How can Europe's cities ensure their citizens have the right skills?

Some upskilling taking place in a vocational college. Image: Getty.

Creating new jobs only goes so far towards addressing unemployment: people need the skills to do these jobs. And our fast-paced labour market means the skills to keep up are changing constantly.  

This is an urban challenge: cities are hubs of knowledge, innovation and industry. City authorities are in tune with the needs of local labour markets and citizens. They can identify and predict skills shortages, and ensure the right skills are being developed. This is especially true for those who find it hardest to find a job, like vulnerable groups and young people.  

It is in cities where new approaches can be tried and tested. Rotterdam was the first city in continental Europe to use a social impact bond, a relatively new financial mechanism based on a “pay for success” model, to address youth unemployment. Buzinezzclub offers a full package of support that has helped hundreds of young people gain the skills needed to realise their career goals and get off benefits for good. Projects like these can make a real impact on Europe’s unemployment levels – especially if national governments and the EU institutions work with cities to scale up and capitalise on their success.

Young people and the most disadvantaged people in society have been hardest hit by the employment crisis. Phenomena such as the “gig economy”, where independent workers are contracted to complete specific jobs, and crowdsourcing work, are on the rise.


But low-skilled workers can find it difficult to access this kind of work, which also threatens a “race to the bottom” in terms of income. This is a challenge for local authorities, who need to ensure these approaches benefit all involved.

We have witnessed a huge transition in our cities over the course of EUROCITIES’ 30 year history. The end of mass manufacturing in the 1980s left many cities in decline, while the emergence of concepts like the circular, green, sharing and knowledge economies in recent years has brought with it the need for brand new skills.

Cities need to keep ahead of the game. The green economy, for example, is one of the few sectors that continued to grow despite the economic crisis, and cities are seizing this opportunity. Glasgow operates a “green wardens” scheme to train and employ people in various greening and sustainability projects in the council’s core services. This is aimed at people who have been out of work for a long time, left school without qualifications, or have been discharged from the armed forces.

Investment in skills needs to start locally, and must meet local needs. In Ghent, the city carried out a study to assess the needs of local employers now and in future. It has helped the authorities to better understand the impact of disruptive technologies, changing demographics, globalisation and other factors on local employers, and forms part of a demand-driven approach to skills development.

Some cities offer training adapted to local needs, or provide support to jobseekers. Brighton & Hove operates the Brighton Employability Advice and Careers Hut, for example, a collaboration between local schools and employers to design an employability hub for young people.

Many cities take advantage of diverse networks to draw up programmes working with schools, educational institutes, social services, NGOs and local employers. Malmo is one such city, having recently set up partnerships with six civil society organisations to provide training and skills development and training, and to put in place measures to support labour market inclusion. This approach is being recognised at European level too, with the European Commission’s New Skills Agenda for Europe, launched in June this year, mentioning the importance of partnerships at local level.  

The work is happening in cities, but the impact goes much further. European cities are keen to scale up their success. We hope this might soon become a reality, with the launch of a new urban agenda partnership on jobs and skills by the European Commission early next year. This tests a new way of working between cities, national governments and the EU institutions, with the aim of guiding better policies and funding for the local level.

The impact of this, we hope, will be that cities are better prepared to face future challenges, to the benefit all European citizens. 

Anna Lisa Boni is secretary general of EUROCITIES.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.

 
 
 
 

What’s killing northerners?

The Angel of the North. Image: Getty.

There is a stark disparity in wealth and health between people in the north and south of England, commonly referred to as England’s “north-south divide”. The causes of this inequality are complex; it’s influenced by the environment, jobs, migration and lifestyle factors – as well as the long-term political power imbalances, which have concentrated resources and investment in the south, especially in and around London.

Life expectancy is also lower in the north, mainly because the region is more deprived. But new analysis of national mortality data highlights a shockingly large mortality gap between young adults, aged 25 to 44, living in the north and south of England. This gap first emerged in the late 1990s, and seems to have been growing ever since.

