Occupational mismatch has been a hot topic in the economics literature in recent decades; however, no consensus has been reached on how to conceptualise and measure this phenomenon. We explore the unique opportunity offered by the PIAAC survey to measure occupational mismatch at the individual level based on both education-(overeducation) and skill-based (overskilling) variables by using both objective and subjective measures. For this purpose, we use data on 17 European countries and compute up to 20 different indicators of occupational mismatch. We find that the conceptualisation and measurement of occupational mismatch are indeed important and that education and skill mismatch do not measure the same phenomenon. In fact, only a small percentage of mismatched individuals are mismatched with respect to both education and skill, whereas the majority are mismatched with respect to either education or skill only. At the country level, we find a negative correlation between the incidence of education and skill mismatch, which has important implications for policies aiming to address this labour market inefficiency.

In roughly a decade, university rankings gained the foreground in the policy arena for higher education and their influence is not going to decrease. However, several methodological shortcomings and warnings about the unintended consequences for national higher education systems have been raised. Against this background, this paper stresses that the individual recipients of information contained in university rankings are currently overlooked. Indeed, university rankings are addressed to a generic recipient, but actually, there are multiple audiences for rankings, and each of these audiences has different needs and each one attributes a different value to information attached to rankings. Referring to a theoretical tool borrowed from bioethics, this paper highlights that the ranking game involves a variety of recipients and that the current setting of the ranking panorama leaves room for gaps to emerge.

Satellite university campuses-whereby established universities decentralise part of their activities, often to areas previously lacking a university-contribute to the diversification of university systems. While satellite campuses, due to their small scale and limited resources, might perform some activities less efficiently than their larger parent universities, we argue that they are uniquely placed to serve the needs of their localities. Based on the case of a satellite campus in NorthWest Italy, we show that: (i) the campus' main contribution lies in widening access to higher education to residents who would not attend university in the absence of local provision; (ii) the campus contributes to local development also through research and business and community engagement, and by stimulating local demand for knowledge-intensive services; (iii) research and engagement are more effective for local development where local firms possess relevant absorptive capacity and where there is a favourable institutional framework.

No abstract

translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.