Mempercepat penelitian dunia.

Partisipasi dalam pelatihan

terkait pekerjaan di negara-
negara Eropa: dampak pasokan
keterampilan danpermintaan
karakteristik
Ellu Saar

Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pekerjaan

Cite makalah ini

Dapatkan kutipan di MLA, APA, atau Chicago gaya makalah terkait

Download dari Academia.edu 

Download PDF Pack dari makalah terkait terbaik Analisis

Kuasi-Eksperimental Efek Pembelajaran Orang Dewasa pada Keterampilan Pemecahan

Masalah Suehye Kim

Peran Beragam Institusi dalam Membingkai Sistem Pembelajaran Orang Dewasa

Richard Desjardins

Partisipasi dalam pembelajaran non-formal di negara-negara UE-15 dan UE-8 : faktor sisi
permintaan dan penawaran Ellu Saar

Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pekerjaan

ISSN: 1363-9080 (Cetak) 1469-9435 (Online) Halaman muka jurnal:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjew20

Partisipasi dalam pelatihan terkait

pekerjaan di negara-negara Eropa: dampak
karakteristik penawaran dan permintaan

Ellu Saar & Mari Liis Räis

Mengutip artikel ini: Ellu Saar & Mari Liis Räis (2017) Partisipasi dalam pelatihan terkait pekerjaan
di negara-negara Eropa: dampaknya karakteristik penawaran dan permintaan keterampilan, Jurnal
Pendidikan dan Pekerjaan, 30:5, 531-551, DOI: 10.1080/13639080.2016.1243229
Untuk menautkan ke artikel ini: https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2016.1243229

Diterbitkan online: 10 Okt 2016.

Kirim artikel Anda ke jurnal ini

: 153

Tampilan artikelLihat artikel terkait

Lihat data Crossmark

Syarat & Ketentuan lengkap akses dan penggunaan dapat ditemukan di
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode =cjew20
Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pekerjaan, 2017
VOL. 30, TIDAK. 5, 531–551
https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2016.1243229

Partisipasi dalam pelatihan terkait pekerjaan di negara-

negara Eropa: dampak karakteristik penawaran dan
permintaan keterampilan
Ellu Saara dan Mari Liis Räisb
Institut
Studi Sosial Internasional dan, Tallinn University, Tallinn, Estonia; bEstonian Center for Applied
Research CentAR ,Tallinn, Estonia

ABSTRAK di tempat kerja. Tujuannya adalah untuk lebih

Populasi yang menua dan percepatan perubahan ekonomi memahami hubungan antara partisipasi dalam
membuatnya semakin penting untuk memperbarui tingkat pendidikan orang dewasa dan profil keterampilan
keterampilan populasi sepanjang perjalanan hidup. pekerja serta sejauh mana keterampilan tersebut
Pendidikan orang dewasa diyakini memungkinkan digunakan dalam pekerjaan dan bagaimana hubungan ini
keterampilan orang dewasa untuk beradaptasi terus berbeda di berbagai negara. Kami menggunakan data dari
menerus dengan kebutuhan ekonomi yang terus Program untuk Penilaian InternasionalOrang Dewasa
berubah. Baik penelitian tentang pendidikan orang Kompetensidan menerapkan analisis regresi logistik.
dewasa, dan diskusi tentang kebijakan pembelajaran
sepanjang hayat telah didominasi oleh pandangan sisi
penawaran pasar tenaga kerja (pendekatan modal
manusia), yang cenderung meremehkan peran sisi
permintaan pasar tenaga kerja. Makalah ini bertujuan 1. Pendahuluan
untuk memperluas analisis sebelumnya dengan SEJARAH ARTIKEL
memeriksa bagaimana karakteristik penawaran dan Diterima 3 Agustus 2015 Diterima 7 September 2016
permintaan tenaga kerja mempengaruhi partisipasi
KATA KUNCI
dalam pendidikan terkait pekerjaan non-formal di negara- Pembentukan keterampilan; pendidikan orang dewasa;
negara denganberbeda sistem pembentukan keterampilan penggunaan keterampilan di tempat kerja
yang. Makalah ini menekankan penggunaan keterampilan

Krisis ekonomi baru-baru ini telah mempercepat perubahan di tingkat makro dan sektor
industri, serta di tingkat perusahaan dan pekerja individu (OECD 2013a). Pengangguran
jangka panjang dan kekurangan pekerjaan dari populasi orang dewasa, terutama yang
berketerampilan rendah, akan membutuhkan perhatian yang meningkat di tahun-tahun
mendatang. Populasi yang menua dan percepatan perubahan ekonomi menjadikan
pembaruan tingkat keterampilan populasi sepanjang perjalanan hidup menjadi aktivitas
penting (Cunha et al. 2006). Strategi Eropa 2020 untuk pertumbuhan yang cerdas,
berkelanjutan, dan inklusif mengakui pembelajaran seumur hidup dan pengembangan
keterampilan sebagai elemen kunci dalam menanggapi krisis ekonomi, populasi yang menua,
dan terhadap strategi ekonomi dan sosial Uni Eropa yang lebih luas. Sementara inisiatif Komisi
Eropa 2012 'Memikirkan Kembali Pendidikan: Berinvestasi dalam Keterampilan untuk Hasil
Sosial Ekonomi yang Lebih Baik' (CEC 2012) memang mencakup banyak tujuan yang lebih
luas, prioritas utamanya adalah kemampuan kerja (lihat juga Rasmussen 2014). Dengan demikian,
pembelajaran orang dewasa dipandang memungkinkan keterampilan orang dewasa untuk
diadaptasi terus menerus untuk memenuhi kebutuhan ekonomi yang berubah.
Oleh karena itu, faktor-faktor yang menentukan siapa yang menerima, dan tidak, menerima
kesempatan untuk berpartisipasi dalam pendidikan orang dewasa adalah isu-isu kunci.
Beberapa penelitian telah membahas masalah ini (Blossfeld et al. 2014; Dæhlen dan Ure 2009;
Dieckhoff, Jungblut, dan O'Connell 2007; McGivney 2001; O'Connell 2002; O'Connell dan Jungblut
2008; Stenfors-Hayes, Griffiths, dan Ogunley 2008). Kecenderungannya adalah bahwa mereka
yang

KONTAK Mari Liis Räis mari.liis.rais@centar.ee

© 2016 Informa UK Limited, diperdagangkan sebagai Taylor & Francis Group
532 E. Saar dan ML Räis

yang mungkin paling membutuhkan pendidikan orang dewasa adalah yang paling sedikit
kemungkinan besar akan berpartisipasi (lihat misalnya Desjardins, Rubenson, dan Milana
2006). Pendidikan orang dewasa cenderung memperlebar kesenjangan keterampilan antar
kelompok karena mereka yang berpendidikan baik di tempat kerja mereka yang menuntut
ditempatkan dengan baik untuk berinvestasi dalam perolehan keterampilan lebih lanjut (Mayer dan
Solga 2008; OECD 2013b). Meluasnya hasil ini memerlukan analisis determinan partisipasi dalam
pendidikan orang dewasa. Analisis sebelumnya menunjukkan bahwanon-formal terkait pekerjaan
pendidikan dan pelatihanmerupakan bagian terbesar dari pendidikan orang dewasa (Cedefop
2015).
Para ahli teori yang peduli dengan pendidikan non-formal terkait pekerjaan membuat perbedaan
eksplisit antara penawaran dan permintaan keterampilan (lihat misalnya, Oosterbeek 1998) dan
mengeksplorasi mengapa, dari perspektif kebijakan , pasar tenaga kerja menempatkan
pentingnya mengamati konvensi tertentu. Membedakan antara persyaratan pekerjaan dan
keterampilan pekerja akan memberikan wawasan tentang faktor-faktor penentu kesenjangan
pelatihan. Kebijakan yang dimaksudkan untuk mengubah salah satu atau kedua dari kejadian
dan distribusi pelatihan harus membedakan antara situasi di mana tidak adanya pelatihan
disebabkan oleh kurangnya permintaan, atau pasokan, keterampilan (OECD 2003). Namun
demikian, sisi penawaran, khususnya pendekatan sumber daya manusia, yang cenderung
mengabaikan sisi permintaan pasar tenaga kerja telah mendominasi penelitian. Sifat yang
umum untuk sebagian besar studi pendidikan non-formal yang berhubungan dengan pekerjaan
adalah bahwa keputusan pelatihan (oleh pemberi kerja dan karyawan) tidak tergantung pada
pekerjaan pekerja. Hanya sedikit studi empiris yang mencoba memisahkan dampak faktor
penawaran dan permintaan terhadap partisipasi dalam pendidikan orang dewasa (lihat Altonji
dan Spletzer 1991; Desjardins 2014b; Desjardins dan Rubenson 2011; Korpi dan Tåhlin 2008).
Hasilnya menunjukkan hubungan positif yang kuat antara partisipasi dalamnonterkait
pekerjaan
pendidikanformaldan kecakapan keterampilan (OECD 2013b). Pelatihan juga berkorelasi
positif dengan pencapaian pendidikan sebelumnya. Namun, sisi permintaan (isi keterampilan
pekerjaan) tampaknya memiliki hubungan yang lebih kuat dengan partisipasi dalam pendidikan
non-formal daripada pencapaian pendidikan danketerampilan kecakapan(Desjardins 2014b, 13).
Meskipun perubahan dalam pendidikan orang dewasa muncul dalam skala global, penelitian
menunjukkan mungkin ada perbedaan kuat yang diatur oleh lembaga khusus negara. Proses
globalisasi bervariasi dari satu negara ke negara lain dan memiliki efek yang berbeda pada
perubahan permintaan tenaga kerja serta pada penyediaan kesempatan pendidikan orang
dewasa (Green 2006). Konteks kelembagaan membentuk tindakan organisasi dan individu
(Blossfeld 2003). Analisis sebelumnya di tingkat makro menunjukkan bahwa ketimpangan
dalam partisipasi pendidikan orang dewasa lebih mencerminkan distribusi pekerjaan (atau
tempat kerja dengan persyaratan yang berbeda) daripada kualifikasi tenaga kerja yang
tersedia (Roosmaa dan Saar 2012). Namun, sebagian besar studi sebelumnya pada tingkat
individu berkonsentrasi pada dampak pencapaian pendidikan dan tidak memperhitungkan
perbedaan antar negara dengan strategi pembentukan keterampilan yang berbeda.
Kami berencana untuk memperluas analisis sebelumnya melaluiProgram untuk Penilaian
InternasionalOrang Dewasa kumpulan dataKompetensi(PIAAC), yang berisi pengukuran
langsung keterampilan, serta penggunaan keterampilan di tempat kerja, yang memungkinkan
kami menganalisis dampak pasokan keterampilan dan permintaan akan keterampilan. Kami
berkonsentrasi pada non-formal1 pembelajaran terkait pekerjaan dan kami bertujuan untuk
menguji bagaimana karakteristik penawaran dan permintaan tenaga kerja memengaruhi
partisipasi dalam pendidikan terkait pekerjaan non-formal di negara-negara dengan sistem
pembentukan keterampilan yang berbeda. Kami menekankan penggunaan keterampilan di
tempat kerja. Tujuannya adalah untuk lebih memahami hubungan antara partisipasi dalam
pendidikan orang dewasa dan profil keterampilan pekerja, serta sejauh mana keterampilan
tersebut digunakan dalam pekerjaan, dan bagaimana hubungan ini berbeda di berbagai
negara. Kami memilih Denmark, Jerman, Inggris dan dua negara pasca-sosialis (Estonia dan
Republik Ceko) untuk perbandingan, yang semuanya memiliki rezim pembentukan
keterampilan yang berbeda.

