Who pays for training? Some policy approaches to financing vocational training

Cedefop — European Centre For The Development Of Vocational Training

Description

Vocational training

Sujets

• Education policy
• Vocational education

Informations

• Publié par: CEDEFOP-EUROPEAN-CENTRE-FOR-THE-DEVELOPMENT-OF-VOCATIONAL-TRAINING
• Nombre de lectures: 19
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 6 Mo

Extrait

No. 13 January-April 1998Λ ISSN 0378-5068 CEDEFOP
Who pays for training?
Some policy approaches
to financing
vocational training V0CRT10NRL THHINING NQ. 13 EUROPEAN JOURNAL
■
CEDEFOP
Editor: Steve Bainbridge
European Centre
for the Development
of Vocational Training
Editorial commi ttee:
Marinou Antipa 12
GR ­ 57001 TI ws s n li >ii i η ι
Chairman: (Thermi)
Jean François Germe Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers (CNAM),
France Tel: 30­31+490 111
Fax: 102
Matéo Alaluf Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Belgium
E­mail
Tina Bertzeletou CEDEFOP info @cedefop.gr
Keith Drake Manchester University, Great Britain
Internet:
Gunnar Eliasson The Royal Institute of Technology (ΚΤΉ), Sweden
http:/'/www. cedefop.gr
Alain d'Iribarne Laboratoire d'Economie et de Sociologie du Travail
(LEST-CNRS), France
Arndt Sorge Humboldt-Universität Berlin, Germany
Reinhard Zedier Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft Köln, Germany
Jordl Planas CEDEFOP
Manfred Tessaring P
Sergio Bruno Università di Roma, Italy
Published under the responsibility of: The contributions were received on
Johan van Rens. Director or before 01.06.1998
Stavros Stavrou, Deputy Director
CEDEFOP assists lhe European
Reproduction is authorized, except for
Commission In encouraging, at
Community level, the promotion Technical production, coordination: commercial purposes, provided that the
and development of vocational Bernd Möhlmann source is indicated
education and training, through
exchanges of Information and the
comparison of experience on is­ Responsible for translation: Catalogue number: HX-AA-98-OOl-EN-C
sues of common interest to the
David Crabbe
Member States.
Printed in
Layout: Werbeagentur Zühlke Scholz & the Federal Republic of Germany. 1998 CEDEFOP is a link between re­
search, policy and practice by Partner GmbH. Herlin
helping policy-makers and practi­
This publication appears three times a
tioners, at all levels in the Euro­
pean Union, to have a clearer un­ Technical production on DTP: year in Spanish. German. English and
derstanding of developments in Axel Hunstock, Herlin French
vocational education and training
and so help them draw conclu­
sions for future action. It stimu­
lates scientists and researchers to
Identify trends and future ques­
tions.
The opinions expressed by the authors do not necessarily reflect the
CEDEFOP's Management Board position of CEDEFOP. The European Vocational Training Journal gives
has agreed a set of medium-term
protagonists the opportunity to present analyses and various, at times,
priorities for the period 1997-
2000. They outline three themes contradictory points of view. The Journal wishes to contribute to critical
that provide the focus of debate on the future of vocational training at a European level.
CEDEFOP's activities:
ü promoting competences and
lifelong learning;
U monitoring developments In
vocational education and training
in the Member States; and
J serving European mobility and Interested in writing an article ... see page 104
exchanges.
CEDEFOP ***
EUROPERN JOURNRL VaCHTÎDNRL TRHINING NR_ 13 * }
The missing gene:
the quality factor
The word "education" has a double mean­ German model is widely considered a
ing. It identifies a fact and the scientific better one;
discipline which studies it. The discipline
(philosophical and pedagogical thought □ everywhere smaller firms appear to be
aside) dates from no more than forty years relatively unable to exploit the options
ago; the fact is as old as civilisation, but for vocational education and training.
during these forty years it has experienced
an extraordinary evolution throughout the The connection established by the authors
world. A time during which the contra­ between these substantive issues and that
dictions and the ambiguities of both the of financing shouldn't come as a surprise.
fact and its knowledge have expanded It is simply methodologically correct. On
and deepened. This remark has only in the one hand, people feel that those who
part a negative connotation, since during benefit from vocational education and
this time dramatic changes have occurred training should pay proportionately to the
