Marrying social justice and economic efficiency: statecraft and skills policy under Labour

5th April, 2012 3:55 pm

The period preceding the recession saw unprecedented investment in education and skills, including a raft of targets to increase the qualification rates of the population. This impressive effort was at the heart of Labour’s attempt to marry social justice with economic efficiency. Skills, it was said, would help drive social mobility and at the same time increase the competitiveness of the economy by providing businesses with an educated workforce that could innovate and raise productivity.

Yet the results of this approach were disappointing. Demand for higher level skills has been increasing since the 1980s, but low wage, low skilled work persists, contributing to stubbornly high levels of in-work poverty and stagnant social mobility. This is because a significant minority of UK firms adopt low value, low productivity business strategies: nearly half of jobs in the UK do not require post-secondary education and a third of firms offer no training to staff.

In an era of fiscal austerity and with little sign that the Coalition is changing tack on skills policy, it’s important to face up to the fact that, despite the cacophony of calls for ‘more skills’ from some employer representatives, many of these firms are simply not using the skills and talents of the workforce. The problem is mirrored across the pond, where recent analysis shows that minimum wage workers are better qualified than ever before.

This policy conundrum was clearly not for want of good intentions: spending on education and training rose by an average of 3.9% a year under Labour compared to just 1.5% a year under the previous Conservative administration, with further education benefitting from particularly large increases. A new report by IPPR argues that the disappointments of skills policy should instead be understood as a problem of statecraft – specifically that Labour’s reluctance to intervene in the market led to an overreliance on the state to fill the gap.

Labour, like the Conservative government before it, left decisions about training to the market, with weak requirements for employers to train even in sectors where low professional standards pose a risk to consumer wellbeing, such as the fitness industry and social care. Reluctant to be seen to be ‘meddling’ in the affairs of businesses, ministers shied away from intervening at the level of the firm or sector, to the extent that business support services ended up weak and generic. New Sector Skills Councils were given a remit only to articulate employer demand for skills, rather than drive improvements in business performance and job quality within their sectors.

Labour saw its role as generating transformational state action designed to support individuals to achieve their potential and respond to economic uncertainty. But clunky, large scale state-led workforce training programmes such as Train to Gain epitomised the problem with an entirely state-led approach. Train to Gain was based on low level NVQs that were cheap and could be delivered on a mass scale but did little to support employees’ prospects in the labour market. Developed largely without involvement from employer or employee representatives, Train to Gain had little impact on employers’ decisions to train and often subsidised existing low-level training by firms.

The narrow focus on either state-based or market-based change under Conservative, Labour and Coalition administrations means that not enough attention is paid to the quality of training, whether qualifications translate into better jobs and higher wages, and whether and how skills are used and managed in the labour market.

Our main competitors in northern Europe take a much deeper view of change, with powerful institutions that drive improvements in their sectors and supply chains by regulating training and offering tailored business support. These institutions are supported by state-backed finance, but they are nothing like the complex gaggle of quangos that make up the English skills system.

Built on partnerships between the state, unions and employer associations, skills bodies in the German-speaking and Scandinavian countries (among others) are deeply democratic. The social partners together determine labour market regulation and develop vocational education and training programmes, ensuring that the different interests of both employers and employees are genuinely represented and negotiated. Partnership bodies at sector and local level also support businesses to innovate, grow, and compete in higher value markets that support better quality jobs.

This not only explains why the German and Nordic firms are better at competing global markets in higher value sectors such as manufacturing. Greater employer commitment to training and workforce development also means that citizens in these countries receive a better service in domestic markets such as social care, construction and the fitness industry, while workers in those sectors also have more opportunities to use and develop their skills. Levels of training in these countries are higher on average than in the UK, and comparable firms and sectors also train more than their British counterparts.

