The Opportunity Trap: Education and Employment in a Global Economy

Abstract

This article is based on the Keynote Address to ECER, Lisbon, Portugal, 11-14 September 2002. The opportunity to make a better life is enshrined in democratic societies. In recent decades the growth in personal freedom and the rhetoric of the knowledge economy have led many to believe that we have more opportunities than ever before. We are told that the trade-off between efficiency and justice no longer holds in a global knowledge-driven economy, as the opportunity to exploit the talents of all, at least in the developed world, is now a realistic goal. This article will challenge such accounts of education, opportunity and global labour market. It points to enduring social inequalities in the competition for a livelihood and an intensification of 'positional' conflict. Our 'opportunities' are becoming harder to cash in. The opportunity-cost is increasing because the pay-off depends on getting ahead in the competition for tough-entry jobs. Middle-class families in competitive hot spots are adopting increasingly desperate measures to win a positional advantage. But the opportunity trap is not only a problem for individuals or families. It exposes an inherent tension, if not contradiction, in the relationship between capitalism and democracy. It will be argued that the legitimate foundations of opportunity, based on education, jobs and rewards, are unravelling. Within education, this not only represents further symptoms of the 'diploma disease' but a social revolution that fundamentally challenges our understanding of education, efficiency and social justice.

Rethinking higher education and its relationship with social inequalities: past knowledge, present state and future potential

“…This situation can create a highly competitive credential market, and even if there are indications of higher education expansion, individuals from lower social class do not have equal opportunities to get a degree, which can lead them to a more prestigious occupational category. This is, in turn, very similar to the Weberian theory of educational credentialism, where credentials determine social stratum (Brown, 2003;Karabel, 2006;Douthat, 2005;Waters, 2012).…”

Adult learning, education, and the labour market in the employability regime

“…To conclude, the employability concept has primarily been framed by the perspectives of policy makers and employers, who focus on the supply aspect of competence in the labour market (Brown, 2003;McQuaid & Lindsay, 2005). There are also numerous accounts of the labour market demand requirements of successful employee performance (Hesketh, 2000;Knight & Yorke, 2004;Pool & Sewell, 2007).…”

“…The process of individualisation often has been assumed to create greater freedom for individuals, who have increased opportunities to choose and to break free from ascribed roles in different contexts, such as working life. These opportunities to shape one's life trajectory also make people more dependent on educational success (Brown, 2003). To be competitive in the labour market and secure income and social status, among other things, individuals must continuously invest in, develop, manage, and market their employability to employers in an increasingly competitive labour market (Clarke, 2008).…”

Institutional strategies in response to higher skills policy in England

“…It also set a number of qualification-related targets, including ensuring that "more than 40 per cent of all adults have a higher education qualification" by 2020 (DIUS, 2007, p. 12). However, the logic of this approach has been substantially undermined by research that has questioned the priority status given to supply-side reform in driving economic productivity (Keep, 2008), the reductive equating of "skills" with "qualifications" that pervades policy rhetoric (Davis, 2007) and the assumed dividend accruing to individual investment in higher education in the context of globalisation (Brown, 2003;Brown et al, 2010). The United Kingdom Commission for Employment and Skills, an organisation which arose as a consequence of a recommendation of the Leitch Review in an attempt to "depoliticise" the skills agenda (HM Treasury, 2006), has suggested that productivity increases are not possible without changes in employer practices simultaneous to provider reform (UKCES, 2009), an argument that is subtly different from the unilateral focus on supply-side changes to bring about greater employer involvement in the specification of educational provision set out in the Leitch Review.…”