transition from education to - europa

TRANSITION FROM EDUCATION

TO WORK IN EU NEIGHBOURING

COUNTRIES

THE EUROPEAN TRAINING FOUNDATION (ETF)HELPS TRANSITION AND DEVELOPING COUNTRIESTO HARNESS THE POTENTIAL OF THEIR HUMANRESOURCES THROUGH THE REFORM OF EDUCATIONAND TRAINING SYSTEMS IN THE CONTEXT OF THEEU’S EXTERNAL RELATIONS POLICY

HOW TO CONTACT US

Further information on our activities, calls fortender and job opportunities can be found onour web site: www.etf.europa.eu

For any additional information please contact:

External Communication UnitEuropean Training FoundationVilla GualinoViale Settimio Severo 65I – 10133 TorinoT +39 011 630 2222F +39 011 630 2200E [email protected]

TRANSITION FROM EDUCATIONTO WORK IN EU NEIGHBOURINGCOUNTRIES

RESULTS OF AN ETF INNOVATION ANDLEARNING PROJECT

A great deal of additional information on theEuropean Union is available on the Internet.It can be accessed through the Europa server(http://www.europa.eu).

Cataloguing data can be found at the end ofthis publication.

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications ofthe European Communities, 2008.

ISBN: 978-92-9157-552-7

© European Training Foundation, 2008.

Reproduction is authorised provided the sourceis acknowledged.

Printed in Italy

Europe Direct is a service to help youfind answers to your questions

about the European Union

Freephone number (*):

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allowaccess to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed.

PREFACE

This publication summarises the mainoutcomes of an ETF Innovation andLearning Project entitled ‘Transition fromEducation to Work’, implemented in 2006and 2007. The project aimed at studyingthe link between education and work in adynamic and integrated way. The maininnovative element of the project was thedevelopment of new conceptualapproaches and new analytical instrumentsfor the ETF and its partner countries.

The objective of the project was to developtwo different tools for analysing thetransition from education to work in partnercountries in order to better understand thelinks between the education and training ofyoung people and their labour marketintegration. The intended readership of thisreport is, first and foremost, researchers,who need better tools to be able tounderstand these links, and secondly,policymakers in Serbia and Ukraine, whocan build on the results reported here as asound basis for their policyrecommendations. A specific aim has notbeen to produce policy recommendationsas such. The survey in Ukraine, togetherwith a complementary survey conducted bythe World Bank, will nonetheless form theempirical basis for a more detailed policyanalysis. In 2008, a specific policy notedrawing on the lessons from these surveyswill be jointly drawn up by the ETF, theEuropean Commission and the World Bank.

A conceptual and analytical framework onthe topic of education-to-work transitionwas first developed and used for nationalreports on this transition process inUkraine, Serbia and Egypt. This projectbuilt on earlier work within theMEDA-Education and Training forEmployment (MEDA-ETE) projectimplemented by the ETF, involving the

preparation of a thematic study oneducation-to-work transition in Europe anddiscussing the relevance of Europeanexperiences with a network of MEDAexperts and policymakers.

A methodology for a school-leaver surveywas then developed and implemented inSerbia and Ukraine. This methodology,which took as its starting point an ad hocmodule on school-to-work transition withinthe framework of the European LabourForce Survey in 2000, integrates specifickey features of the countries outside theEU where the ETF operates.

This publication consists of four separatechapters. Chapter 1 presents theconceptual and analytical guidelines usedfor the national reports. Chapter 2assesses the use and relevance of theconceptual framework foreducation–to-work transition in EUneighbouring countries, using the nationalreports produced in Ukraine, Serbia andEgypt as a departure point. Chapter 3outlines the methodology developed andused for the implementation of schoolleaver surveys in Serbia and Ukraine.Finally, Chapter 4 describes and analysesthe main results from the Serbian andUkrainian school leaver surveys.