2. Latar Belakang Teori

Kerangka teori yang dominan dalam bidang pendidikan orang dewasa adalah pendekatan
human capital yang diturunkan dari Becker (1975). Teori ini menempatkan keputusan untuk
berpartisipasi dalam pelatihan dalamklasik kerangka kerja memaksimalkan utilitasdalam pasar
tenaga kerja yang kompetitif. Pendekatan modal manusia menyarankan baik individu maupun
pengusaha berinvestasi dalam pelatihan berdasarkan perkiraan pengembalian di masa depan;
baik upah atau prospek pekerjaan untuk yang pertama dan keuntungan produktivitas untuk
yang terakhir. Pendekatan ini menekankan perbedaan antara 'umum' keterampilan yang
diperoleh di sekolah yang ditransfer di
Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pekerjaan 533

pengusaha vs 'tertentu' keterampilan, yang diperoleh di tempat kerja. Pelatihan umum dapat
meningkatkan produktivitas di perusahaan yang memberikan pelatihan, serta di (beberapa)
perusahaan lain, sedangkan pelatihan khusus berguna (meningkatkan produktivitas peserta
pelatihan) hanya untuk pemberi kerja saat ini (Asplund 2004). Mengikuti perbedaan antara
keterampilan umum dan khusus, harapan logisnya adalah bahwa pemberi kerja hanya akan
bersedia mendukung pelatihan yang mengembangkan keterampilan terkait pekerjaan tertentu dan
tidak akan tertarik untuk berinvestasi dalam keterampilan umum karena karyawan mereka dapat
meninggalkan perusahaan setelah memperoleh keterampilan ini. keterampilan. Namun,
penelitian terbaru menunjukkan bahwa pengusaha membiayai pencapaian keterampilan
umum (Bills dan Hodson 2007). Teori ekonomi klasik memperlakukan tenaga kerja sebagai
homogen dan mengasumsikan keseimbangan penawaran dan permintaan tenaga kerja
melalui persaingan pasar (Livingstone 2010). Teori-teori ini berasumsi bahwa pasar tenaga
kerja adalah persaingan sempurna dan menempatkan penekanan utama pada sisi penawaran,
mengabaikan proses, institusi dan hubungan di tempat kerja.
Tahun 1990-an melihat pendekatan alternatif dengan fokus pada pasar yang tidak
sempurna. Pendekatan ini didasarkan pada ekonomi politik keterampilan (Brown, Green, dan
Lauder 2001) dan menekankan sisi permintaan pasar tenaga kerja. Kritikus teori modal
manusia berpendapat bahwa keputusan untuk berinvestasi dalam modal manusia juga
dibentuk oleh peran lembaga sosial dan ekonomi di tingkat makro dan struktur pengaturan
kerja di tingkat meso (Bassanini et al. 2007; Brown, Green, dan Lauder 2001). Penelitian
pendidikan orang dewasa baru-baru ini telah berusaha untuk mengintegrasikan dan menguraikan
peranstruktural dimensidan kelembagaan dalam membentuk pola partisipasi (Blossfeld et al.
2014; Rubenson dan Desjardins 2009; Saar, Ure, dan Desjardins 2013). Desjardins dan
Rubenson (2011) menunjukkan bahwa upaya ini harus dilihat sebagai respon terhadap
kecenderungan untuk fokus hampir secara eksklusif pada keputusan individu untuk
berpartisipasi, sementara mengabaikan peran potensial pengusaha dan konteks kelembagaan yang
lebih luas . Karya teoretis dan empiris yang ada menunjukkan bahwa karakteristik individu dan
struktural pekerjaan, ekonomi dan masyarakat bergabung untuk mempengaruhi partisipasi
dalam pendidikan orang dewasa (Nilsson dan Rubenson 2014; Rubenson dan Desjardins
2009). Keputusan untuk berpartisipasi tidak hanya terletak pada sumber daya pribadi tetapi
juga pada akses pekerja ke, dan posisi mereka di dalam, struktur pengaturan kerja serta
dalam struktur sosial yang lebih luas. Gambar 1 mengilustrasikan interaksi antara karakteristik
karakter individu, karakteristik pekerjaan, dan karakteristik makro yang lebih luas yang
memengaruhi peluang individu berpartisipasi dalam pendidikan orang dewasa.
 Makalah ini didasarkan pada model konseptual ini, yang mencirikan determinan partisipasi
dalam pendidikan orang dewasa. Demografi mikro pribadi karyawan (usia, status imigran,
pendidikan,, tingkat keterampilandll.) memperhitungkan pasokan keterampilan dalam model,
dan demografi makro institusional dari pekerjaan dan tempat kerja (ukuran perusahaan,
pekerjaan, industri, penggunaan keterampilan di tempat kerja ) memperhitungkan permintaan
tenaga kerja.

3. Konteks dan hipotesis kelembagaan

Penelitian terbaru menunjukkan bahwa pengembangan dan ketersediaan keterampilan sangat
dikondisikan oleh dan tercermin dalam konteks kelembagaan negara (Ashton dan Green 1996;
Ashton, Sung, dan Turbin 2000; Busemeyer dan Trampusch 2012; Culpepper dan Thelen
2008; Hall dan Soskice 2001; Hall dan Thelen 2008; Iversen dan Stephens 2008; Thelen 2004,
2008). Argumen ini menunjukkan bahwa pembentukan keterampilan harus dipelajari dalam
kaitannya dengan domain lain dari ekonomi politik.
Pendekatan 'varietas kapitalisme kesejahteraan' yang berpusat pada majikan mencari
'pelengkap kelembagaan' antara berbagai rezim produksi, hubungan industrial, lembaga
pendidikan dan sistem perlindungan sosial (Hall dan Soskice 2001). Hall dan Soskice (2001)
membedakan dua tipe ideal ekonomi politik – ekonomi pasar liberal (LME) dan ekonomi pasar
terkoordinasi (CME). Para sarjana berpendapat bahwa komplementaritas kelembagaan
membantu menjelaskan perbedaan antara LME dan CME dalam tingkat dan komposisi
keterampilan tenaga kerja mereka, serta perbedaan dalam strategi pasar perusahaan mereka.
Dua jalan alternatif menuju daya saing telah diikuti di Eropa: 'jalan rendah' berdasarkan upah
rendah, keterampilan rendah, keterlibatan rendah dan keseimbangan kualitas rendah, dan
'jalan tinggi' yang melibatkan upah tinggi, keterampilan tinggi, kerjasama dan kualitas produk
yang tinggi (Crouch dan Streeck 1997 Regini 2000; Soskice 1993). Negara-negara maju
secara ekonomi yang dibedakan oleh berbagai pendekatan kapitalisme diidentifikasi sebagai
ekonomi pasar terkoordinasi (lih. Hall dan Soskice 2001) dan
534 E. Saar dan ML Räis Karakteristik: *Penggunaan keterampilan di tempat
*Ukuran perusahaan kerjapekerjaan
*Sektor

individu
Karakteristik:
*Umum: Usia, jenis kelamin,
status imigran
*Kualifikasi:
Pencapaian pendidikan
* Kompetensi: melek huruf
orang dewasa terkait
Pendidikan
dan pelatihan
Karakteristik pekerjaan: *Pekerjaan
tempat kerja

struktural dan kelembagaan yang lebih luas

Karakteristik
*Kebijakan publik
*Sistem pembentukan keterampilan
*Peraturan pasar tenaga kerja
*Norma sosial budaya yang lebih luas dan praktek

Gambar 1.Model konseptual. Sumber: Berdasarkan Desjardins (2014).

