by

chaotic character, Canadian training policy was theoretically guided or informed – partly by the dominant macroeconomic paradigm, neo-liberalism; and partly by the dominant theoretical paradigm within labour market studies, human capital theory (McBride, 1998). In Canada the conjunction of these two influences produced the deregulation and privatisation of training (and arguably the dilution of training quality), and the devolution of authority over training from the federal government to the provinces (creating, among other things, a patchwork effect and varying standards across the country). In this formulation, privatisation should be understood in two senses. First, training providers would increasingly be private institutions rather than public ones. Second, the cost of training would increasingly be borne by those held by neo-liberal versions of human capital theory to benefit from it – the individuals receiving training and the firms for whom they worked. The overarching tendency, though not always clearly articulated in public policy statements, was towards the mark tisation of training and, in particular, the creation of a training market.2 In political science and political economy, Canada and Australia are frequently taken a