The publication was edited by HenrikHuitfeldt (ETF) and includes contributionsfrom Anastasia Fetsi (ETF), Jens Johansen(ETF) (including editing in the final phase),Irena Kogan, and Walter van Trier. Thecountry reports were prepared by MonaAmer (Egypt), Mihail Arandareno (Serbia)and Ella Libanova (Ukraine). Invaluablestatistical support was provided by DorianaMonteleone. Three peer reviewers arewarmly thanked for their suggestions andcomments.

3

CONTENTS

PREFACE 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7

1. A CONCEPTUAL AND ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK TO DESCRIBE AND ASSESS

EMPLOYMENT-TO-WORK TRANSITION SYSTEMS 11

1.1 Introduction 11

1.2 The CATEWE conceptual framework and building blocks 13

1.3 Towards guidelines for writing a country report 19

1.4 Final remarks 23

2. AN ASSESSMENT OF THE USE AND RELEVANCE OF THE EDUCATION-TO-WORK

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR EU NEIGHBOURING COUNTRIES 25

2.1 Introduction 25

2.2 Why national reports and what conceptual framework? 26

2.3 How was the conceptual framework used? 27

2.4 Does the conceptual framework need further development? 29

2.5 Concluding remarks 35

3. THE YOUTH TRANSITION SURVEY: A METHODOLOGICAL NOTE 37

3.1 Introduction 37

3.2 Survey formats for studying youth transition 38

3.3 Major youth transition data requirements 39

3.4 Conclusions 45

4. AN ANALYSIS OF LABOUR MARKET ENTRY IN SERBIA AND UKRAINE 47

4.1 Introduction 47

4.2 The datasets 48

4.3 School-to-work transition and the youth labour market 49

4.4 Recent school leavers: first jobs 53

4.5 Education and labour markets: skill mismatches 62

4.6 Analysis of current labour markets 72

4.7 Conclusions 74

REFERENCES 77

5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The transition from education to work byyoung people is a complex process inwhich socioeconomic structures andinstitutional and policy settings in severalareas interrelate. Policies to reduce youthemployment and facilitate entry into thelabour market are central to theEuropean Youth Initiative in the revisedLisbon Agenda. Results from recentEuropean research show that theoutcomes of the transition process varysignificantly between countries andnational systems, according to the lengthand the nature of the transition process,the level and persistence of youthunemployment, and the types of jobs andcontracts available to young people. Amain conclusion from the existingliterature is that the same policyintervention is unlikely to be equallyeffective in all national systems.

The ETF has developed a set of tools tobetter analyse education-to-work transitionin its partner countries. A secondaryobjective has been to strengthen theanalytical and policy-related links betweenthe education system and the labourmarket. Although there are severalapproaches to addressing theeducation-to-work transition issueconceptually, it was decided to use theapproach developed by the EU-financedCATEWE1 project as a starting point.

The CATEWE project had two majorobjectives. Firstly, it aimed to describe thepathways followed by young people when

making the move from initial full-timeeducation to the labour market. Secondly, itaimed to explain the extent to whichdifferences in national institutionalstructures could account for differences inboth transition patterns and outcomes foryoung people in the countries underconsideration.

The CATEWE conceptual frameworkconsists of five inter-related buildingblocks, each pointing to sets of variablesthat capture the main characteristics ofthe major factors affecting the transitionfrom education to work, as follows:different aspects of the macro-context inwhich transition occurs; differences ineducation and training systems; the maincharacteristics and differences in labourmarket structures; the maincharacteristics and differences in theinterfaces linking national education andtraining systems with the labour market;and finally, the characteristics oftransition itself , which provides theindicators for assessing the success ofthe transition. One conclusion of theCATEWE project was that an additionalbuilding block covering the welfaresystem and the role of the family mightbe needed to explain education-to-worktransition patterns found in a particularset of countries in southern Europe.Given the poor quality of public welfaresystems in some countries neighbouringthe EU, this building block was accordedspecial significance in the conceptualframework developed by the ETF.