mereka mungkin juga dicirikan sebagai ekonomi persaingan 'jalan tinggi', sementara mereka yang
diidentifikasi sebagailiberal ekonomi pasarmengikuti persaingan 'jalan rendah'.2
Hall dan Soskice (2001) membedakan antara inovasi inkremental dan radikal. Mereka
menyarankan bahwa model kapitalisme juga berdampak pada strategi inovasi. CME
mendukung inovasi yang lebih inkremental, yang cenderung lebih penting untuk menjaga daya
saing dalam produksi barang modal. Tenaga kerja mereka cukup terampil untuk menghasilkan
inovasi semacam itu. Kerangka kelembagaan LME sangat mendukung inovasi radikal
(pengembangan produk cepat berdasarkan penelitian) karena pasar tenaga kerja mereka
sangat fleksibel. Estevez-Abe, Iversen, dan Soskice (2001) juga menyarankan bahwa
peningkatan pada struktur pekerjaan kelas atas lebih menonjol di LME daripada di CME.
Meningkatnya permintaan keterampilan di negara-negara LME dibarengi dengan polarisasi
permintaan keterampilan.
Sistem keterampilan dipandang sebagai salah satu dari lima lembaga sosial ekonomi inti
yang membedakan LME dan CME (Hall dan Soskice 2001). Penciptaan insentif bagi
perusahaan dan pekerja untuk berinvestasi dalam jenis keterampilan tertentu, baik khusus
maupun umum, adalah mekanisme kunci yang mendasari logika rezim pembentukan
keterampilan. Logika rezim keterampilan khusus adalah karakteristik CME. Perusahaan siap
untuk berinvestasi dalam pelatihan karena mereka dapat mengharapkan loyalitas pekerja
untuk jangka waktu yang cukup lama. Sebaliknya logika rezim keterampilan umum adalah
karakteristik LME. Pasar LME yang lebih lancar memberikan peluang lebih besar bagi pelaku
ekonomi untuk memindahkan sumber daya mereka untuk mencari pengembalian yang lebih
tinggi, mendorong mereka untuk memperoleh aset yang dapat ditukar, di mana keterampilan
umum merupakan elemen kunci.
Busemeyer dan Trampusch (2012) menunjukkan bahwa dikotomisasi antara LME dan CME
mengecilkan variasi signifikan dalam rezim pembentukan keterampilan di CME.
Gallie(2007)menyarankan bahwa adalah mungkin untuk membedakan dua rezim pekerjaan di
CMEs: rezim kerja yang inklusif di mana tenaga kerja yang terorganisir memiliki partisipasi
dilembagakan yang kuat dalam pengambilan keputusan dan dualistik rezim di mana
Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pekerjaan 535

keterlibatan buruh yang terorganisir cenderung menjadi konsultatif. Thelen (2014)

menunjukkan perbedaan antar CME menurut dimensi solidaritas/dualisme.
Denmark dan Jerman umumnya dianggap sebagai CME. Namun, Denmark tetap tertanam
dalam bentuk negara kesejahteraan Nordik. Reformasi baru-baru ini di Denmark telah
dicirikan sebagaimelekat kerangka fleksibelisasi yangyang mengumpulkan risiko (Thelen 2014).
Murray dan Polesel (2013, 237) menganggap bahwa 'sistem ini sangat demokratis sosial dalam
etos, neokorporatis dalam proses dan termasuk siklus pendidikan dan pelatihan'. Di Denmark,
pendidikan non-formal orang dewasa dilembagakan dengan kuat, fleksibel, mudah diakses dan
didukung oleh negara (Cort 2002). Penekanan kuat ditempatkan pada penguatan kesempatan
belajar orang dewasa di luar pembentukan keterampilan awal (Dieckhoff 2007). Sebuah
karakteristik dari sistem pelatihan Denmark adalah bahwa pendidikan orang dewasa untuk
bekerja terjadi dalam kerangka yang sama seperti pelatihan untuk pengangguran. Negara
menghabiskan banyak untuk pelatihan lebih lanjut dan sistem Denmark memberikan kesempatan
untuk pengembangan keterampilan selama hidup dan memfasilitasi kembalinya pekerjaan
bagi orang luar pasar tenaga kerja. Fleksibilitas sistem ini berarti bahwa kelompok yang
kurang beruntung memiliki lebih banyak kesempatan untuk mendapatkan pelatihan daripada di
sistem yang lebih kaku.
Sebaliknya, Jerman dicirikan oleh dualisasi institusional dalam kesempatan pelatihan
(Busemeyer dan Iversen 2012). Akses ke pendidikan non-formal sebagian besar terbatas pada
pekerja yang sudah memiliki pekerjaan dan di mana perusahaan berinvestasi lebih lanjut
(Thelen 2014; 74). Di Jerman, pengangguran ditangani melalui bantuan kesejahteraan daripada
dengan pelatihan lebih lanjut (DiPrete et al. 1997). Ini menciptakan divisi insider-outsider yang
besar. Sistem pelatihan Jerman sangat berorientasi pada pemuda dan diatur di sekitar
investasi tinggi dalam pelatihan kejuruan awal tetapi sangat sedikit pelatihan orang dewasa
yang berkelanjutan. Hasilnya adalah mereka yang gagal mendapatkan magang di awal karir
mereka lebih cenderung bekerja di perusahaan dan pekerjaan yang menawarkan lebih sedikit
kesempatan pelatihan berkelanjutan. Oleh karena itu, pelatihan 'cenderung terkonsentrasi
pada mereka yang telah memiliki tingkat keterampilan dan pendidikan yang tinggi' (Crouch,
Finegold, dan Sako 1999, 146). Dalam resesi ekonomi, perusahaan cenderung menjadi lebih
konservatif dalam mempekerjakan dan berinvestasi dalam pelatihan.
Di Inggris, yang merupakan LME, pasar adalah penyedia utama pembentukan keterampilan
(Desjardins 2013). Sebaliknya,pengusaha adalah penyedia utama dan sponsor dari pembelajaran
orang dewasa karena, sebagian, ke Voca rendah kekhususan tional dari sistem pendidikan awal
dan sistem pelatihan kejuruan dipahami secara sempit (lihat Hijau et al. 2015).Namun, sistem
pelatihan memiliki beberapa mekanisme untuk mempengaruhi atau mendorong penyediaan
pelatihan (Dieckhoff 2007). Inggris, sejalan dengankesejahteraan liberal yang relatif non-
intervensionis rezim, tidak memiliki program pasar tenaga kerja yang aktif seperti halnya Denmark.
Hanya ada sedikit kesepakatan bersama tentang pelatihan (Ok dan Tergeist 2003). Berbeda
dengan pasar tenaga kerja insider-outsider di Jerman, risiko pekerjaan didistribusikan secara
lebih luas ke seluruh angkatan kerja, tetapi faktor individu sangat penting dalam menentukan
keberhasilan pasar tenaga kerja individu (DiPrete et al. 1997). Rendahnya tingkat
perlindungan kerja berarti bahwa individu dipaksa untuk berinvestasi dalam sumber daya
manusia mereka (Estevez-Abe, Iversen, dan Soskice 2001). Selain itu, ada inisiatif berbeda
oleh negara untuk mendorong pengusaha untuk berinvestasi dalam keterampilan karyawan
mereka (misalnya Keterampilan untuk Hidup, Berlatih untuk Mendapatkan) (McMullin dan
Kilpi-Jakonen 2014). Namun, seperti yangJanmaat dan Green (2013ditunjukkan), program-
program ini jauh
dari investasi yang dilakukan di negara-negara Skandinavia. Sementara tingkat partisipasi
meningkat, ketimpangan akses masih relatif tinggi (Desjardins dan Rubenson 2013). Nölke
dan Vliegenthart (2009) menganggap bahwa jenis kapitalisme khusus muncul di Hongaria,
Polandia, Republik Ceko dan Republik Slovakia – ekonomi pasar yang bergantung (DME).
Jenis kapitalisme ini memiliki keunggulan komparatif karena tenaga kerja yang terampil, tetapi
murah, transferteknologi inovasidalam perusahaan transnasional, dan penyediaan modal melalui
investasi asing langsung. Perusahaan transnasional tidak perlu banyak berinvestasi dalam
keterampilan yang relevan dengan inovasi karena mereka lebih suka mengimpor teknologi. Model
DME berbeda dari model CME dalam pengertian bahwa pada pelatihan kejuruan publik
sebelumnya terjadi di luar domain perusahaan, yaitu tidak banyak pelatihan berlangsung di
tempat kerja. Negara-negara DME digunakan sebagai platform untuk barang semi-standar dan,
untuk tujuan itu, keterampilan karyawan yang ada sudah memadai dan investasi untuk
meningkatkan keterampilan akan membahayakan-ini keunggulan biaya negaranegara. Nölke
dan Vliegenthart (2009, 678) menyebutkan bahwa tidak ada kebutuhan untuk pendidikan
keterampilan umum tipe LME yang dikombinasikan dengan pengeluaran penelitian dan
pengembangan besar-besaran,
536 E. Saar dan ML Räis

atau sistem kejuruan komprehensif tipe CME pelatihan. Lebih lanjut, seperti dicatat oleh
Hampalova dan Simonova (2014), sistem pendidikan Republik Ceko berorientasi pada
pemuda dan sistem pembelajaran orang dewasa terfragmentasi dan terbelakang.
Estonia tampaknya menjadi contoh ekstrim dan liberal dari DME (Saar et al. 2013) karena
ekspornya didasarkan pada industri dan jasa tradisional padat karya yang dikendalikan oleh
perusahaan transnasional yang sangat mobile. Beberapa dari perusahaan ini biasanya
mensubkontrakkan produksi, yang menghilangkan kebutuhan untuk melatih karyawan,
daripada berinvestasi secara signifikan di fasilitas lokal (lihat juga Eamets 2008). Estonia dan
negara-negara Baltik lainnya dibedakan 'dengan pasar yang diliberalisasi secara radikal,secara
menyeluruh kerangka kelembagaan pendukung pasar yang direformasi, dan merupakan negara
kesejahteraan yang paling tidak murah hati di antara anggota baru Uni Eropa' (Bohle dan
Greskovits 2007, 106). Strategi aktivasi untuk pengangguran cukup dibatasi (Helemäe dan
Saar 2011). Analisis sebelumnya menunjukkan bahwa kesempatan belajar orang dewasa
jarang terjadi bagi orang luar ke pasar tenaga kerja (Saar, Unt, dan Roosmaa 2014). Artinya
sistem pembelajaran orang dewasa tidak terbuka secara struktural. Peran negara lebih besar
di Estonia daripada di kebanyakan negara liberal karena negara membiayai pelatihan pegawai
negeri dan guru – kelompok pekerjaan yang memiliki tingkat partisipasi tinggi.
Tabel 1 merangkum karakteristik utama negara-negara yang dipilih.
Ada perbedaan besar antar negara yang dianalisis menurut tingkat inovasi (Tabel2).
Berdasarkan kinerja inovasi rata-rata, Denmark dan Jerman adalah pemimpin inovasi dengan
kinerja inovasi jauh di atas rata-rata UE. Estonia dan Inggris diklasifikasikan sebagai pengikut
inovasi dengan kinerja inovasi di atas atau mendekati rata-rata UE. Republik Ceko adalah
inovator moderat dengan kinerja inovasi di bawah rata-rata UE (CEC 2014). Namun,
 pekerjaan dalam kegiatan padat pengetahuan adalah yang tertinggi di Inggris, dan terendah di
Republik Ceko dan Estonia.
Berdasarkan hasil sebelumnya dan perbedaan kelembagaan yang dicirikan di antara negara-
negara, kami berhipotesis bahwa:
konten keterampilan pekerjaan merupakan penentu partisipasi yang lebih kuat dalam
pendidikan atau pelatihan orang dewasa terkait pekerjaan daripada pencapaian pendidikan
atau kecakapan keterampilan. Hipotesis ini menyimpulkan bahwa dampak karakteristik
permintaan cenderung lebih besar daripada dampak karakteristik penawaran; pengaruh
karakteristik penawaran dan permintaan terhadap partisipasi dalam pendidikan atau pelatihan
orang dewasa terkait pekerjaan bervariasi di seluruh negara dengan strategi keterampilan
yang berbeda. Faktor pasokan memiliki dampak yang lebih kuat pada partisipasi di Inggris
(karena pentingnya variabel modal manusia untuk peluang pasar tenaga kerja) dan Jerman
(karena dualisasi kesempatan belajar) daripada di negara lain yang dibandingkan . Faktor sisi
permintaan harus memiliki dampak yang lebih kuat pada partisipasi di Republik Ceko dan Estonia
(karena pekerja memiliki keterampilan yang cukup tinggi, lihat juga Markowitsch dan Hefler 2007)
dan di CME (Denmark dan Jerman) (karena konten pekerjaan yang lebih kompleks) daripada
di Inggris.

