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.

Latest

  • Comment Trade Union Action Week Unions How the fight to save Somerset cider shows unions at work

    How the fight to save Somerset cider shows unions at work

    Cider-making is synonymous with the county of Somerset; it is weaved into the social fabric, the landscape and the rural communities. Yet, in this fast-moving, modern, global market place, iconic industries, such as cider-making, have no more protection than any other economic sector from forces which they have no control over, such as the slow-down in the Chinese economy. An example of this market trend came when it was announced that the Shepton Mallet Cider Mill would cease production at […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Trade Union Action Week Unions The Government are effectively creating state-sponsored blacklisting

    The Government are effectively creating state-sponsored blacklisting

    This week my union UCATT announced that it had secured compensation worth £5.6 million for 71 of our members who had their lives ruined by blacklisting. This is a major milestone in a seven year battle, on behalf of workers who were blacklisted on an industrial scale by major construction companies. Other workers are likely to secure compensation in the coming weeks and a High Court case is scheduled for May, when those guilty of blacklisting will be held to […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Labour fears as Tories confirm plan to cut number of MPs

    Labour fears as Tories confirm plan to cut number of MPs

    Labour’s attempts to win a majority in the Commons have come under further attack as the Government vowed to press ahead with plans to cut the number of MPs by 50 to 600. The move, is expected to hit Labour disproportionately, was confirmed by Ministers today. Oliver Letwin chose to ignore the recommendations of a cross-party committee of MPs – which criticised the Government’s plans as “unsatisfactory”- and claimed there was “no merit” in re-opening the issue. The Tories want […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Corbyn tells doubters: I won’t retire

    Corbyn tells doubters: I won’t retire

    Jeremy Corbyn has vowed not to retire as Labour leader and said he was inspired by his father to continue working beyond the pensionable age. He said his age, 66, was no barrier to appealing to younger voters and dismissed the prospect of quitting. Corbyn’s opponents have questioned his stamina but he struck a defiant note, saying: “I’ve never gone through life with the intention of retiring. My dad didn’t retire. He died working. Not because he was forced to […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Europe Featured UK cities must not be hit from Tory EU rows – Liverpool mayor

    UK cities must not be hit from Tory EU rows – Liverpool mayor

    If some commentators are to be believed, we are just a few short months away from a referendum of whether we stay in the European Union. The single biggest political decision any of us will have made (at least since the last time we voted on it in 1975) is fast creeping up on us. Unfortunately, so much of the coverage focuses on the psychodrama that is the Conservative party. Which ministers will back David Cameron’s renegotiated deal? And which […]

    Read more →
Share with your friends










Submit