7

1 CATEWE (Comparative Analysis of Transitions from Education to Work in Europe) was a cooperative teamresearch venture that involved the Economic and Social Research Institute (Dublin), the Centre d’Etudes etde Recherches sur l’Education et les Qualifications (Marseille), the Mannheimer Zentrum fur EuropaïscheSozialforschung (Mannheim), the Research Institute voor Onderwijs en Arbeidsmarkt (Maastricht) and theCentre for Educational Sociology (Edinburgh). A position paper was commissioned from leading members ofthe CATEWE team in the run-up to the OECD Thematic Review on the Transition from Education to Work(Hannan, Raffe & Smyth, 1996) and CATEWE was later involved in the review process itself.

Chapter 1 provides a description of theCATEWE conceptual framework andincludes guidelines for writing countryreports. Country reports should aim toanswer three main questions in order toassess how well the school-to-worktransition system works. How do youngpeople move through the education systemand what determines educationalachievement and differences in educationalachievement? How do young people movefrom the education system into the labourmarket and what determines their successat entering the labour market? Doprocesses, patterns and outcomes of earlylabour market entry influence the labourmarket outcomes and careers of youngpeople at a later stage of life?

The main objective of Chapter 2 is toassess the use and relevance of theCATEWE conceptual framework for EUneighbouring countries within theframework of the ETF Transition fromEducation to Work project. Departing fromthe national reports for Egypt, Serbia andUkraine, conclusions within three areas arehighlighted. Firstly, some limitations of thenational reports in their use of theconceptual framework were commented,referring, in particular, to a focus on deskresearch into existing material, a lack ofinformation, and the cross-disciplinarynature of school-to-work transition, all ofwhich made it difficult for a single nationalexpert to apply the framework in depth inall the areas to which it applied. Secondly,a series of general remarks drew directlyon the national reports. Even if theconceptual framework was not alwaysused to structure the reports, most of theelements of the conceptual frameworkwere included in some form in the reports.Unlike in most applications of thisframework in EU countries, contextualinformation such as demographic changesin the economic structure due to thetransition to a market economy andglobalisation seem to affect theschool-to-work transition. Another generalremark relates to the fact that despitedifferences between the three countriescovered, some interesting similaritiesemerged from the national reports. Thesereferred mainly to a clear disconnectionbetween the education structure and the

labour market, and the implications of anexpanded higher education system. Finally,the national reports led to a discussion onthe extent to which the framework needs tobe extended and further elaborated inorder to cater for the specific features ofEU neighbouring countries.

A major conclusion regarding educationsystems is that the uncertainty of jobcreation and difficulties in forecastinglabour market needs would point to thebenefits of becoming more flexible andproactive and of developing an educationsystem that could accommodate a largedegree of uncertainty.

The most striking fact about the situation ofthe youth labour market is the small roleplayed by permanent formal jobs in theeducation-to-work transition. The mainconclusion and policy recommendationwould relate to the urgent need to developan inclusive employment policy that wouldlead to more and better jobs. However,policy responses need to be multifacetedand should support labour market transitionfor all workers, including those with littleopportunity to obtain work in the formallabour market.

Despite this main policy conclusion withregard to increasing the job creation rate,there is still a need to improve transition interms of the interface between theeducation system and the labour market.Firstly, because the effects of a policyaimed at creating more and better jobsmight be felt only in the medium term,action could and should be taken in theshort term to prevent wasting the resourcesthat young people bring to the labourmarket. Secondly, general policy measuresmay not have sufficient impact on youngpeople. Given their specific characteristicsand the fact that they are by definition‘outsiders’ in the labour market, it seemsevident that measures targeted at youngpeople may have a role to play during thetransition period.

Chapter 3 discusses and seeks to definepossible formats for youth transitionsurveys. The ideal data required in order tobe able to analyse transition processes asexperienced by young people and the

8

TRANSITION FROM EDUCATION TO WORK IN EU NEIGHBOURING COUNTRIES

criteria according to which data collectionarrangements should be judged are alsosuggested. Conclusions are drawn in bothrespects, and specific recommendationsfor the implementation of youth transitionsurveys in EU neighbouring countries aremade.