4. Data, desain dan metodologi

Proyek ini menganalisis data dari PIAAC, yang dilakukan di 24 negara pada tahun 2011 dan
2012 dan mensurvei orang dewasa berusia 16–65 tahun. Populasi sampel adalah sekitar
166.000. Survei PIAAC memiliki empat kekuatan utama: (1) pengukuran keterampilan kognitif
yang canggih (pemecahan masalah diteknologi lingkungan yang kaya; melek huruf; berhitung); (2)
informasi rinci tentang pekerjaan pekerja danketerampilan tuntutandari pekerjaan mereka; (3)
informasi tentang kesesuaian keterampilan, kualifikasi dan persyaratan kerja; dan (4) dimensi
komparatif internasional. Lebih jauh lagi, survei tersebut mencakup berbagai variabel
demografis yang komprehensif (misalnya usia, jenis kelamin, dll.); latar belakang pendidikan
dan pelatihan; mengerjakan
kisahnya dan aspek sosial kehidupan responden. Dengan demikian, data PIAAC sangat cocok
untukmendalam pemeriksaantentang hubungan antara partisipasi dalam pendidikan orang
dewasa non-formal, pendidikan formal,, keterampilan kognitifdan tuntutan keterampilan tingkat
pekerjaan.
Berbeda dengan rentang usia luas PIAAC untuk orang dewasa (16-65 tahun), rentang usia
untuk sampel analisis makalah ini dibatasi hingga 25-65 tahun pada saat wawancara. Kami
berkonsentrasi pada lima negara Eropa: Republik Ceko, Denmark, Estonia, Jerman, dan
Inggris. ini

ai u n o x

d e pp
s dan e

Pekerjaan
g r
e d
ts

aku a e
y s
n

537
n t di i
e
s
i
i
o
li tu

Journalof
itu t
tl
s
d bi
a i
et
n x
e u at
c
n

Pendidikan
e
o s
o
u
itu u
r
a o
t
d
l
c e
r
e
c
d

tc

ir
t

it

ir

tc
a

besarbesaran

T 
.

T
n

hc

KU

kr

a
m

D
a

la

lo
o

hc

kr

de
di

ht

yl

la

fl,

la

yl

S
n

f
l

li

KS
u

b-

ht

y
,

de

dan

aku

la

d,

lb
yll

a
r

lu
da

o
de

dr

u
e

t,

bi
l

bi
l

de

de

E
l

bi
l

fl

fs

fl

fl

W
s

fl

w
d

fl

la

p
fl

gi

lp

lC
n

bi

fl

yl

gi

lp

lC

gi

dr

kr

lp

e
r

di

/r

di

s
n

it

s
o

lu
dA

la

de

yl

la

t
i

la

yl

ffE

dan

aku

la

I
o

i
f

gi

la

lu
d

dan

aku

t
s

tc
a

f
la

di

v
.

41
0

le

T
,

31
0

(
.

S,)4
10
2

(.

dl

fs
s

B
:

S
.

fi

dan

aku

fr

w
o

lp

R
n

gr

a
21

)P

untuk
50

1.

9.

1
.

pe
R

hc

C
22

7.

1.

26

5.

93

0.

kr

D
80

4.

4
4

3.

G
88

4.

6.

83

7.

23
6

1.

ts

E
8

3.

0.

1
m

U
.

)4
1

(n

yaitu
s

im

538E. Saar dan ML Rais

E:.negaramemiliki rezim pembentukan keterampilan yang berbeda serta kinerja inovasi Kami
menggunakan partisipasi dalam pembelajaran terkait pekerjaan non-formal selama 12 bulan
terakhir sebagai variabel dependen Survei ini mengukur secara terpisah partisipasi dalam
berbagai jenis pendidikan non-formal termasuk pendidikan terbuka atau jarak jauh, pelatihan
kerja, seminar dan lokakarya serta les privat. Dalam pertanyaan lanjutan, responden diminta
untuk menentukan apakah ini terkait dengan pekerjaan. Dalam analisis, 'partisipasi' dipandang
sebagai biner, terlepas dari intensitas dan frekuensinya. Analisis sebelumnya menunjukkan
bahwa yang dominan alasan partisipasi dalam pelatihan orang dewasa adalah terkait
pekerjaan (lihat misalnya Desjardins dan Rubenson.Variabel bebas 2013)meliputi usia,
pendidikan dan tingkat keterampilan melek huruf, yang semuanya mencerminkan modal
manusia.Sedangkan tingkat keterampilan diukur dengan menggunakan tes praktik,
penggunaan keterampilan dan demi dan di tempat kerja diukur melalui pertanyaan survei
tradisional yang menanyakan tentang terjadinya tugas membaca dan menulis yang berbeda dalam
kehidupan sehari-hari dan di tempat kerja.3 Variabel sosio-demografis lainnya, yang berinteraksi
dengan modal manusia, termasuk karakteristik individu jenis kelamin dan status imigrasi seperti
yang disajikan pada Gambar 1. Variabel-variabel ini dipandang sebagai karakteristik
penawaran tenaga kerja. Ukuran perusahaan, pekerjaan
dan penggunaan keterampilan di tempat kerja, seperti keterlibatan literasi, dipandang sebagai
karakteristik permintaan tenaga kerja. Karakteristik individu dan tempat kerja (gender, status
imigrasi, ukuran perusahaan) dimasukkan dalam model sebagai variabel kontrol untuk
mengontrol efek pengganggu (lihat juga Gambar 1). The distribution of all variables is
presented in Appendix 1.
We specified empirical models, numbered 1–7, which include independent variables, to
observe changes in the parameters of the characteristics associated with skill supply and
demand. Model 1 includes four labour supply characteristics: age group, gender, immigration
status and educational level. Model 2 augments the four initial labour supply characteristics with
the direct measure of literacy skills available in PIAAC. Model 3 estimates the coefficients
associated with labour demand character istics (occupation, industry, firm size and reading
skills engagement at work). Model 4 estimates the complete model using the characteristics of
both the supply and demand of labour. Models 1–4 all include the variable of 'country'. To test
the hypothesis that the influence of supply and demand varies across countries, interaction
terms are introduced in following models. Models 5 and 6 augment Model 4 with interactions
between the country and supply characteristics (Model 5) and with interactions between the
country and demand characteristics (Model 6). Model 7 estimates the full model with all
interactions between the country and all demand and supply characteristics. Logistic
regression was used to estimate the odds of participation in job-related non-formal training.
We were aware of the endogeneity issues connected with the proposed strategy. One is
that adult learning possibly enhances the types of competences measured in PIAAC, which is
a debatable issue. Literacy is a core competency that impacts on participation in adult learning,
but there seems to be relatively little reverse effect, with job-related training having a raising
 effect on literacy proficiency (Green, Green, and Pensiero 2014).

5. Analysis
5.1. Participation in job-related non-formal
learning, supply and demand of skills in
different countries

Participation in job-related non-formal learning is quite similar in the Czech Republic, Estonia
and the UK. About 40% of 25–65-year-olds participated in this type of learning in the 12
months preceding the survey. In Germany, participation rates were slightly higher at 44%. The
highest participation rate of the countries considered here occurs in Denmark, with half of the
respondents claiming to have participated in non-formal job-related training.
Differences in functional literacy levels are also rather subtle (see Appendix 1). Around 50%
have attained literacy level 2 and around 90% level 3. The percentage of respondents with the
lowest literacy level is highest (19%) in Denmark followed by Germany (17%) and the UK
(16%). The Czech Republic has the lowest proportion (11%) and Estonia is second lowest (14%).
The largest proportion of respond
ents with high literacy scores is in the UK (13%), followed by Germany (11%) and Estonia (11%). Overall
Journal of Education and Work 539

Denmark has the highest proportion of low functional literacy, although the differences are not
large. The UK and Germany both have a larger proportion of highly skilled people, but also
more low-skilled people compared to the other countries.
On the other hand, the occupational structures of the countries show that Denmark has the
largest proportion of high-skilled white collar workers. Germany and the UK make up the
difference with a large proportion of semi-skilled white-collar workers; all three have less than 30%
of blue-collar workers. The Czech Republic and Estonia have about the same proportion of
high-skilled white-collar workers (around 40%) as Germany and the UK, but a much larger
proportion of skilled blue-collar workers. Comparing the two Eastern European countries it is
clear that the Estonian labour market has a lower demand for skills than The Czech Republic.
Germany, Denmark and the UK, which leads by just two percentage points, all have higher
demands for skills. The occupational structure is also reflected in the skill use at work. Estonia
and the Czech Republic have a much larger proportion of low skill use (27 and 25%
respectively). Denmark and Germany stand out for their large proportion of high skill users
(25% in both) as well as medium-high skill users (25 and 23% respectively).
Sectoral differences between the countries are less pronounced, but clearly Denmark and
the UK have the largest service sectors and the smallest manufacturing sector compared to
Germany, Estonia and the Czech Republic. Moreover, and worthy of note, is that Estonia and
The Czech Republic have a much smaller proportion of people working in large companies,
just 3–4%; indeed 67% of adults in The Czech Republic and 65% of adults in Estonia work in
firms with 50 employees or less. In the UK, Denmark and Germany around 50% work in small
firms and 9–13% in firms with at least 1000 employees.
Although some countries seem to have systematic similarities, eg Estonia and the Czech
Republic, they all differ in one respect or another. Variations in participation rates between the
countries seem to be more in line with the differences in skill use rather than literacy skill levels
(which are more similar). This means that the labour market's skill needs, rather than initial
education, provides incentives for further education and training. This is in line with the VoC
approach, which presumes complementary relations between the education system and labour
market in skill formation.

