Can local employment training help address the UK’s productivity puzzle?

Engineering trainees in Germany. Image: Getty.

Labour market data from the Office for National Statistics shows that the employment rate has never been so high. But real wages are still below their 2007 peak and productivity remains stagnant, suggesting that despite the employment-led recovery, some important labour market challenges remain.

As stressed in the recent Centre for Cities briefing on the industrial strategy, a key problem of the UK economy is its skills base. The skills of any workforce are crucial for building a strong economy and improving businesses, growth and wages. But as shown in our “Competing with the Continent” report, most UK cities are lagging behind their European counterparts in this area.

There is evidence that employment training can be effective in tackling this issue, by not only bringing people back into work but by also helping them acquire new skills and move up on the earnings ladder. In around half of the evaluations on this topic reviewed by the What Works Centre, employment training had a positive impact on wages and employment.

But in terms of outcomes, the way the training is designed matters. Looking at the duration of training schemes, the review found that short programmes are more effective for less formal training activity, while longer programmes generate gains when the content is skill-intensive – but that the benefits take longer to materialise.

When it comes to the format of the training, on-the-job training programmes tend to outperform classroom-based ones. This is because employers engage directly with the course and the participants tend to acquire skills that match more closely what employers need. This could also be due to the fact that the participants have already established a relationship with their potential employer.


But the evidence on the effectiveness of different types of delivery remains inconclusive. Looking at the public versus private delivery, the review did not come to any strong conclusions on which one is more effective. 

The evidence was also inconclusive on whether a programme delivered nationally is more effective than one delivered locally – none of the evaluations reviewed looked at this issue specifically. But understanding the role that local government can play in tackling the skills issue is crucial for two reasons.

Firstly, our work shows that the UK is not a single national labour market but a series of overlapping ones, and skills programmes can bring benefits if tailored to meet the demands of the local economy (as argued in our city deals and skills report). Our case studies library provides some concrete examples of how this might work. Secondly, the newly elected metro mayors can make a difference on this policy area as skills is one of the powers being devolved.

The government seems to be becoming more and more aware of this local element with the recent announcement of new employment schemes that will more closely reflect the different economic realities seen in different places.

But what the What Works Centre study reveals is the lack of evidence on what policies are effective in this area. As my colleague Elena Magrini argued in her recent blog, to make the most of these schemes, local authority officers involved in these new programmes should become the champions of evidence.

This means that, when implementing these schemes, local authorities should build on the existing evidence that both the What Works Centre and our case studies library provide. Once these schemes are up and running, they should be accurately monitored so that we can improve our knowledge of what works in this important area.

 Gabriele Piazza is a researcher at the Centre for Cities. This post was originally published on the think tank's blog.

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

 
 
 
 

How spurious imperial science affected the layout of African cities

Freetown, Sierra Leone. Image: David Hond/Freetown From The Air/Wikimedia Commons.

As the European powers spread across the world, systematically colonising it as they went, one of the deadliest enemies they faced was disease. In 1850s India, one in twenty British soldiers were dying from such diseases – on a par with British Empire casualty rates during World War II.

When Europeans started dropping dead the minute they got off the boat, the scientists of the day rushed to provide their own, at times fairly dodgy, solutions. This era coincided with a key period of city planning in the African colonies – meaning that there is still visible evidence of this shoddy science in the cityscape of many modern African cities.
For a long time altitude was considered a protection against disease, on the grounds that it was far from the lowland heat associated with putrefaction. British officials in India retreated to the ‘hill stations’ during the warm season; this practice continued in the African colonies established by all sorts of European powers in the late 19th century.

So it was that one bunch of imperialists established the capital of German Kamerun at Buea, high on the side of Mount Cameroon. The city still has a population of 90,000 today. Evidence of this height fetish can still be found in the ‘Plateau’ districts of Brazzaville, Dakar and Abidjan as well as the ‘Ridge’ district of Accra.


Malaria, particularly, was an ever present fear in the colonies, and it did much to shape the colonial cities. It’s a sign of the extent to which 19th century medical science misunderstood how the disease was spread that its name comes from the French for ‘bad air’. By the late 19th century, knowledge had managed to progress far enough to identify mosquitoes as the culprits – but views still wildly diverged about the appropriate response.

One solution popular in many empires was segregation. The Europeans had incorrectly identified Africans as the main carriers of the disease; African children under five were believed to be the main source of malaria so they were to be kept far away from the colonists at all times.

And so, many powers decided that the European settlers should be housed in their own separate areas. (Of course, this wrong headed but at least rational response wasn’t the whole explanation: often, sanitary concerns were used to veil simple racial chauvinism.)

The affluent Hill Station – a name reminiscent of the Indian colonies – in Freetown, Sierra Leone was built as a segregated suburb so Europeans could keep well clear of the local children. Today, it’s where the home of the president can be found. Yet despite all this expensive shuffling of Freetown’s urban landscape, inhabitants of Hill Station came down with malaria at about the same as those who lived elsewhere.

 

The Uganda Golf Course, Kampala. Image: Google Maps.

In Kampala, Uganga, a golf course now occupies the land designated by the British powers to protect the European neighbourhood from the African. A similar appropriation can be seen in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of The Congo, where a zoo, botanical garden and another golf course can be found the land earmarked for protecting colonial officials and their families.

All this urban juggling was the privilege of immensely powerful colonial officials, backed up by the military might of the imperial powers. The indigenous peoples could do little but watch as their cities were bulldozed and rebuilt based on the whims of the day. Yet the scars are still visible in the fabric of many modern African cities today.