The methodological discussion is followedby a description of the major choices madein designing the sampling frame and thequestionnaire for the ETF school leaversurvey implemented in Serbia in 2006 andin Ukraine in 2007. The target group wasindividuals aged 15-34 who left educationfor the first time in the previous five years.

The questionnaire used during the surveywas structured to cover the followingissues:

� Situation before leaving continuouseducation for the first time;

� Monthly calendar of activities sinceleaving education;

� First job and first significant job afterleaving education;

� Current labour market situation;� Education and training since leaving

education;� Socio-demographic characteristics.

Finally, Chapter 4 discusses the mainfeatures of school-to-work transition in adynamic way using two unique datasetscollected in Serbia and Ukraine followingthe methodology described in Chapter 3.The survey data provides us with detailedinformation on the first five years of thetransition from school to work for a largeset of school leavers. Information isavailable for first jobs after leavingeducation, for first significant jobs (aminimum of 20 hours worked a week andemployment duration of at least sixmonths) and for employment at the time ofthe survey (up to five years after leavingeducation).

In Ukraine, the transition process unfoldedrelatively rapidly, whereas it was muchmore gradual in Serbia. Three fifths ofUkrainian school leavers compared to onlyone third of Serbian school leavers had asignificant job six months after leavingeducation. However, significant differences

were also observed between the twocountries in terms of the quality of jobs andin the use of skills attained at school. InSerbia, young people remainedunemployed longer or took up differentkinds of informal employment. In Ukraine,on the other hand, many young peoplewere employed in formal jobs, but often injobs where wages were low and where alow qualification level was required(regardless of the educational attainment ofthe individual). In Ukraine, many womenleft the labour market soon aftergraduation.

Some differences between women andmen were observed in the two countries. Ingeneral, men found work more quickly thanwomen in both Serbia and Ukraine. Thedifference was smaller, however, for firstsignificant jobs. In addition, men were moreoften informally employed or self-employedand worked more often in the privatesector.

Education played a major role in terms offinding work rapidly after leaving theeducation system. Major findings arestrikingly similar for the two countries.Post-secondary education graduates(including university graduates) did fairlywell in both countries, followed bygraduates from secondary vocationalschools. Particularly noteworthy is the factthat graduates from secondary generaleducation performed very poorly incomparison with other educationalcategories in both countries. Thesedifferences were also reflected in thequality of the job, with fewer graduatesfrom post-secondary education workinginformally or in jobs where they did not usetheir qualifications.

Two methodological tools have beendeveloped in this ETF Innovation andLearning Project on the Transition fromEducation to Work—a conceptual andanalytical framework and a school leaversurvey—that can be used to provideinsights into the complex and dynamicprocess of labour market integration foryoung people. These tools have beenpiloted in a number of ETF partnercountries and have been refined so as tobetter incorporate specific aspects of

9

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

school-to-work transition processes in EUneighbouring countries. Such ongoingminor refinements and adaptations of thetools are recommended, as they helpensure that they remain meaningful in

any given national setting. As a result,the ETF is in the position to providehighquality analytical and policy-relatedsupport in this field to its partnercountries.

10


1. A CONCEPTUAL AND

ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK

TO DESCRIBE AND ASSESS

EMPLOYMENT-TO-WORK

TRANSITION SYSTEMS

Walter Van Trier

1.1 INTRODUCTION

In their contribution to the International

Handbook of Labour Market Policy and

Evaluation (1996), Ryan & Büchtemannnote that discussions on school-to-worktransition unavoidably bring up a multiplicityof related policy goals. A list of thesecommonly mentioned goals includes thefollowing items:

� Widespread completion of uppersecondary general education, alongwith appropriate achievement andcertification, as well as access tocontinuing education thereafter.

� High-quality vocational preparation forall, including vocationally orientededucation, work-related training andpreparation for lifelong further training.

� Rapid transition to stable,career-oriented and well-paidemployment.

� Low rates of youth unemployment,particularly long-term unemployment.

� Effective matching of young workersand jobs.

