Who gets labour market training? Access biases of social investment in Finland

IF 2.7 1区 社会学 Q2 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Journal of European Social Policy Pub Date : 2022-01-27 DOI:10.1177/09589287211066408
Z. Im, Young-Kyu Shin
{"title":"Who gets labour market training? Access biases of social investment in Finland","authors":"Z. Im, Young-Kyu Shin","doi":"10.1177/09589287211066408","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Policy access biases worry social policy scholars because they generate Matthew effects that exacerbate socioeconomic divides. Yet, access biases in many social investment policies, like training during unemployment, remain under-researched. Such access biases may be detrimental to a critical objective of social investment: to improve and uplift workers with precarious economic prospects. We focus here on access bias in training provided by public employment services against lower-educated workers. They are vulnerable to unemployment and fractured employment and should thus be targeted for training. While there is burgeoning attention on access biases in training against disadvantaged youths and non-citizens, fewer studies have focused on similar access bias against lower-educated workers. We highlight that access bias against such workers may stem from their lower willingness and demand for training, as well as policy design, informal eligibility criteria and caseworkers’ creaming practices. We suggest, however, that greater availability of training opportunities may ease this access bias against lower-educated workers. Using the Finnish Income Distribution survey data (2007–2012), we find evidence of training access bias: primary-educated workers are significantly less likely to participate in training than upper secondary and vocationally educated workers. Concurrently, our results show that availability of training is not significantly associated with the extent of training access bias against primary-educated workers. With a Nordic welfare model that prioritizes training to remedy labour market vulnerability and stresses that access to benefits and services is based on need, Finland represents a least likely case to find such access bias in training. We therefore consider these results worrying: if it is found here, it may be prevalent in countries with other welfare models.","PeriodicalId":47919,"journal":{"name":"Journal of European Social Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of European Social Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09589287211066408","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Policy access biases worry social policy scholars because they generate Matthew effects that exacerbate socioeconomic divides. Yet, access biases in many social investment policies, like training during unemployment, remain under-researched. Such access biases may be detrimental to a critical objective of social investment: to improve and uplift workers with precarious economic prospects. We focus here on access bias in training provided by public employment services against lower-educated workers. They are vulnerable to unemployment and fractured employment and should thus be targeted for training. While there is burgeoning attention on access biases in training against disadvantaged youths and non-citizens, fewer studies have focused on similar access bias against lower-educated workers. We highlight that access bias against such workers may stem from their lower willingness and demand for training, as well as policy design, informal eligibility criteria and caseworkers’ creaming practices. We suggest, however, that greater availability of training opportunities may ease this access bias against lower-educated workers. Using the Finnish Income Distribution survey data (2007–2012), we find evidence of training access bias: primary-educated workers are significantly less likely to participate in training than upper secondary and vocationally educated workers. Concurrently, our results show that availability of training is not significantly associated with the extent of training access bias against primary-educated workers. With a Nordic welfare model that prioritizes training to remedy labour market vulnerability and stresses that access to benefits and services is based on need, Finland represents a least likely case to find such access bias in training. We therefore consider these results worrying: if it is found here, it may be prevalent in countries with other welfare models.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
谁接受劳动力市场培训?芬兰社会投资的准入偏差
政策获取偏见让社会政策学者感到担忧,因为它们产生了加剧社会经济差距的马太效应。然而,许多社会投资政策中的准入偏见,如失业期间的培训,仍然研究不足。这种准入偏见可能不利于社会投资的一个关键目标:改善和提升经济前景不稳定的工人。我们在这里关注的是公共就业服务机构针对低学历工人提供的培训中的准入偏见。他们很容易失业和就业断裂,因此应该成为培训的目标。尽管人们越来越关注针对弱势青年和非公民的培训中的准入偏见,但很少有研究关注针对教育程度较低的工人的类似准入偏见。我们强调,对这些工作者的准入偏见可能源于他们对培训的意愿和需求较低,以及政策设计、非正式资格标准和个案工作者的创造做法。然而,我们建议,更多的培训机会可能会缓解这种对低学历工人的准入偏见。使用芬兰收入分配调查数据(2007-2012年),我们发现了培训机会偏见的证据:与受过高中和职业教育的工人相比,受过小学教育的工人参加培训的可能性要小得多。同时,我们的研究结果表明,培训的可用性与对受过初等教育的工人的培训机会偏见程度没有显著关联。北欧的福利模式优先考虑培训,以弥补劳动力市场的脆弱性,并强调获得福利和服务的机会是基于需求的,芬兰是最不可能在培训中发现这种机会偏见的国家。因此,我们认为这些结果令人担忧:如果在这里发现,它可能会在其他福利模式的国家流行。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
6.70%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: The Journal of European Social Policy publishes articles on all aspects of social policy in Europe. Papers should make a contribution to understanding and knowledge in the field, and we particularly welcome scholarly papers which integrate innovative theoretical insights and rigorous empirical analysis, as well as those which use or develop new methodological approaches. The Journal is interdisciplinary in scope and both social policy and Europe are conceptualized broadly. Articles may address multi-level policy making in the European Union and elsewhere; provide cross-national comparative studies; and include comparisons with areas outside Europe.
期刊最新文献
What works? Researching participants’ experiences of a social policy RCT through qualitative interviews Cross-class solidarity in times of crisis: the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on support for redistribution COVID-19 hits care homes: A cross-national study of mortality rates Targeted transfers, a left-wing policy? The impact of left-wing governments and corporatism on transfers to low-income families (1982–2019) Help or harm? Examining the effects of active labour market programmes on young adults’ employment quality and the role of social origin
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1