In 1995, there were 2% more deaths among northerners aged 25 to 34 than southerners (in other words, 2% “excess mortality”). But by 2015, northerners in this age group were 29% more likely to die than their southern counterparts. Likewise, in the 35 to 44 age group, there was 3% difference in mortality between northerners and southerners in 1995. But by 2015, there were 49% more deaths among northerners than southerners in this age group.

Excess mortality in the north compared with south of England by age groups, from 1965 to 2015. Follow the lines to see that people born around 1980 are the ones most affected around 2015.

While mortality increased among northerners aged 25 to 34, and plateaued among 35 to 44-year-olds, southern mortality mainly declined across both age groups. Overall, between 2014 and 2016, northerners aged 25 to 44 were 41% more likely to die than southerners in the same age group. In real terms, this means that between 2014 and 2016, 1,881 more women and 3,530 more men aged between 25 and 44 years died in the north, than in the south.

What’s killing northerners?

To understand what’s driving this mortality gap among young adults, our team of researchers looked at the causes of death from 2014 to 2016, and sorted them into eight groups: accidents, alcohol related, cardiovascular related (heart conditions, diabetes, obesity and so on), suicide, drug related, breast cancer, other cancers and other causes.

Controlling for the age and sex of the population in the north and the south, we found that it was mostly the deaths of northern men contributing to the difference in mortality – and these deaths were caused mainly by cardiovascular conditions, alcohol and drug misuse. Accidents (for men) and cancer (for women) also played important roles.

From 2014 to 2016, northerners were 47% more likely to die for cardiovascular reasons, 109% for alcohol misuse and 60% for drug misuse, across both men and women aged 25 to 44 years old. Although the national rate of death from cardiovascular reasons has dropped since 1981, the longstanding gap between north and south remains.

Death and deprivation

The gap in life expectancy between north and south is usually put down to socioeconomic deprivation. We considered further data for 2016, to find out if this held true for deaths among young people. We found that, while two thirds of the gap were explained by the fact that people lived in deprived areas, the remaining one third could be caused by some unmeasured form of deprivation, or by differences in culture, infrastructure, migration or extreme weather.

Mortality for people aged 25 to 44 years in 2016, at small area geographical level for the whole of England.

Northern men faced a higher risk of dying young than northern women – partly because overall mortality rates are higher for men than for women, pretty much at every age, but also because men tend to be more susceptible to socioeconomic pressures. Although anachronistic, the expectation to have a job and be able to sustain a family weighs more on men. Accidents, alcohol misuse, drug misuse and suicide are all strongly associated with low socioeconomic status.

Suicide risk is twice as high among the most deprived men, compared to the most affluent. Suicide risk has also been associated with unemployment, and substantial increases in suicide have been observed during periods of recession – especially among men. Further evidence tells us that unskilled men between ages 25 and 39 are between ten and 20 times more likely to die from alcohol-related causes, compared to professionals.

Alcohol underpins the steep increase in liver cirrhosis deaths in Britain from the 1990s – which is when the north-south divide in mortality between people aged 25 to 44 also started to emerge. Previous research has shown that men in this age group, who live in the most deprived areas, are five times more likely to die from alcohol-related diseases than those in the most affluent areas. For women in deprived areas, the risk is four times greater.


It’s also widely known that mortality rates for cancer are higher in more deprived areas, and people have worse survival rates in places where smoking and alcohol abuse is more prevalent. Heroin and crack cocaine addiction and deaths from drug overdoses are also strongly associated with deprivation.

The greater number of deaths from accidents in the north should be considered in the context of transport infrastructure investment, which is heavily skewed towards the south – especially London, which enjoys the lowest mortality in the country. What’s more, if reliable and affordable public transport is not available, people will drive more and expose themselves to higher risk of an accident.

Deaths for young adults in the north of England have been increasing compared to those in the south since the late 1990s, creating new health divides between England’s regions. It seems that persistent social, economic and health inequalities are responsible for a growing trend of psychological distress, despair and risk taking among young northerners. Without major changes, the extreme concentration of power, wealth and opportunity in the south will continue to damage people’s health, and worsen the north-south divide.

The Conversation

Evangelos Kontopantelis, Professor in Data Science and Health Services Research, University of Manchester

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.