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.

 
 
 
 

“Stop worrying about hairdressers”: The UK government has misdiagnosed its productivity problem

We’re going as fast as we can, here. Image: Getty.

Gonna level with you here, I have mixed feelings about this one. On the one hand, I’m a huge fan of schadenfreude, so learning that it the government has messed up in a previously unsuspected way gives me this sort of warm glow inside. On the other hand, the way it’s been screwing up is probably making the country poorer, and exacerbating the north south divide. So, mixed reviews really.

Here’s the story. This week the Centre for Cities (CfC) published a major report on Britain’s productivity problem. For the last 200 years, ever since the industrial revolution, this country has got steadily richer. Since the financial crash, though, that seems to have stopped.

The standard narrative on this has it that the problem lies in the ‘long tail’ of unproductive businesses – that is, those that produce less value per hour. Get those guys humming, the thinking goes, and the productivity problem is sorted.

But the CfC’s new report says that this is exactly wrong. The wrong tail: Why Britain’s ‘long tail’ is not the cause of its productivity problems (excellent pun, there) delves into the data on productivity in different types of businesses and different cities, to demonstrate two big points.

The first is that the long tail is the wrong place to look for productivity gains. Many low productivity businesses are low productivity for a reason:

The ability of manufacturing to automate certain processes, or the development of ever more sophisticated computer software in information and communications have greatly increased the output that a worker produces in these industries. But while a fitness instructor may use a smartphone today in place of a ghetto blaster in 1990, he or she can still only instruct one class at a time. And a waiter or waitress can only serve so many tables. Of course, improvements such as the introduction of handheld electronic devices allow orders to be sent to the kitchen more efficiently, will bring benefits, but this improvements won’t radically increase the output of the waiter.

I’d add to that: there is only so fast that people want to eat. There’s a physical limit on the number of diners any restaurant can actually feed.

At any rate, the result of this is that it’s stupid to expect local service businesses to make step changes in productivity. If we actually want to improve productivity we should focus on those which are exporting services to a bigger market.  There are fewer of these, but the potential gains are much bigger. Here’s a chart:

The y-axis reflects number of businesses at different productivities, shown on the x-axis. So bigger numbers on the left are bad; bigger numbers on the right are good. 

The question of which exporting businesses are struggling to expand productivity is what leads to the report’s second insight:

Specifically it is the underperformance of exporting businesses in cities outside of the Greater South East that causes not only divergences across the country in wages and standards of living, but also hampers national productivity. These cities in particular should be of greatest concern to policy makers attempting to improve UK productivity overall.

In other words, it turned out, again, to the north-south divide that did it. I’m shocked. Are you shocked? This is my shocked face.

The best way to demonstrate this shocking insight is with some more graphs. This first one shows the distribution of productivity in local services business in four different types of place: cities in the south east (GSE) in light green, cities in the rest of the country (RoGB) in dark green, non-urban areas in the south east in purple, non-urban areas everywhere else in turquoise.

The four lines are fairly consistent. The light green, representing south eastern cities has a lower peak on the left, meaning slightly fewer low productivity businesses, but is slightly higher on the right, meaning slightly more high productivity businesses. In other words, local services businesses in the south eastern cities are more productive than those elsewhere – but the gap is pretty narrow. 

Now check out the same graph for exporting businesses:

The differences are much more pronounced. Areas outside those south eastern cities have many more lower productivity businesses (the peaks on the left) and significantly fewer high productivity ones (the lower numbers on the right).

In fact, outside the south east, cities are actually less productive than non-urban areas. This is really not what you’d expect to see, and no a good sign for the health of the economy:

The report also uses a few specific examples to illustrate this point. Compare Reading, one of Britain’s richest medium sized cities, with Hull, one of its poorest:

Or, looking to bigger cities, here’s Bristol and Sheffield:

In both cases, the poorer northern cities are clearly lacking in high-value exporting businesses. This is a problem because these don’t just provide well-paying jobs now: they’re also the ones that have the potential to make productivity gains that can lead to even better jobs. The report concludes:

This is a major cause for concern for the national economy – the underperformance of these cities goes a long way to explain both why the rest of Britain lags behind the Greater South East and why it performs poorly on a

European level. To illustrate the impact, if all cities were as productive as those in the Greater South East, the British economy would be 15 per cent more productive and £225bn larger. This is equivalent to Britain being home to four extra city economies the size of Birmingham.

In other words, the lesson here is: stop worrying about the productivity of hairdressers. Start worrying about the productivity of Hull.


You can read the Centre for Cities’ full report here.

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

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