� Equal opportunities for young people,with options both for changes of careertrack and for second chances atparticular tracks.

Although this list was drawn up nearly adecade ago, its relevance today isunquestionable, when questionsconcerning the performance of theeducation and training system seem tohave become, if anything, even moreprominent in policy debates. This isespecially the case with respect to therelationship between the education andtraining system and labour market outcomes.

In the present policy context,considerations about school-to-worktransition acquire their meaning andimportance against the background of twokinds of demands that policy makers in thisfield have to confront. A first series ofquestions relates to problems originating

11

1

from the domain of equality. They focus onwhether the existing education and trainingsystem succeeds in providing all youngpeople with equal opportunities to transitsuccessfully from education to employmentand access a respectable and decentposition in society. Do pathways throughthe education and training system and/orthe school-to-work transition system differto such an extent that some pathwaysprovide young people with more thanaverage opportunities whereas otherpathways lead young people to socialexclusion?

A second series of questions relates toproblems originating from the domain ofefficiency. They focus on whether the skillssupplied by the education system matchthe skills demanded by the labour marketand look into whether the skills producedenable the national economy to competesuccessfully in international productmarkets. Does the existing skill formationsystem cater sufficiently to the demands ofthe globalising knowledge economy?

Moreover, in the present policy discourseboth kinds of demands seem intimatelyconnected. This is not only because abetter performing education and trainingsystem promises more personaldevelopment as well as economic success,but also because failing to provide allyoung people with equal opportunities inthe realm of education and training maydeprive society of the talents of those whoare left behind.

Looking in detail at the characteristics ofeducation-to-work transition patterns andassessing whether and to what extentyoung people transit successfully is not, ofcourse, the only possible way to get abetter view of potential problems in regardto the interface between education andemployment. Yet it is without doubt themost apt and informative way, if onlybecause it enables us to consider thelong-term implications of how new entrantsintegrate smoothly (or otherwise) into thelabour market. Questions about theperformance of the school-to-worktransition system must undoubtedly occupya privileged position on the research andpolicy agenda.

This chapter aims to develop a set ofguidelines on how to structure and what toinclude in reports describing how youngpeople transit from education to work andto assess whether, to what extent and whya national school-to-work transition systemcan be deemed successful. The chapterposes a list of questions, the answers towhich will both enable a description of themain institutional characteristics of theeducation system and the labour market,and provide empirical evidence as to howyoung people actually move through theeducation and training system and howthey transit to the labour market.

This will provide the basis for anassessment of education-to-work transitionalong both the dimensions—equality andefficiency—mentioned above.

Although other sources (for instance,OECD Thematic Reviews) have beenconsulted, the structure of thequestionnaire closely mirrors theconceptual framework of the CATEWEresearch project set up in the late 1990sand funded in the framework of theEuropean Targeted Socio-economicResearch Programme. Its main aim is tomake a comparative analysis of thetransition systems of core Europeannations. As will become clear in thefollowing pages, the CATEWE conceptualframework is undoubtedly a veryconvenient tool for understanding themany, interacting factors that affect howyoung people make the education-to-worktransition and why they do it the way theydo.

The rest of this chapter is structured inthree sections. Section 2 describes themain building blocks of the CATEWEconceptual framework. Section 3provides, for each building block, adetailed list of indicators that constitutethe raw material from which to constructa picture of a national school-to-worktransition system. It goes without sayingthat the list of questions and indicatorsproposed in this section is subject tofurther development. Section 4,therefore, indicates some of the moreurgent directions that this furtherdevelopment could take.

12


1.2 THE CATEWECONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKAND BUILDING BLOCKS

The objective of the CATEWE project wastwofold. First of all, it aimed at describing thepathways followed by young people whenmaking the transition from initial full-timeeducation to the labour market. Secondly, itaimed to explain to what extent differencesin national institutional structures couldaccount for differences in transition patternsand transition outcomes for young people inthe countries under consideration.

