Risk of Job Automation and Participation in Adult Education and Training: Do Welfare Regimes Matter?

Abstract

This study explores the relation between risk of job automation and participation in adult education and training (AET) and examines variation in that relation across welfare regimes distinguishing between situational and institutional barriers. Using microdata of PIAAC, we analyze participation in formal or nonformal AET for job-related reasons in relation to the risk of automation of the respondents’ occupation after controlling for main sociodemographic characteristics. Logistic regression models are run on respondents from 14 European countries representing different welfare regimes: Denmark, Norway, and Sweden (Scandinavian countries); Italy, Greece, and Spain (Southern European); Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Poland (Central and Eastern Europe), Belgium, France, and Germany (Continental); and United Kingdom and Ireland (Anglo-Saxon countries). Our findings confirm that workers in occupations at high risk of automation were found to be consistently less likely to participate in job-related AET, quite irrespective of welfare regime.

Policy Responses to Technological Change in the Workplace

“…Overall, the evidence is quite mixed. Neither the type of welfare regime (Ioannidou and Parma 2021) nor more proximate and specific labor market policies (Koster and Brunori 2021) appear to increase the access of routine workers to training, even though they both increase the overall attendance rate. More distant institutions such as the vocational education system or the stratified nature of school systems seem to close the gap in training attendance between routine and non-routine workers (Ehlert 2020).…”

“…This suggests a "Matthew effect" of adult education within the context of routine work and an "adult education penalty" of automation risk. Even though routine workers would be most in need of training, it is precisely the risk of automation that reduces their likelihood of receiving it (Nedelkoska and Quintini 2018;Ehlert 2020;Ioannidou and Parma 2021;Koster and Brunori 2021). Given that employers pay for most of the job-related adult education in OECD countries (Ehlert 2020), the prevailing interpretation is that companies refrain from investing in workers that may soon become obsolete.…”

Workplace learning for the disadvantaged: Perspectives from adult education and human resource development

“…Iñiguez-Berrozpe et al (2020) found the direct and indirect benefits of nonformal adult learning for less-educated adults. Ioannidou and Parma (2022) examined job-related education participation, including formal or nonformal, linked to the welfare regime in 14 European countries amid automation challenges due to technological developments. With varying degrees of job automation in the 14 countries, low-educated and low-skilled workers were least likely to participate in training and education due to the job characteristics that do not offer such opportunities.…”

“…Their findings confirm the cumulative effects of opportunities in career and education for those who started low or fewer advantageous positions. The study of Ioannidou and Parma (2022) is one of few empirical research that provided evidence of the Matthew Effect that less-educated, low-skilled workers experience.…”

Determinants of Adult Education and Training Participation in the United States: A Machine Learning Approach

“…Similarly, while some studies suggest that older workers benefit from AET activities, others have found that older age is associated with lower AET participation or negative attitudes toward it (Roosmaa & Saar, 2017. It is widely recognized that individuals with higher human capital tend to seek additional knowledge and skills (Boeren et al, 2010). For instance, Ioannidou and Parma's (2022) study demonstrated that highly educated workers were more likely to engage in AET practices, reaffirming that higher educational attainment enhances the likelihood of subsequent learning participation among adult workers (Punksungka et al, 2021;Yamashita et al, 2019). Additionally, income can serve as a significant driver and extrinsic reward for participating in LLL (Tikkanen & Nissinen, 2018).…”