Comparative institutional disadvantage: Small firms and vocational training in the British manufacturing sector in comparative perspective

Abstract

This article asks why British manufacturing small and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) struggle to meet their intermediate technical skills needs. While the comparative political economy literature typically attributes the failure to train in Britain to collective action problems, we complement this perspective by pointing at the ill‐conceived policy design of the quasi‐market for vocational education and training. In particular, we shed light on the role of training providers, as they respond to the incentive structure of the quasi‐market, especially the output‐based nature of standards and the system of funding distribution. To strengthen our argument, we compare the British case with the Italian statist system, which enables SMEs to access technical skills through school‐based vocational education, and with the German collective system, in which SMEs develop skills through apprenticeships.

MNC effects? A cross-national comparison of the role of aerospace multinationals in the UK and Australian professional engineering skill formation systems

“…Some MNC subsidiaries focus on their subsidiary needs, while others operate in a more collective or inclusive way that results in the creation of resources that can be accessed by supply chain firms. In countries such as the UK, where others have argued there are a lack of resources for smaller firms (Benassi et al, 2021), MNCs may have a role to play in producing resources related to professional skill development.…”

“…Some authors argue therefore that in liberal countries, firms choose not to organise VET collectively and instead invest in firm-specific on-the-job training, while workers tend to train via higher education (Hall and Soskice, 2001), with skill development coordinated via the market (Ashton et al, 2000). Other accounts question this assumption, such as Benassi et al (2021) who position the UK as a quasi-market with the government taking a more central role.…”

“…The paper adopts an analysis focussed on the interaction between 'country' and 'sector' effects (Bechter et al, 2012) and a proposed 'MNC' effect, defined by drawing on two important debates. First, the importance of firm characteristics such as size in VET systems (Benassi et al, 2021;Ryan et al, 2006Ryan et al, , 2007Thelen and Busemeyer, 2012), often referred to as 'large firm' effects. Second, the concept of 'corporate' effects (Delbridge et al, 2011): the role of headquarters in shaping workplace practices in their subsidiaries.…”

The multi‐dimensional politics of education policy in the knowledge economy: The case of Italy (1996–2008)

“…In countries where skill formation takes place through extensive company‐based training (e.g., apprenticeships), employers have often imposed their policy preferences onto governments by threatening to otherwise disinvest from training (Bonoli & Emmenegger, 2021; Busemeyer, 2012; Durazzi & Geyer, 2022a). But even in instances of ‘low co‐dependence’ between states and business (as in countries without apprenticeships), governments have actively sought consent—if not direction—from business (Benassi et al, 2022; Durazzi, 2021). Indeed, incorporating business preferences has a political appeal that stretches across party lines: for centre‐right parties it can be framed as serving the needs of business in a competitive economy, whilst the centre‐left can frame the alignment between educational provision and labour market needs as a way to foster smooth school‐to‐work transitions for young people (Durazzi, 2019).…”

The Political Economy of Active Labour Market Policy for Young People : A comparative analysis of the effects of employers, employers’ organisations and collective training systems on the use of youth ALMPs in European countries between 1998 and 2014

“…As a consequence, the different groups compete with each other for members, and have a limited capacity to foster cooperation (C. J. Martin 2010). The United Kingdom does not have a collective training system, despite repeated attempts to develop one (Benassi, Durazzi, and Fortwengel 2021;Busemeyer 2015;Finegold and Soskice 1988). Instead, the country's training systems is voluntaristic: companies do not have to follow strict guidelines in terms of training content and duration (Busemeyer 2015), and the overall number of companies training young people on the 7.2 Youth ALMPs in bad times job is limited (see chapters 4 and 5).…”