Put simply, the main question the CATEWEteam tried to answer was whether thedifferences in the success or performanceof the different national school-to-worktransition systems could be explained (atleast partly) by the institutional set-upgoverning the circumstances in whichyoung people choose how they navigatefrom education to work.

To accomplish this task the team neededtwo kinds of input, as follows:

� Longitudinal data relevant to the task athand, which could be used both todescribe in detail the pathways travelledby young people when making thetransition from education to work and toempirically validate research questionsand hypotheses.

� A conceptual framework, the mainrequirement for which was that it neededto be comparative in nature. In otherwords, it would not only be valid fordescribing national transition systems,but should allow a comparison of thedifferent national systems along similardimensions and form the basis forexplaining why cross-national differencesin education/training systems producedifferences in transition patterns.

Neither of these instruments existed at thestart of the project. Rather than enter intodetails of how the database wasconstructed—apart from mentioning thatexisting labour force and nationalschool-leaver surveys were used—thechapter will be restricted to providingdetails of the conceptual framework.

The CATEWE conceptual frameworkconsists of five inter-related building

blocks, each pointing at sets of variablesthat capture the main characteristics of themajor factors influencing the transition fromeducation to work.

Conceptual building block 1:

the macro-context

The first building block comprises variablesreflecting different aspects of themacro-context in which national transitionsoccur. The main elements covered by thisbuilding block are the demographic situationand development; the industrial structure andthe economic cycle; the employment and agestructure; and the gender and ethniccomposition of the labour force.

The rationale behind the inclusion of thisbuilding block is clear. National differences inany of these instances may effectivelyinfluence how young people enter—and howsuccessful they are in entering—the labourmarket, with the differences noted notnecessarily having anything to do withdifferent institutional set-ups for the educationand training system, the labour market or theschool-to-work transition system itself. It isthus important to be able to control thesefactors when assessing the influence ofinstitutions and policy measures.

Take, for instance, some of the datapresented in the recent Global EmploymentTrends for Youth report by the ILO,particularly the estimates of youth labourforce size for the period 2003-2015.Industrialised countries anticipate littlegrowth (from 64.3 to 64.4 million) andtransition economies expect to see asubstantial drop (from 27.2 to 19.8 million).The South Asia region, however,anticipates a substantial rise (from 122.3 to144.3 million), and the Middle East andNorth Africa regions also expect a rise(from 32.0 to 35.3 million), although to asmaller degree. In any case, it is clear that,all other things being equal, new cohorts ofyoung people making the transition toemployment in these different regions willdo so under quite different circumstances.

In the CATEWE team’s analysis, thevariables associated with this first buildingblock of the conceptual framework play therole of control variables. In other words, theeffects of several factors are neutralised,as they might otherwise blur the picture

13

1. A CONCEPTUAL AND ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK TO DESCRIBE AND ASSESSEMPLOYMENT-TO-WORK TRANSITION SYSTEMS

and prevent the differences in educationand labour market institutions fromemerging clearly and distinctly.


the education and training system

The second building block, referring todifferences in national education/trainingsystems—which was of central importanceto the CATEWE project—should take aprominent place in any description of anational school-to-work transition system.The approach finds its theoreticalbackground in the sociological literature onsocial stratification and status achievementprocesses (Allmendinger 1989; Shavitt &Müller 1998).

The most apt metaphor for demonstratingthe essence of how the literatureconceptualises the role of the educationand training system within the context ofschool-to-work transition is probably that ofa ‘sorting machine’. The education andtraining system ‘sorts’ students in terms ofdifferentiating and classifying themaccording to specific rules and proceduresembedded in each national institutionalset-up. The main elements in this buildingblock aim to reflect the major mechanismsused by this sorting machine.

The first characteristic taken into accountby the CATEWE framework is the extent ofstandardisation that exists within aneducation system. In this context,standardisation refers to the proceduresused by public authorities (whether at thecentral state or regional level) in order to:

� Define or closely regulate the content ofcurricula in different subjects.

� Set an obligatory minimum set ofsubjects to be taken.

