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.

 
 
 
 

The Fire Brigades Union’s statement on Theresa May’s resignation is completely damning

Grenfell Tower. Image: Getty.

Just after 10 this morning, Theresa May announced that she would resign as Britain’s prime minister on 7 June. A mere half an hour later, a statement from Royal Institute of British Architects president Ben Derbyshire arrived in my inbox with a ping:

“The news that Theresa May will step down as Prime Minister leaves the country in limbo while the clock ticks down to the latest deadline of 31 October. While much is uncertain, one thing remains clear – a no deal is no option for architecture or the wider construction sector. Whoever becomes the next Prime Minister must focus on taking the country forward with policies beyond Brexit that tackle the major challenges facing the country such as the housing crisis and climate change emergency.”

I was a bit baffled by this – why would the architecture profession try to get its thoughts into a political story? But then Merlin Fulcher of Architects Journal put me right:

Well you know construction is a larger contributor to GDP than financial services, and most of the work UK architects do is for export, and at least half of the largest practice (Foster + Partners) are EU, so there's a lot at stake

— Merlin Fulcher (@merlinfulcher) May 24, 2019

So, the thoughts of the RIBA president are an entirely legitimate thing to send to any construction sector-adjacent journalists who might be writing about today’s big news, and frankly I felt a little silly.

Someone else who should be feeling more than a little silly, though, is Theresa May herself. When listing her government’s achievements, such as they were, she included, setting up “the independent public inquiry into the tragedy at Grenfell Tower” – a fire in a West London public housing block in June 2017 – “to search for the truth, so nothing like it can ever happen again, and so the people who lost their lives that night are never forgotten”.

Matt Wrack, general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union, is having precisely none of this. Here’s his statement:

“Many of the underlying issues at Grenfell were due to unsafe conditions that had been allowed to fester under Tory governments and a council for which Theresa May bears ultimate responsibility. The inquiry she launched has kicked scrutiny of corporate and government interests into the long-grass, denying families and survivors justice, while allowing business as usual to continue for the wealthy. For the outgoing Prime Minister to suggest that her awful response to Grenfell is a proud part of her legacy is, frankly, disgraceful.”

A total of 72 people died in the Grenfell fire. At time of writing, nobody has been prosecuted.

Jonn Elledge is editor of CityMetric and the assistant editor of the New Statesman. He is on Twitter as @jonnelledge and on Facebook as JonnElledgeWrites.

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