Lifelong Learning; Country-Specific Institutional Packages; Old and New EU Member States Eve-Liis Roosmaa

2 Initial Plan  The Impact of Lifelong Learning on Labour Market Outcomes in Country-Specific Institutional Context: Different Patterns in Old and New European Union Member States

3 Paper(s) for PhD Thesis  Inequality in Participating in Non-Formal Learning: Different Patterns in Old and New European Union Member States  Focus on job related training  The main aim of the paper is to reveal which impact country-specific institutional “packages” have on inequality in participation in non-formal education. Is this impact different in old versus new EU member states?

4 Indicators Index of inequality = participation of high-skilled white collar workers/ participation of low-skilled blue collar workers (dependent variable) Percentage of the population with primary and basic education (25- 64) Percentage of the population with higher education (25-64) Percentage of upper secondary school students enrolled in vocational education Degree of stratification of educational system Employment Protection Legislation index Public expenditures on active and passive LM policies (% from GDP) Trade union or similar organisation present at workplace

5 Conclusions  The list of important factors and the way they influence inequality in participation in non-formal education differ between old and new EU member states  In EU-15 countries where the participation in non- formal education is higher the differences between various occupational groups are smaller. This has been achieved by involving the less qualified  Expenditures on active LM measures decrease inequality, but this impact is different: in the old EU member states more intense spending benefits first of all the participation of low-skilled persons, but in new EU member states this is not so

6 Conclusions  EU-15: higher EPL index increases inequality in participation in non- formal education higher trade union coverage decreases inequality countries with more comprehensive educational systems have lower inequality in participation in non-formal education  In old EU member states higher percentage of people with higher education decreases inequality, in new EU member states the impact is opposite. This could be explained by the greater mismatch in EU-8 countries between occupations and educational level achieved. The comparatively high level of available qualifications is not used within the LM

7 Conclusions  As suggested by theory, institutional factors matter first of all for old EU member states. The predictive power of these factors for new member states is rather low and varies significantly by countries (institutional changes are still ongoing; “inconsistency” in newly emerged institutional packages)

8 Conclusions  Among EU-15 Nordic countries and the UK have the lowest level of inequality in participation in n-f education. This is mainly achieved via flexible labour markets (low employment protection in the UK; medium employment protection and high unemployment protection in Scandinavian countries). Here comprehensive (thus flexible) educational system provides flexible labour markets with labour force that is educated enough to be able to update skills for reasonable costs

9 Conclusions  High inequality in Southern European countries: due to high employment protection the labour markets are strongly segmented into insiders and outsiders. Labour force is highly differentiated according to the level of education, while the significant majority of working-age population had not achieved upper secondary education. Educational system is rather stratified It could be suggested that employers are reluctant to invest into heterogeneous labour force and especially into lower skilled workers

10 Conclusions  Among EU-8 Slovakia and the Czech Republic have the lowest inequality in participation in n-f education. Here the segmentation of the labour force according to the level of education is low. Trade union coverage is rather high compared to other new member states and labour market is quite flexible  High inequality in participation is in Baltic countries. Compared to other EU-8 countries segmentation of the labour force according to the level of education is stronger and trade union coverage is very low. Overwhelming general schooling assumes a large role of employers in skill formation. However their role is quite small, employers expect educational system to “provide” them with rather specialised workers, but are reluctant to train themselves. The state provides further training mainly to professionals, so this increases rather then mitigates inequalities in participation

Thank you for your Attention!