� Ensure through regulation or inspectionthat the curriculum is taught in schools.

� Set minimal end-points or standards tobe achieved by the end of eachcourse/period.

� Set, regulate and monitor examinationsso that the same standards are used forall schools.

The extent to which such standardisationprocedures are embedded in theinstitutional set-up and in actual practice in

an education system will largely determinethe homogeneous character of its output.Given that most European educationsystems are highly standardised, thischaracteristic does not really allow fordifferentiating between them. Hence, apartfrom distinguishing the European countriesfrom the USA or Canada, this factor doesnot play an effective role in the typologiesor analyses produced by CATEWE.

The second characteristic relates to theextent of differentiation within an educationsystem. Three different dimensions canusefully be distinguished, as follows:

1. Track differentiation. This refers to theextent to which pupils or students areallocated to or divided up amongseparate curricular tracks and even intodifferent school types. For instance,while the education and training systemis comprehensive/general at lowersecondary level in most Europeancountries, both the Germanicdual-system countries and theNetherlands are very different in termsof curricula or school type at the samelevel. The degree of differentiationincreases in most EU countries from theupper secondary level (or associatedfull-time vocational training).

2. Outcome differentiation. Countries differwith respect to how and to what extentthey measure performance levels at theend of a particular period of study(usually upper and/or lower secondarylevel) and irrespective of curriculartracking. For instance, examination andcertification systems vary in the extentto which pupil achievement levels aregraded, with some using a simplepass/fail dichotomy, and others markingsubjects on the basis of very precisegrades (A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2, C3, D,E, F etc).

3. Differentiation and its relationship toprogression to the next stage ineducation. This refers to the extent towhich selection into tracks or schooltypes is random or results fromneighbourhood and community-basedprocesses, and also the degree towhich selection is based on academicperformance, or even other socialcriteria, such as gender, social class orethnic group. At one extreme are the

14


countries with relatively open systems,where students who complete lowersecondary level are expected and evenencouraged to go on to uppersecondary level education, althoughwith minimal selective curricular/courseor examination/certificationrequirements (France and Ireland, forinstance). At the other extreme arehighly selective systems, whereprogress to upper secondary levelcourses is dependent on passing lowersecondary level courses or examinations,or where progress to a differentiatedcourse (such as, for instance, theGymnasium/VWO in the Netherlands) ismainly dependent on having completeda relevant lower level course in thesame school/curriculum type.

These characteristics marking differencesbetween education and trainingsystems—that is, standardisation anddifferentiation—are important in the waythey classify school leavers and provideinformation to employers about thequalities and skills to be expected frompotential workers.


labour market structure

The third building block is equallyimportant. It contains elements aimed atcapturing the major characteristics of andthe main differences between national

labour market structures. The theoreticalbackground for this building block is theliterature on industrial organisation andlabour market segmentation (Doeringer &Piore 1971, Maurice, Sellier & Silvestre1982, Marsden & Ryan 1990, Marsden,Eyraud & Silvestre 1990, Marsden &Germe 1991 amongst others). A standardfeature of this literature is the distinctionbetween three kinds of labour marketstructure within which firms can operate,namely, internal labour markets,occupational labour markets and externallabour markets.

Firms relying on internal labour marketswill fill their lower grade jobs from outside.After a period of mostly firm-specifictraining, employees will move on to higherpositions. Put another way, one could saythat these firms implicitly offer theirworkers a life-time contract. Inoccupational labour markets jobs will beclearly defined in terms of content and willhave a high level of consistency acrossfirms or industries. In this case oneexpects that workers generally have skillsthat are transferable between employers.An example of a country traditionallydominated by internal labour markets isFrance, whereas Germany would be atypical example of a country dominated byoccupational labour markets. Figure 1illustrates the essential differencebetween internal and occupational labourmarkets.