in the fields of knowledge, technology, benefits they accrue. On the other hand,
organisation, ideological values and in­ the issue of who is called to pay and how
stitutional arrangements. Societies have is not without consequences for the deci­
thus become more complex and subject sions affecting vocational education and
to further changes. Why should we there­ training activities and their effects. While
fore expect the problems of education to the latter proposition is meaningful, the
have remained as relatively simple as they former is highly ambiguous and question­
were, and consequently easy to interpret? able, since the use of the "who benefits"
principle amounts to a persuasive way to
ease the introduction of market principles The articles contained in this issue, con­
in this domain. In other words, it is not cerning the financing of vocational edu­
chosen because of its ethical merits as a cation and training are no exception; their
distribution mechanism (for example as transversal reading offers a value­added
opposed to the'ability­to­pay), but sim­beyond the merits of each specific con­
ply because it is the built­in distribution tribution. Several papers point out ­ al­
mechanism of market interplay: it is the beit with different nuances and for dif­
market itself, as an organisational system ferent purposes ­ that:
and an incentive device, and not the distri­
bution mechanism associated with the Q there is a substantial and increasing gap
market principle, that is considered de­between demand and supply of labour
sirable.
force qualification;
□ the situation and forecasts are of in­ All this is quite odd, since it is well known
creasing scarcity of resources that can be ­ even in the most orthodox and pro­
market scientific environments ­ that in­used for vocational education and train­
vestment in vocational education and ing;
training gives rise to pervasive externali­
ties and is often the result of joint pro­□ there is a widespread tendency of gov­
duction; both reasons mark vocational ernments to introduce market principles
education and training as a case of mar­in the field of vocational education and
ket failure, since neither the benefits nor training. Many scholars appear to be sym­
(often) the costs are clearly identifiable pathetic to this trend :
and imputable, while externalities lead
anyway to under­investment. The use of Q the French model is frequently imi­
the "who benefits" principle as a Trojan tated, despite the fact that many draw­
horse is the worst possible choice: it is backs have been pointed out and that the
CEDEFOP * *
* • VOCRTIONRL TRAINING HR. 13 EURQPERN JOURNAL
*•*
naive, since it overlooks the complexity Not only development and innovation, but
of market organisation, while failing to also modern competition based on inno­
understand its institutional nature; it is vation and continuous re-organisation of
dangerous, since it misguides collective output and input composition, have to
action and institutional reforms; it even rely upon the ability to change, and
fails, to be truthfully blunt, to understand change implies the creation and the dif­
intimately the consistent implications of fusion of knowledge in an environment
orthodox market theory, which, not only characterised by fundamental uncertainty
acknowledge market failure, but take into and limited knowledge; ant
account cases in which redistribution, ei­ in which learning and invention take
ther because of extreme poverty and ig­ place. Optimisation is ruled out, if noth­
norance or because of the failure of credit ing else by the impossibility to list ex­
systems, may induce an otherwise impos­ haustively the viable courses of action to
sible situation or restricted development. achieve it . Only through the conceptual
key of change can we tackle the prob­
lems posed by vocational education and My impression, however, is that modern
training and its links with competition and discussions on vocational education and
growth. These, on the other hand, result training have little to do with the market
from the complementary contribution of principles embodied in orthodox economic
several timely factors, so that it is at a theory; they are concerned instead, and
systemic - rather than at a sectional - level, fortunately so, with development and in­
and with a dynamic perspective, that the novation, concepts which are alien to or­
analysis of vocational education and train­thodox theory, the intimate nature of
ing should be carried out. In other words, which is static