5.2. Labour supply characteristics model

The results for Model 1 (see Table 3) include only individual or supply characteristics (gender,
immigra tion status, age group and educational attainment). Educational attainment has the
strongest impact on participation in job-related non-formal training. Adults with secondary and
tertiary education have respectively 2.7 and 6.2 higher odds to have participated in training
compared to those who have basic education. This result may be attributed to employers' belief that
the more highly educated workers are more easily trainable and that training investments in this
group will be more effective.
Immigration status, gender and age group also have a significant impact supporting
discrimination theory. Immigrants, women and adults aged over 55 have the lowest odds of
participating in non-formal adult training. Adults aged 35–44 years have the highest odds of
participation. This analysis supports previous results and indicates that current allocation
principles do not respond to the need of training and are therefore more likely to increase
rather than mitigate existing inequalities.
Including literacy skills as an additional indicator of human capital into the model reduces
the strength of the impact of education (see Model 2 in Table 3). Similar to the pattern
observed in the context of education, adults with higher levels of literacy skills have higher
odds of participating in job-related non-formal training. For example, adults at levels 4 and 5
literacy proficiency two times higher odds to have participated in training compared to adults
with the lowest level of literacy skills. Part of the reason for the strong relationship between
participation in non-formal training and profi ciency in literacy is the mutually reinforcing link
between the skills assessed and continued learning (OECD 2013b). Participation in training is
likely to be higher among individuals who already have higher levels of literacy skills for a number
of reasons. They have the skills that facilitate learning and they are more likely to be in jobs
that tend to have more requirements for additional skills and more on-going requirements for
up-skilling. They may also have other characteristics (eg motivation, engagement
540 E. Saar and ML Räis

with work) that either or both encourage individuals to learn and their employers to support
them. Conversely, participation in adult non-formal learning helps to develop and maintain key
informa tion-processing skills. In turn, after completing training, workers may be given more
demanding tasks
with higher skills requirements, which allows them to practice and thus maintain their skills.
However, education seems to have an even stronger impact on participation compared to
literacy skills. This result indicates that education credentials are very important to employers
not only in the hiring process but also in apportioning job-related training (see also Desjardins
2014b).

5.3. Labour demand characteristics model

Model 3 in Table 3 focuses on the impact of job or labour demand characteristics on

participation in job-related training. The variables of occupational group and economic sector have
a significant impact on participation. White collar workers and blue collar workers in semi-skilled
positions have a higher odds ratio of participating in job-related adult training and workers in
most economic sectors have higher odds to doing so than employees in agriculture. Firm size
also has a strong effect with workers in firms with more than 250 employees having almost two
times higher odds to have participated than those in firms with less than 50 employees.
However, the extent of engagement in reading at work seems to have an even stronger
associa tion with participation in job-related training. Workers who reported high engagement
in reading at work have about 4.6, times higher odds to have participated in job-related training
than workers who reported low engagement. Even those who reported medium-low or medium
engagement in reading at work have at least two, times higher odds to have participated. These
findings indicate that jobs that require higher levels of literacy practice are associated with greater
access to job-related adult training.

5.4. Labour supply and demand characteristics

model
Model 4 in Table 3 shows the results when both labour supply and demand characteristics are
adjusted. The odds ratios for most characteristics are similar to those of the preceding models
other than those variables characterising the skills and the skill content of jobs. On the labour
supply side, educational attainment remains significant but the strength of the effect is
substantially reduced. Surprisingly the level of literacy skills does not have significant impact
on participation in adult training in this model indicating that the influence of skills is largely
explained by demand characteristics. On the labour demand side, occupational group and
reading engagement at work remain significantly correlated. The strength of their impact has only
slightly reduced. The extent of literacy practices at work remains the most important predictor of
participation, even after taking into account individual characteristics. Thus, the labour supply
characteristics lose substantially more of their strength than the labour demand char acteristics. The
skill content of jobs is significantly associated with participation in job-related non-formal training,
independent of the skills' profile of the workers as well as their other individual characteristics. This
result supports our hypothesis that the impact of demand characteristics tends to outweigh the
impact of supply characteristics.
Using the VoC approach to discriminate between countries, we hypothesised that the
influence of supply and demand should vary across countries. The statistical significance and
size of the effect of country increase compared to previous models except for Denmark. In the
first model, in the context of only individual characteristics, Danes had 1.67 times higher odds
of participating in job-related non-formal training than Germans. Estonians and Czechs and no
statistical significance was detected for the UK. In the fourth model, all other countries have
higher odds of participation in job-related non-formal learning than Germany. The Estonians
had 1.15, the British 1.19 and the Czechs 1.39 times higher odds to participate in job-related
non-formal learning. It seems that taking the demand side factors into consideration also
increases the effect of the country variable.
Journalof Education and Work 541

o
n

i
r

t
r

n
e

r
(
.

yl

le
do

T
4

le

do

le

do

le

do

le

do

M
a

n
a

tS

it

dd

dr

tS

it

dd

dr

tS

it

dd

dr

tS

it

dd

O
4

**

.
**

**

**

g
.

fe

M
)

w
)

fe

gA
5

0.

**

1.

0.
**

1.

0.

**

1.

0.

**

1.

44

53
5

0.

**

1.

0.

**

1.

0.

**
*

1.

0.

*7

0.

55

54
4

0.

**

8.

0.

**

8.

0.

**

4.

0.

**
*

4.

56

55
)s

fe

gi

I
4

0.

**

0.

**

6.

0.

**

5
.

it

iF
7

*5

**

**

g
d

S
)

is

b
.

fe

it

dE
0

**

**

**

yr

a
d

S
1

**

**

**

yr

T
)

l
.

fe

(
l

v
e

yc

L
6

0.

1.

0.

**

4.

L
7

0.

*5

1.

1
8

0.

**

8.

L
7

0.

0.

1.

**

0.

2
5

4
l

L
)

li

ks

ll

b
.

fe

g
la
n

O
6

**

**

2
h

gi

h
,

ll

hW

li

ks
1

1.

**

4.

1.

**

6.

de

ll

c
e

ih

li

u
2

1.

**

6.

1.

**

7.

de

ll

c
e

lB
d

li

ks
)

fe

E
9

3.

*3

6.

*9

1
g

iM
7

1.

*1

3.

1.

*4

3.

tc
a

f-

M
5

1.

0.

1
6

1.

1.

it

ts

C
0

**

**

2
y

lE
9

1.

**

4.

1.

**

5.

C
2

2.

**

.
1

2.

**

6.

ps

T
0

3.

**

3.

2.
**

3.

S
)s

lp

l
.

fe

saya

F
6

0.

**

4.

1
6

0.

**

4.

05

15
0

1.

**

8.

0.

**

8.

1
00

01

152
3

1.

**

29
8.

1.

**

9.

00

M
a d 3 r M 0 0 ** ** 0 7

542 E.
S

1. 1. * * 2. 2.
d d o

Saarand
r 9 2
i
n
O r
t 6. 8.

a
d

ML Räis
e 2 2
l 0
a
t
r
r
e 2.
4
S
a

n
d

r
r s
l M a

o t
a d
e

r o

i d d
d r
** ** ** **
t
n
o e O * * * *

a
a
1 7 6 4
r r
M t

9. 9. 6. 2.
o 2
S
1 1 3 4
r o 5 **

i 5
r 1. *
d
t 1.

e r 7
s
a

a r 3.
r d l

d o
e
d
r
n
d
r
O
d
a
o e
r
s t
7 6. ** 9. 4 0. 3 3 ** e t n

1
2. 0. 6 1. * v a gi
9

1. 2, 0 e

l *
02
1
0. ;

1
5

513 t
0

.
n
;

a
1

fii

**

** ** *

* * 9
4
8

8 7 4.
0.
0. 7
1
5. 8.

0.
4 6
0

0.
1.

**

8 4
**
*5 3 *
**
4
6. * 0.
*
* 1. 8 2
1 0.
8
2 1
2, 1. 1
5

0. 03
2.
7.
6.

1 82
1 43

*0

**

9.
8
6 *

0.
0. 9

4
9 3.

0. 1
0.

**
*

5
*
*

0.
** 9 31
9
7
* 1. 3,
9 3.
0. 8
1 81
3
2 39
0. 83

de

it

( 
.

T
1

le

do

M
S

it

dd

O
)t

ga

l
.

fe

kr

R
w

l-

u
i

de

M
m

de

M
h

gi

h-

de

M
h

gi

H
)y

fe

C
**

6.

kr

D
4

9.

UK
**

8.

ts

E
*2

pe
R

hc

C
38

2,

03

e
b

N
s

it
9

P
**

saya

L
.

fii

gi

fii

gi

*
.

