How to improve the human capital of older workers or the sad tale of the magic bullet.

Governments across much of the developed world are concerned to increase labour market activity rates and employment among older workers. A variety of policies have been advocated including the improvement of education and training provision. This paper evaluates the role that such provision might play. Clearly it is always designed to, and usually succeeds in, increasing the human capital of its recipients, in the sense that, to varying degrees, knowledge and skills are enhanced. However, if this is to improve the labour market position of individuals, the extra human capital must be economically productive and throughout the paper the emphasis is on this. The paper briefly outlines the nature of labour market disadvantage suffered by older workers, who are defined as those over 54. It goes on to discuss the causes of the disadvantage and considers whether better education and training might alleviate it. It evaluates some policy initiatives and concludes that education and training have only a limited role to play in the absence of accompanying policy measures. Amongst older workers, inactivity and unemployment are particularly heavily concentrated amongst the less educated and the less skilled. This is often attributed to globalisation, skill-biased technological progress or job-queuing. Despite such explanations, it is not clear what role lack of skill per se plays in this disadvantage. Labour market regulations, seniority or age related-wages, moral hazard, the attitudes of older workers themselves and skills obsolescence, as well as age discrimination, may help to explain the underprivileged position of older workers in the labour market. In addition to having low employment and activity rates, older workers receive little training. What is eminently clear is that the problem is particularly concentrated amongst those who are less educated or skilled, amongst those who missed out on education and training early in their lives - once at the bottom of the heap, always at the bottom of the heap. OECD Governments are concerned to bring older workers out of unemployment into employment and out of inactivity into employment. They embrace training as one possible means of achieving this aim. The available evidence suggests two overarching conclusions – one general and one specific to the paper’s immediate concerns. The general one is that the relationship between training and a country’s economic success is more problematic and complex than often apparently appreciated by policy makers. For the individual, education and training on the whole improve labour market prospects. But there are qualifications. Not all education and training is equally powerful in achieving this; in the UK, for example, short episodes of work-based training or training when unemployed have limited impact, whilst returns to vocationally orientated courses are less than to academic ones. The specific conclusion is that one could not hope to offset decades of labour market disadvantage by giving an individual a couple of weeks or even a couple of months training. This suggests the need to be modest in one’s aims. The best available evidence, particularly from the active manpower policy literature, suggests very strongly that training programmes, on their own, are of limited use in bringing people out of unemployment or inactivity into jobs. Of prime importance are subsidies and targeted job search and job placement programmes; and even here there are risks of deadweight loss and of ineffectiveness if they are not part of a larger policy package. Even if training can, in principle, help to bring people back into work, the jobs they acquire may not be brilliant ones. This implies a problem of incentives. Depending on the social security/pension regime prevailing, workers may not be inclined to take on low-paying or low status jobs. Indiscriminately providing training, in the absence of other linked initiatives, would be wasteful. The paper stresses the importance of continuous learning during the whole of working life as a means of reducing the dangers of labour market disadvantage in the older years. It also argues that formal 3 training episodes are not the only route to continuous learning. Informal learning and development are also critical, and these are closely related to broader aspects of job quality. For those who are in work, lack of training may be at least as much a symptom as a cause of job insecurity. The problem is not only making the workers more attractive, it is also a matter of making the jobs on offer more attractive. The more high quality jobs there are available, the greater the demand for skill and the more training and development that will be in offer. Though some of it will be specific to each employing organisation, much of it is likely to be transferable, even in the absence of government intervention to deal with possible externalities. Without a large number of high quality jobs, some people are going to suffer. Although an increase in the number of well-trained people might enable some employers to enhance the quality of some jobs, on its own training is unlikely to dramatically alter the quality mix of jobs on offer. The key to preventing the older worker suffering disproportionately in such circumstances almost certainly lies elsewhere than in training. The lack of training received by older workers is dominantly a symptom of broader problems they face. And it is these broader problems that deserve prime attention. One limited role that training might play, though almost certainly it would have to be heavily subsidised by governments, would be to prepare older workers for self-employment as an alternative to the hostile climate they face as employees