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

April 5, 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.

Latest

  • News Dugher criticises Cameron for “ideological sell off” of East Coast ahead of privatisation tomorrow

    Dugher criticises Cameron for “ideological sell off” of East Coast ahead of privatisation tomorrow

    Tomorrow, East Coast Main Line will be taken over by private companies Virgin and Stagecoach.   Ahead of this, Michael Dugher, Shadow Transport Secretary, will give a speech in Leeds in which he’ll outline how Labour would allow public sector companies to “take on lines and challenge the private sector on a genuinely level playing field.” They’d do this, he says, within the first 100 days of government.  . Dugher is expected to say: “The end of East Coast Trains will […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Why we should loudly support Rachel Reeves’ right to maternity leave

    Why we should loudly support Rachel Reeves’ right to maternity leave

    The reactionary howls that greeted Rachel Reeves’ maternity leave plans remind us that, in some quarters, although we have come a long way, there is still just as far to go on when it comes to recognising that (1) women have babies and (2) women can have babies and hold down jobs too. And while we might expect these attitudes in the Conservative party, we shouldn’t be complacent about rooting them out on our side of the political divide either. Of […]

    Read more →
  • Comment An Irish Labour Party activist is proposing a new way forward on Northern Ireland

    An Irish Labour Party activist is proposing a new way forward on Northern Ireland

    The Irish Labour Party will hold their Annual Conference this weekend. One motion in particular is of interest. Motion 94 proposes that the Irish Labour Party organises in Northern Ireland. The idea has been mooted before, but this motion proposes that the party form a joint entity with the UK Labour Party and that members in N. Ireland would be members of both the Irish and UK parties, similar to the National Union of Students/Union of Students in Ireland (NUS/USI) […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Why Labour should welcome health devolution to Manchester

    Why Labour should welcome health devolution to Manchester

    This week’s surprise announcement from George Osborne that £6 billion of health and care spending would be devolved to Greater Manchester has caught Labour (and many in the NHS) off guard. All the details have yet to be agreed, but – based on the revelations in the Manchester Evening News, it is clear the proposals represent a big offer to the northern powerhouse. Whatever the outcome of last year’s Scottish referendum, the result was always going to lead to a political debate about […]

    Read more →
  • Featured 5 reasons why Labour’s tuition fees plan is a big improvement

    5 reasons why Labour’s tuition fees plan is a big improvement

    I was ready to be underwhelmed by Ed Miliband’s tuition fees announcement today. In recent weeks the outlines of Labour’s HE funding policy had been clear, leaving little scope for a ‘big bang’ announcement. And besides, cutting tuition fees to £6,000 didn’t look like a particularly radical reshaping of a system that is quite critically flawed. If the only policy that had been announced today had been a cut in the headline tuition fees figure I’d have been a bit […]

    Read more →
lablist-logo mark-ferguson maya conor coffee-cup
Everything Labour. Every Weekday Morning
×