Institutional change is a pre-condition for improving business performance and job quality in England. IPPR calls for reforms to democratise skills bodies, creating active partnerships between workers and businesses to improve job quality and business performance. The fragmented nature of the union movement and historic antagonism among many employer associations and unions towards partnership approaches mean ‘big bang’ reforms are unlikely to work, however. Instead, this requires creative experimentation with reforms carried out on an evolutionary basis.

New business support services, delivered by local and sectoral bodies that have operational knowledge of the firms and employees they represent, would offer a something for something deal to engage employers. To access public money for training and business support, employers would have to join local employer associations and commit to raising wages for trained staff or sharing the cost of training. But the specific deal would be left to local partners and employers to negotiate, taking skills policy and funding out of the hands of centralised quangos.

The lesson is that neither market nor state is sufficient in generating economic success or social justice. Employers, employees and the state have joint responsibility for developing and using skills in ways that improve productivity and create more opportunities for people to use their skills in the workplace. This demands a shift away from the state/market paradigm towards more collaborative and experimental approaches rooted in democratic partnerships between the different interests in the economy.

Tess Lanning is a research fellow at IPPR and co-author of the report ‘No Train No Gain: Beyond free market and state-led skills policy’, available here.

  • Dave Postles

    Highly interesting.  I’ve enjoyed reading this analysis.  It requires much reflection.  Thank you indeed.


  • Featured News Osborne announces major u-turns on tax credits and police cuts

    Osborne announces major u-turns on tax credits and police cuts

    George Osborne today caved into pressure from Labour and announced u-turns on both tax credits cuts and cuts to police budgets. Both issues have been major attack lines for Labour in recent months. Labour peers voted for motion on tax credits in the House of Lords last month, defeating the Government, and forcing Osborne into a rethink. Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell has said on a number of occasions that if the Tories committed to a full reversal of the policy, then Labour would […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Tories accused of playing political games over Syria as Labour splits denied

    Tories accused of playing political games over Syria as Labour splits denied

    Labour insiders are fuming at the accusations that there is a split between Jeremy Corbyn and Hilary Benn over Syria. Reports this morning suggested that the leader’s office had failed to inform Shadow Foreign Secretary Benn that he was invited to a Downing St security briefing on Syria. Both Corbyn and Benn’s team deny a breakdown in communication, and sources claim that it has come from the Tories’ playing political games with the issue. They say that the email inviting Corbyn […]

    Read more →
  • Comment PMQs Verdict: Punchy performance from Corbyn on comfortable ground

    PMQs Verdict: Punchy performance from Corbyn on comfortable ground

    PMQs are difficult for an Opposition leader at the best of times; before an economic set-piece statement, they must be nigh on impossible. You’re going up against the Prime Minister blind, knowing the person across the despatch box knows every detail of what is about to be announced, and that anything you do will be overshadowed by what follows. Jeremy Corbyn approached today’s debate with six fairly specific questions: four on climate change and renewables, and two on domestic violence […]

    Read more →
  • News John Healey slams Osborne’s housebuilding bluster

    John Healey slams Osborne’s housebuilding bluster

    George Osborne is receiving praise in the press this morning for his expected pledge to invest in housebuilding during the Autumn Statement today. However, the 400,000 subsidised homes he is expected to pledge be built by 2020 comes after Housing minister Brandon Lewis said a million would be built back in September. Ahead of Osborne’s address to the Commons this afternoon, Labour have slammed the Tories’ “bluster”, and pointed out that David Cameron has presided over the worst peacetime record of […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured The griping and plots need to stop so we can get on with being an opposition

    The griping and plots need to stop so we can get on with being an opposition

    The Conservatives are having a great time. Today, in their Spending Review they’ll outline their budget plans, which will include monumentally savage cuts. Deeper cuts than in any other major economy. Meanwhile, the Labour party is embroiled in internal battles, the kind of which shows little sign of abating. But it needs to, and soon. Less than two weeks after Jeremy Corbyn’s landslide victory, talks of when and how to oust Labour’s newly elected leader made it into the papers. […]

    Read more →
Share with your friends