210
2

IAAC

it

c
n

O
:

Journal of Education and Work 543

5.5. Country differences

We were especially interested in country-specific differences in the impact of labour supply and
demand characteristics on participation in job-related non-formal training. Appendix 2 shows
the models with interaction terms. Model 5 indicates that the biggest differences in the odds of
participation on the basis of the level of literacy are in Germany and the smallest in the Czech
Republic. The predicted prob abilities presented in Figure 2 show that in Germany the difference in
probabilities between adults with low and high levels of literacy skills is around 0.4. The
predicted probability of participation for adults with low literacy levels is the lowest in Germany,
compared to the same group in other countries, but the probability for adults with the highest
literacy level in Germany is comparable with the probability in Denmark and in the UK. In the
Czech Republic this difference is less than 0.1. In the other compared countries, the difference
in predicted probabilities remains between 0.14 and 0.30. Post-socialist Estonia and The Czech
Republic differentiate from other countries by smaller differences between adults with different
literacy levels. Our results seem to partially support the hypothesis that the supply factors have
a stronger impact on participation in the UK and Germany than in the other compared
countries. Analysis of our results, however, shows the hypothesis in the context of skill
formation differences and labour market skill-intensiveness is valid for Germany but not for the
UK.
As the previous analysis indicated, labour demand characteristics have a stronger impact
on partic ipation than labour supply characteristics. There also seems to be slightly greater
country differences related to this impact (see Appendix 2 Model 6). Once again, the
interaction terms indicate that the variation in participation according to the extent of literacy
practices at work is the biggest in Germany and the lowest in the Czech Republic. This result is
surprising because the skill formation systems in these countries would lead us to assume that
the UK might have the lowest demand side effects, due to the relatively low skill needs of the
labour market. The differences between the two extreme groups (low and high engagement in
reading at work) are at almost the same level in Germany and Denmark, and somewhat lower
in the UK and Estonia. However, the predicted probabilities presented in Figure3
indicate that the difference in participation between workers who reported low engagement and
medium-low engagement are bigger in Germany than in the other four countries. Our analysis
partially supports the hypothesis that the demand side factors should have a stronger impact
on participation in the Czech Republic, Estonia, and the CMEs, than in the UK. Literacy
practices at work have a high impact on participation in job-related adult training in Germany and
a somewhat lower effect in Estonia and Denmark. Compared to the UK the only country with a
slightly weaker influence of demand is The Czech Republic.
Figure 2.Predicted probabilities of participation in job-related non-formal training according to literacy level in 5
EU countries. Source: Own calculations based on PIAAC 2012.
544 E. Saar and ML Räis

Figure 3.Predicted probabilities of participation in job-related non-formal training according to engagement in

reading at work in 5 EU countries. Source: Own calculations based on PIAAC 2012.

6. Conclusion
The aim of this study was to understand better the relationship between participation in adult
job related training and workers' skills profiles, as well as the extent to which those skills are
used in jobs and how this relationship differs in countries with different skill formation regimes.
We compared five countries: Denmark, Germany, the UK and two post-socialist countries (the
Czech Republic and Estonia). Previous research has typically characterised the supply of skills
by an individual's level of education, while the demand for skills has rarely been taken into
account. Besides education and other individual characteristics the analysis based on the
PIAAC 2012 data-set allowed us to take into account direct measures of skills, as well as skills
used at work, which reflect the demand of skills.
This study has both confirmed findings from previous studies and contributed to new
knowledge about the determinants of job-related non-formal training in different countries. Our
findings relating to the relationship between job-related adult training and various labour supply
and demand char acteristics indicate that education attainment plays an important role in
determining who receives non-formal training. This pattern creates a virtuous cycle for adults
with higher levels of education and a vicious cycle for those with low education. High-educated
adults will be more likely to participate in learning activities that enhance their skills – which
makes these individuals more likely to continue to benefit from learning opportunities.
Conversely, low-educated adults risk being trapped in a situation in which they rarely benefit
from adult learning, and their skills remain weak or deteriorate over time – which makes it even
harder for these individuals to participate in learning activities. However, education attainment has
an even stronger impact on participation in adult training than skill level, confirming the
conclusion that employers use education credentials as signals in their decisions about to whom to
offer training. Besides human capital characteristics, the variables of age, gender and
migration group also influence participation in job-related adult training. This result is in line
with discrimination theory and indicates that these supply side characteristics are also used by
employers as signals of trainability.
The second key finding is that demand side factors (the skill content of jobs) have an even
stronger association with participation in job-related non-formal training than human capital
characteristics. Skills and educational attainment therefore have no independent value without
putting them to use. Although skills are important, their value regarding participation in learning
is dependent on the demand for the skills in the labour market. If there are insufficient skill-
intensive jobs in the labour market, then employers do not need to provide learning
opportunities and employees do not need
Journal of Education and Work 545

to attain more skills. This means that neither the lack of skills nor adequate education is the
primary problem. Further emphasis on greater investments in education and adult literacy and
numeracy pro grammes ignores an important cause of the training gap between the high- and
low-skilled: the job structure and content (see also Alasoini 2009; Livingstone 2010; Payne
2007). The design of special programmes should not be solely based on increasing people's skill
levels. The demand for skills should also be taken into consideration. Increasing people's skills
may not bring about better labour market opportunities if the skills are not needed and the
economy is more oriented towards low skill levels and a cheap labour force. Thus,
programmes for increasing the skills and knowledge of low-skilled people should be linked to
programmes directed towards workplace innovation (working culture, organisation of work
etc.). Previous analyses have indicated that countries with low participation rates in adult
training tend not to have detailed policy agendas, including both demand and supply side
policies (Desjardins 2014a; Desjardins and Rubenson 2013). Our main conclusion is that routes to
high skill formation and the adult learning policies should emphasise both the supply and
demand sides in their approach to skills. Employment and jobs reforms should be at least as
relevant as adult education reforms (see also Livingstone 2010).
The third key finding is connected with country-specific differences in the impact of labour
supply and demand characteristics on participation in job-related non-formal training. Our
analysis indicates that both labour supply and demand characteristics have a strong impact on
participation in Germany. We expected to find the strong impact of skill profiles in Germany but a
somewhat lower impact of skill usage at work compared to Estonia and the Czech Republic.
Our results confirm previous conclusions about the dualisation of learning opportunities in
Germany (see also Thelen 2014). It seems to be a matter of the bottom dropping out for low-
skilled workers. However, skill demand is also very impor tant in Germany indicating that
innovation in the labour market would have a substantial impact on participation in adult
training. In Denmark, participation in job-related training is the highest among the analysed
countries and this result indicates that Denmark has emerged as a leader in adult training.
Compared to the other countries, the biggest differences in participation are with the medium-
skilled groups. However, the participation of low skilled adults is also high and the impact of the
demand side factors is only slightly weaker than in Germany.
Our hypothesis regarding the strength of demand side factors in the UK compared to other
coun tries is partially supported. Although The Czech Republic had a smaller effect of literacy
use at work on participation in job-related training rates, other countries showed stronger demand
effects than the UK.
The British and Estonian patterns are quite similar (a medium level impact of supply and
demand factors) despite the much larger role of the state in Estonia. However, this similar
pattern might have different consequences for inequality in participation in adult training.
Previous results indicate that the inequality of skills and qualifications is larger in Britain than in
most other western nations (Janmaat and Green 2013). This implies that using adult training as
a mean to increase skill levels is unlikely to be an effective strategy in the UK. In Estonia, the
inequality of skills is quite low even compared to Nordic countries (see Valk 2015) and this
means that there is low proportion of people with low and high literacy proficiency levels, which
could reflect the lower inequalities in participation in adult training. However, by financing the
training of some highly skilled groups, role of the state is much larger in Estonia than in most
liberal countries. So it is a matter of the top taking off, while the lower skilled groups have fewer
opportunities to get training. The role of both skill supply and demand characteristics on
participation in adult training in The Czech Republic is surprisingly low compared to the other
analysed countries. This result might indicate the specificity of the DME in the Czech Republic.
The labour force has comparatively high skills and there is no need to train employees.
Our results provide weak support for the varieties of capitalism (VoC) theory, which classifies
Germany and Denmark, despite there being a clear differentiation between them, as having co-
ordinated market economies (CMEs). Our analysis raised some significant issues about the
view that CMEs should foster higher job-related training. The participation pattern in Denmark
seems to be similar in many respects to the pattern in the UK. According to Edlund and
Grönlund (2008), Nordic employees are not depend ent on their employer to the same extent
as employees in other coordinated countries. It is reflected
546 E. Saar and ML Räis

in the amount of job-related training and the importance of demand and supply-side factors for
par ticipation in training. Also the hypothesis that the supply side should be strongest in the UK
was not wholly supported. This means that the VoC approach may need further specification to
link better the countries skill formation regimes, labour market and the participation in non-
formal adult education.
There are some limitations of the study as the PIAAC data are cross-sectional and do not
provide analyses of lifelong relationships. Another limitation is the measured skills as the PIAAC
data-set focuses solely on general skills and does not measure occupation and job-specific skills.
This study uses a direct measure of literacy skills. However, literacy skills are also important for
the development of other cog
nitive skills.
In a further study, we are planning to search for exogenous sources of variation (using an
Instrumental Variable strategy) and will attempt to identify causality empirically. In addition to
the factors explored in this paper, macro-level factors that have consequences for participation
in adult training must also be considered in further study (see Saar, Ure and Desjardins 2013).

Notes
1. According to a widely used definition, originating from the European Commission Memorandum on
Lifelong Learning (2000), non-formal learning is a wide range of learning activities which, for a wide
range of reasons, take place alongside the formal system of adult education and may be provided by
employers, civil society or by other organisations or institutions.
2. However, analysis indicates that even very liberal states and welfare systems (for eg, the US) could
produce high quality jobs (in the sense of tenure, paid vacation, parental leave etc.) for a substantial part
of the working population by weak enforcement, market pressure and institutional processes at the level
of the economic field (see Dobbin and Sutton 1998).
3. PIAAC survey defines literacy as the ability to understand and use information from written texts in a
variety of contexts. The survey assessed adults' abilities to read digital texts as well as traditional print-based
texts. The literacy assessment was complemented by a test of 'reading component' skills. The use of
skills at work was measured in the background questionnaire as reported by the participant. The
questions inquired about instances of different reading tasks in everyday work (including for example
reading instructions, memos or mail).

Acknowledgements
The article has been prepared as part of the research project 'Cumulative processes in the interplay of
educational path and work career: explaining inequalities in the context of neoliberalisation.'

Pernyataan pengungkapan
Tidak ada potensi konflik kepentingan yang dilaporkan oleh penulis.

