Our notion originates from the Rawlsian ‘difference principle’ which states that a just society is one that makes the worst off as well off as possible, and that allows inequalities if they are in the interests of the worst off (Rawls 1971).

8. Partially, differences in participation rates could be due to the various meanings given to training activities across the EU. A seminar, for example, may be viewed as either a business activity or a discussion group or a training activity. The terminology is the same but the meanings are different.

9. UNESCO devised International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED; UNESCO 1997).