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

  • News Labour neglected Jewish communities’ concerns, says Dugher

    Labour neglected Jewish communities’ concerns, says Dugher

    Labour neglected the concerns of the Jewish community and paid the price for it when it came to polling day, according to Shadow Transport Secretary Michael Dugher. Dugher, who is managing Andy Burnham’s leadership campaign, told the Jewish Chronicle that a “rather catastrophic political management error” in the party’s approach to the Israel/Palestine conflict alienated many Jewish voters. In an interview with the paper, Dugher also says he deliberately abstained on a vote over Palestinian statehood last year despite a […]

    Read more →
  • News Labour announce new Lords Opposition Leader

    Labour announce new Lords Opposition Leader

    Former Basildon MP Angela Smith has replaced Jan Royall as Labour’s leader in the House of Lords. Baroness Smith served in the Commons for 13 years before standing down in 2010, when she was given a peerage. Baroness Royall announced a fortnight ago that she would be stepping down from her role after six years and Smith was elected unopposed to take on the mantle. She was previously deputy chief whip in the Lords and a shadow Home Office minister. […]

    Read more →
  • News Tony Blair to stand down as Middle East Quartet Special Envoy

    Tony Blair to stand down as Middle East Quartet Special Envoy

    Former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair will stand down as Special Envoy of the Middle East Quartet next month, he has confirmed. The Quartet is made up of Russia, the United States, the UN and the EU. Blair announced that he was accepting the role on the day he left Downing St in 2007, and the office focuses largely on the problems arising from the Isreal/Palestine conflict, including tackling the lack of economic development in Palestinian areas. Responding to the news, […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured Attention please: there’s too much politics in our leadership contest

    Attention please: there’s too much politics in our leadership contest

    This is going to sound like a weird thing to say but bear with me: There’s too much politics in our leadership contest. I don’t mean the rather unedifying way that supporters of one candidate or another are slagging off the others. I mean that’s unattractive, short sighted and downright dumb (exactly who do you think will sit in the Shadow Cabinet when your guy or gal wins? When they are implementing the policies set by your champion, how then […]

    Read more →
  • News Video “You can’t empower local government if you impoverish it” – Harriet Harman’s response to the Queen’s Speech

    “You can’t empower local government if you impoverish it” – Harriet Harman’s response to the Queen’s Speech

    Harriet Harman, who is the interim Labour leader, today gave her party’s response to the Government’s Queen’s Speech. In it, she directed a number of jibes to the Tories, saying to David Cameron “we are both, by our own admission, interim leaders” in reference to his announcement prior to the election that he wouldn’t serve the full five years as leader. She made it clear that Labour were intent on holding the Government to account and she argued that changes […]

    Read more →
Share with your friends










Submit