Funding
This work was supported by the Estonian Research Council [project number IUT31-10], the EU through the
European Social Fund.

Notes on contributors
Ellu Saar, Dr, is a professor at the Institute of International and Social Studies, Tallinn University, Estonia. She
coordinated the EU Sixth Framework Project 'Towards a Lifelong Learning Society in Europe: The Contribution
of the Education System' (LLL2010). She is now leading the project 'Cumulative processes in the interplay of
educational path and work career: explaining inequalities in the context of neoliberalization'. Her research areas
are social stratification and mobility, educa
tional inequalities and life course studies in comparative perspective.
Mari Liis Räis, MA, is a researcher at the Estonian Centre for Applied Research CentAR and a doctoral student at the
Institute of International and Social Studies in Tallinn University. She has studied subjects of participation in
adult education and labour market in various applied research projects and her thesis concentrates on the issue
of skills and participation in adult education in Europe.
Journal of Education and Work 547

References
Alasoini, T. 2009. “Strategies to Promote Workplace Innovation: A Comparative Analysis on Nine National and
Regional Approaches.” Economic and Industrial Democracy 30: 614–642.
Altonji, J., and M. Spletzer. 1991. “Worker Characteristics, Job Characteristics, and the Receipt of on-the-job
Training.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 45: 58–79.
Ashton, D., and F. Green. 1996. Education, Training and the Global
Economy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Ashton, D., J. Sung, and J. Turbin. 2000. “Towards a Framework
for the Comparative Analysis of National Systems of Skill Formation.” International Journal
of Training and Development 4: 8–25.
Asplund, R. 2004. “The Provision and Effects of Company Training: A
Brief Review of the Literature.” ETLA Discussion Paper No. 907. Helsinki: The
Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
Bassanini, A., A. Booth, G. Brunello, M. De Paola, and E. Leuven. 2007. “Workplace Training in Europe.” In
Education and Training in Europe, edited by G. Brunello, P. Garibaldi and E.
Wasmer, 143–309. Oxford: Pers Universitas Oxford. Becker, G. 1975. Human Capital. edisi ke-2
New York, NY: Columbia University.
Bills, DB, and R. Hodson. 2007. “Worker Training: A Review, Critique, and Extension.” Research in
Social Stratification and Mobility 25: 258–272.
Blossfeld, H.-P. 2003. “Globalization, Social Inequality and the Role Of Country-Specific Institutions. Open Research
Questions In A Learning Society.” In Innovation, Competence Building and
Social Cohesion in Europe: Towards a Learning Society, edited by
P. Conceicao, MV Heitor and B.-A. Lundvall, 303–324. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Blossfeld, H.-P., E. Kilpi-Jakonen, D. Vono de Vilhena, and S. Buchholz, eds. 2014. Adult Learning
in Modern Societies. an International Comparison from a
Life-course Perspective. Cheltenham, Inggris: Edward Elgar.
Bohle, D., and B. Greskovits. 2007. “The State, Internationalization, and Capitalist Diversity in Eastern Europe.”
Competition & Change 11: 90–115.
Brown, P., A. Green, and H. Lauder. 2001. High Skills: Globalisation,
Competitiveness and Skill Formation. Oxford: Pers Universitas Oxford.
Busemeyer, MR, and T. Iversen. 2012. “Collective Skill Systems, Wage Bargaining, and Labour Market
Stratification.” In The Political Economy of Collective Skill
Formation, edited by M. Busemeyer and C. Trampusch, 205–233. Oxford: Pers Universitas Oxford.
Busemeyer, MR, and C. Trampusch, eds. 2012. The Political Economy of Collective
Skill Formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cedefop. 2015. Unequal Access to Job-related Learning: Evidence from
the Adult Education Survey. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
CEC (Commission of the European Communities). 2000. Memorandum on Lifelong
Learning. Brussel: Komisi Eropa. CEC (Commission of the European Communities). 2012.
Rethinking Education: Investing in Skills for Better Socio-
Economic Outcomes. Brussel: Komisi Eropa.
CEC (Commission of the European Communities). 2014. Innovation Union Scoreboard.
Brussel: Komisi Eropa. Cort, P. 2002. Das Berufsbildungssystem in Dänemark
[Vocational Education and Training System in Denmark]. Luxemburg: Cedefop panorama series.
Crouch, C., D. Finegold, and M. Sako. 1999. Are Skills the Answer?. Oxford: Pers Universitas
Oxford. Crouch, C., and W. Streeck, eds. 1997. Political Economy and Modern
Capitalism: Mapping Convergence and Diversity. London: Sage.
Culpepper, PD, and K. Thelen. 2008. “Institutions and Collective Actors in the Provision of Training: Historical
and Cross national Comparisons.” In Skill Formation. Interdisciplinary and
Cross-National Perspectives, edited by KU Mayer, and H. Solga, 21–49. Cambridge:
Pers Universitas Cambridge.
Cunha, F., JL Heckman, L. Lochner, and DV Masterov. 2006. “Interpreting the Evidence on Life Cycle Skill
Formation.” In Handbook of the Economics of Education , edited by EA
Hanushek and F. Welch, 698–812. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Dæhlen, M., and UB Ure. 2009. “Low-Skilled
Adults in Formal Continuing Education: Does Their Motivation Differ from Other Learners?”
International Journal of Lifelong Education 28: 661–674.
Desjardins, R. 2013. “Considerations of the Impact of Neoliberalism and Alternative Regimes on Learning and Its
Outcomes: An Empirical Example Based on the Level and Distribution of Adult Learning.”
International Studies in Sociology of Education 23: 182–203.
Desjardins, R. 2014a. Participation in Adult Education Opportunities: Evidence from PIAAC and Policy Trends in
Selected Countries. Background paper for the Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2015.
Desjardins, R. 2014b. Rewards to Skill Supply, Skill Demand and Skill-mismatch. Studies Using the Adult
Literacy and Lifeskills Survey. Lund Economic Studies NO 176. Lund: Lund University.
Desjardins, R., and K. Rubenson. 2011. An Analysis of Skill Mismatch Using Direct Measures of Skills. OECD
Education Working Papers, 63. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Desjardins, R., and K. Rubenson. 2013. “Participation Patterns in Adult Education: The Role of Institutions and
Public Policy Frameworks in Resolving Coordination Problems.” European Journal of
Education 48: 262–280. Desjardins, R., K. Rubenson, and M. Milana. 2006. Unequal Chances
to Participate in Adult Learning: International Perspectives . Paris:
UNESCO.
548 E. Saar and ML Räis

Dieckhoff, M. 2007. “Does It Work? The Effect of Continuing Training on Labour Market Outcomes: A
Comparative Study of Germany, Denmark and the United Kingdom.” European
Sociological Review 23: 295–308.
Dieckhoff, M., J.-M. Jungblut, and PJ O'Connell. 2007. “Job-related Training in Europe: Do Institutions Matter?” In
Employment Regimes and the Quality of Work, edited by D. Gallie, 77–104.
Oxford: Pers Universitas Oxford. DiPrete, TA, PM de Graaf, R. Luijkx, M. Tåhlin, and H.-P. Blossfeld. 1997.
“Collectivist versus Individualist Mobility Regimes? Structural Change and Job Mobility in Four Countries.”
American Journal of Sociology 103: 318–358. Dobbin, F., and JR Sutton. 1998. “The
Strength of a Weak State: The Rights Revolution and the Rise of Human Resources Management Divisions.”
American Journal of Sociology 104: 441–476.
Eamets, R. 2008. “Economic Structure, Labour Market and Education.” In Estonian Human
Development Report 2007, edited by M. Heidmets, 97–101. Tallinn: Eesti Koostöö Kogu.
Edlund, J., and A. Grönlund. 2008. “Protection of Mutual Interests? Employment Protection and Skill Formation
in Different Labour Market Regimes.” European Journal of Industrial
Relations 14: 245–264.
Estevez-Abe, M., T. Iversen, and D. Soskice. 2001. “Social Protection and the Formation of Skills: A
Reinterpretation of the Welfare State.” In Varieties of Capitalism. The
Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage , edited by
PA Hall, and D. Soskice, 145–183. Oxford: Pers Universitas Oxford.
Komisi Eropa. 2014. Innovation Union Scoreboard 2014. Brussel: Komisi Eropa.
Gallie, D., ed. 2007. Employment Regimes and the Quality of Work . Oxford:
Pers Universitas Oxford. Green, A. 2006. “Models of Lifelong Learning and the 'Knowledge Society'.”
Compare 36: 307–325. Green, A., F. Green, and N. Pensiero. 2014. Why are Literacy and Numeracy
Skills in England so Unequal? Evidence from
the OECD's Survey of Adult Skills and Other International Surveys. LLAKES Research Paper 47. London:
The Centre for Learning and Life Chances in Knowledge Economies and Societies.
Green, F., A. Felstead, D. Gallie, H. Inanc, and N. Jewson. 2015. “The Declining Volume of Workers' Training in
Britain.” British Journal of Industrial Relations . (in print).
Hall, PA, and D. Soskice. 2001. “An Introduction to Varieties of Capitalism.” In Varieties of
Capitalism. The Institutional Foundations of Comparative
Advantage, edited by PA Hall, and D. Soskice, 1–69. Oxford: Pers Universitas Oxford. Hall, PA, and K.
Thelen. 2008. “Institutional Change in Varieties of Capitalism.” Socio-Economic Review 7: 7–
34. Hampalova, D., and N. Simonova. 2014. “Adult Learning in the Czech Republic: A Youth- and Female-
oriented System?” In Adult Learning in Modern Societies. An
International Comparison from a Life-course Perspective ,
edited by H.-P. Blossfeld, E. Kilpi-Jakonen, D. Vono de Vilhena, and S. Buchholz, 283–304. Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar.
Helemäe, J., and E. Saar. 2011. “Institutional and Ideological Foundations of Marketization.” In Towards A
Normal Stratification Order. Actual and Perceived Social
Stratification in Post-Socialist Estonia, edited by E. Saar, 33–60. Frankfurt:
Peter Lang. Iversen, T., and JD Stephens. 2008. “Partisan Politics, the Welfare State, and Three Worlds of
Human Capital Formation.” Comparative Political Studies 41: 600–637.
Janmaat, JG, and A. Green. 2013. “Skills Inequality, Adult Learning and Social Cohesion in the United
Kingdom.” British Journal of Educational Studies 61: 7–24.
Korpi, T., and M. Tåhlin. 2008. “Work-life Learning: A Tale of Two Distinctions.” Paper presented at the Equalsoc
mid-term Conference, Berlin, Germany, April 7–9.
Livingstone, DW 2010. “Job Requirements and Workers' Learning: Formal Gaps, Informal Closure, Systemic Limits.”
Journal of Education and Work 23 (3): 207–231.
Markowitsch, J. and G. Hefler. 2007. “To Train or Not to Train – Explaining differences in average enterprise
training performance in Europe – A framework approach.” Working paper within the Leonardo da Vinci Project
CVTS Revisited. Wina. http://www.trainingineurope.com.
Mayer, KU, and H. Solga, eds. 2008. Skill Formation: Interdisciplinary and Cross-
national Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McGivney, V. 2001. Fixing or Changing the Pattern. Reflections on
Widening Adult Participation in Learning . Leicester: NIACE. McMullin, P., and
E. Kilpi-Jakonen. 2014. “Cumulative (Dis)advantage? Patterns of Participation and Outcomes of Adult Learning
in Great Britain.” In Adult Learning in Modern Societies. An International
Comparison from a Life-course Perspective, edited by H.-P. Blossfeld, E. Kilpi-
Jakonen, D. Vono de Vilhena, and S. Buchholz, 119–139. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Murray, P., and J.
Polesel. 2013. “A Comparative Exploration of Learning Pathways and Transition Systems in Denmark and
Australia.” European Journal of Education 48: 233–246.
Nilsson, S., and K. Rubenson. 2014. “On the Determinants of Employment-related Organized Education and
Informal Learning.” Studies in Continuing Education 356: 304–321.
Nölke, A., and A. Vliegenthart. 2009. “Enlarging the Varieties of Capitalism. the Emergence of Dependent Market
Economies in East Central Europe.” World Politics 61: 670–702.
O'Connell, PJ 2002. “Does Enterprise-sponsored Training Aggravate or Alleviate Existing Inequalities? Evidence
from Ireland.” In Education, Training and Employment Dynamics , edited
by K. Schömann and PJ O'Connell, 285–302. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
O'Connell, PJ, and JM Jungblut. 2008. “What Do We Know about Training at Work?” In Skill
Formation: Interdisciplinary and Cross-national
Perspectives, edited by KU Mayer and H. Solga, 109–125. Cambridge: Pers Universitas Cambridge.
OECD. 2003. Beyond Rhetoric: Adult Learning Policies and
Practice . Paris: OECD.
OECD. 2013a. OECD Employment Outlook 2013. Paris: OECD.
Journal of Education and Work 549

OECD. 2013b. Skills Outlook 2013 First Results from the Survey of
Adult Skills. Paris: OECD.
Ok, W., and P. Tergeist. 2003. Improving Workers' Skills: Analytical
Evidence and Role of the Social Partners. Paris: OECD. Oosterbeek, H. 1998.
“Unravelling Supply and Demand Factors in Work-related Training.” Oxford Economic Paper 50:
266–283. Payne, J. 2007. Skills in Context: What Can the UK Learn from
Australia's Skill Ecosystem Projects?. SKOPE Research Paper No. 70. Oxford:
University of Oxford.
PIAAC. 2012. Accessed Feb 16. http://www.oecd.org/skills/piaac/publicdataandanalysis/.
Rasmussen, P. 2014. “Adult Learning Policy in the European Commission.” In Adult Education
Policy and the European Union. Theoretical and
Methodological Perspectives, edited by M. Milana, and J. Holford, 17–34. Rotterdam:
Sense Publishers Regini, M. 2000. “Between Deregulation and Social Pacts: The Responses of European
Economies to Globalization.” Politics and Society 28: 5–33.
Roosmaa, E.-L., and E. Saar. 2012. “Participation in Non-formal Learning in EU-15 and EU-8 Countries:
Demand and Supply Side Factors.” International Journal of Lifelong
Education 31: 477–501.
Rubenson, K., and R. Desjardins. 2009. “The Impact of Welfare State Regimes on Barriers to Participation in Adult
Education. a Bounded Agency Model.” Adult Education Quarterly 59: 187–207.
Saar, E., T. Roosalu, E.-L. Roosmaa, A. Tamm, and R. Vöörmann. 2013. “Developing Human Capital in Post-socialist
Capitalism: Estonian Experience.” In Lifelong Learning in Europe: National
Patterns and Challenges, edited by E. Saar, OB Ure and J. Holford, 372–396.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Saar, E., M. Unt, and E.-L. Roosmaa. 2014. “Cumulative Inequality Effects of Adult Learning in Estonia. In
Adult Learning in Modern Societies. an International
Comparison from a Life-Course Perspective , edited by H.-P. Blossfeld, E.
Kilpi-Jakonen, D. Vono de Vilhena, and S. Buchholz, 162–183. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Saar, E., OB Ure, and R. Desjardins. 2013. “The Role of Diverse Institutions in Framing Adult Learning
Systems.” European Journal of Education 48: 213–232.
Soskice, D. 1993. “Social Skills from Mass Higher Education: Rethinking the Company-based Initial Training
Paradigm.” Oxford Review of Economic Policy 9: 101–113.
Stenfors-Hayes, T., C. Griffiths, and J. Ogunleye. 2008. “Lifelong Learning for All? Policies, Barriers and
Practical Reality for a Socially Excluded Group.” International Journal of Lifelong
Education 27: 625–640.
Thelen, K. 2004. How Institutions Evolve: The Political Economy of
Skills in Germany, Britain, the United States and Japan .
Cambridge: Pers Universitas Cambridge.
Thelen, K. 2008. “Skill Formation and Training.” In The Oxford Handbook of Business
History, edited by G. Jones, and G. Zeitlin, 558–580. Oxford: Pers Universitas Oxford.
Thelen, K. 2014. Varieties of Liberalization and the New Politics of
Social Solidarity. Cambridge: Pers Universitas Cambridge. Valk, A. 2015. “Differences and
Inequities in the Distributions of Information-processing Skills in the Nordic Countries.” In Adult Skills
in the Nordic Region: Key Information-processing Skills Among
Adults in the Nordic Region, 79–115. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.
550 E. Saar and ML Räis

Appendix 1. Distribution of variables, %.

Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Germany UK

Gender
Men 44 49 45 49 42 Women 56 51 55 51 58 Age group
25–34 29 17 23 23 24 35–44 22 22 25 26 27 45–54 18 23 25 30 25 55–65 30 38 27 22 24 Immigrant group
Native 94 79 73 79 86 First generation immigrant 4 21 16 15 11 Second generation immigrant 2 .4 11 6 4
Education
Basic or less 6 13 11 8 17 Secondary 67 40 41 46 43 Tertiary 28 47 48 45 40 Literacy level based on test
scores
Level 1 (lowest) 11 19 14 17 16 Level 2 37 35 36 33 34 Level 3 42 37 39 29 37 Levels 4 and 5 (highest) 10
9 11 11 13 Firm Size (employees)
< = 50 62 53 67 49 48 51–250 23 28 23 24 23 251–1000 11 10 8 16 16 1000+ 4 9 3 11 13 Occupational
group based on ISCO-08
White collar, high skilled 41 51 44 42 44 White collar, medium skilled 26 23 18 29 35 Blue collar, medium
skilled 25 17 28 21 15 Blue collar, unskilled 7 9 9 7 9 Economic sector
Agriculture 2 3 5 2 1 Mining 1 .3 1 .4 .4 Manufacturing 24 15 20 21 11 Construction 6 6 9 6 6 Electricity 2 2 2
2 1 Commerce 24 17 23 20 20 Tr ansport 7 7 5 8 7 Services 34 51 37 40 53 Use of reading skills at work
Low 25 13 27 19 16 Medium-low 19 15 15 15 20 Medium 19 22 17 18 21 Medium-high 20 25 21 23 21 High
17 25 21 25 22 Number of respondents 9244 6258 6277 4396 7662
Source: Own calculations based on PIAAC 2012.
Journal of Education and Work 551

Appendix 2. Models with interaction terms.

 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7
Odds ratio Standard error Odds ratio Standard error Odds ratio Standard error
Interaction terms
Country × literacy level
Denmark × level 2 .97 .18 .99 .19 Denmark × level 3 .88 .16 .90 .17 Denmark × level 4 and 5 .62* .15 .64
.16 UK × level 2 .81 .16 .86 .17 UK × level 3 .73 .14 .80 .16 UK × level 4 and 5 .63* .15 .72 .17 Estonia ×
level 2 .92 .18 .96 .19 Estonia × level 3 .78 .15 .85 .17 Estonia × levels 4 and 5 .53** .13 .58* .14 Czech
Rep. × level 2 .69* .13 .75 .14 Czech Rep. × level 3 .58*** .11 .69* .13 Czech Rep. × levels 4 and 5 28***
.06 .34*** .08 Country × reading at work
Denmark × medium-low .65* .13 .67* .14 Denmark × medium .80 .16 .85 .17 Denmark × medium-high .
76 .15 .82 .17 Denmark × high .77 .16 .84 .18 UK × medium-low .69* .13 .70 .14 UK × medium .73 .13 .
80 .16 UK × medium-high .67* .13 .74 .15 UK × high .76 .15 .58** .12 Estonia × medium-low .64* .13 .67*
.13 Estonia × medium .79 .15 .86 .17 Estonia × medium-high .62* .12 .69* .13 Estonia × high .65* .13 .73
.15 Czech Rep. × medium-low .71 .13 .76 .14 Czech Rep. × medium .52*** .09 .59** .11 Czech Rep. ×
medium-high .43*** .08 .51*** .09 Czech Rep. × high .51*** .09 .60** .12 Number of observations 18,313
18,313 18,313
Pseudo R square .13*** .13*** .13*** Likelihood ratio χ2 3198.62 3206.23 3239.63
*** Significant at level .001; ** significant at level .01; * significant at level .05.
Source: Own calculations based on PIAAC 2012.

Lihat statistik publikasi