15


Main inflows Main outflows

Skilledlabour

Semi-skilledlabour

Unskilledlabour

Internal Labour Market Occupational Labour Market

Figure 1. Internal and occupational labour market models

These labour market types are usuallyconsidered to stand in opposition to thesupposedly unstructured external labourmarkets, where firms hire mostlylow-skilled workers on the open market andwhere workers are exposed to competitionfrom other workers. Mobility between firmsis therefore commonplace but reflects jobinsecurity rather than upward mobility.


education and labour market interface

The fourth building block refers to variablescapturing the characteristics anddifferences between the interfaces linkingnational education and training systems tothe labour market.

An important feature of any skill formationsystem is the nature and strength of theinstitutionalised relationship between what istaught and learned at school and what typeof education or training is required to obtainwork. An important question to consider fora particular country, therefore, is if and towhat extent explicit and vocationally relevantcurricular differentiation exists in the schoolsystem and how this links to entryrequirements and occupations specified inthe labour market. Obvious examples ofsuch institutional links are apprenticeships,licences to practice or specific forms ofeducation and training required for entry tospecific occupations.

We need to distinguish between twoimportant ways in which such linkages canbe forged. First of all, we need to considerthe extent to which employers are involvedand play a specific role in the organisationof the education and training system. TheCATEWE team characterised the nature ofthis involvement in the following four terms:

1. Direct linkage systems, in whichemployers play a direct role in providingtraining themselves or cooperate withother training providers (for example,Germany)

2. Collinear linkage systems, in whichemployers have a say in specifyingcurricula and qualifications throughinstitutional input into mainstreameducation and training systems (forexample, the Netherlands)

3. Job placement systems, in which firmsare involved in direct recruitment fromschools or institutions (for example,Japan)

4. Decoupled systems, in which employersare not involved but are dependent onsignals coming from the education andtraining system.

Secondly, the characteristics of the youthtraining system will also affect the natureand the strength of the link between, on theone hand, the standardisation anddifferentiation of skills (as signalled by thecredentials awarded) and, on the otherhand, specific occupational or jobrequirements. Important differencesbetween countries stem from the level atwhich youth training is provided, whetheryouth training is formally differentiated fromother forms of vocational education andtraining and from apprenticeships, andwhether or not young people or firstentrants have a right to training.

A particularly important phenomenon in thisrespect in many European countries is thedevelopment of so-called active labourmarket or welfare-to-work policies. In manyrespects, the measures taken within theseframeworks border on—if they do not actuallytransgress into—domains that wouldtraditionally be covered by youth training.

Conceptual building block 5: transition

outcomes

The fifth building block relates to thecharacteristics of the transition itself and ismeant to provide indicators that enableassessment of the degree of success ofthe transition. Two different sets ofoutcome variables need to bedistinguished, namely, variables related tothe transition outcomes and variablesreflecting the characteristics of thetransition process.

With respect to the transition outcomes, theproposed list referred to items such asprincipal economic activity, occupationalstatus, industrial allocation, labour marketsegment location, wages, employmentsecurity, access to on-the-job training,access to on-the-job training sponsored byemployers, job and career mobility, content

16


congruence (the match between educationtype and job type), and level congruence(the match between education level andjob level).

With respect to the variables reflecting thecharacteristics of the transition process, theCATEWE team proposed two indicatorsaimed at obtaining a better view of themost important transition period features,namely, the number of transitions and thelength of transition period. However, sinceeach of these indicators can be applied toany job in the sequence leading from initialcontact with the labour market (afterleaving the education system) to theacquisition of a stable job, they could alsobe envisaged to go beyond evaluatinglabour market outcomes on the basis ofdata corresponding to particular points intime. Indeed, given the right data it shouldbe possible to construct syntheticindicators based on transition sequencesor trajectories, adding evidence on careerdynamics to the information according towhich transition systems are assessed.

Having provided a brief description of themain building blocks of the CATEWEconceptual framework, and beforeconcluding this first part of the paper withremarks on some of the limitations of theframework, an example of its usefulnesswhen applied to distinguishing betweendifferent national institutional set-ups isprovided—in the sense of both providingmore insight than if the framework were notused and obtaining indications about wherethe framework itself needs further elaboration.

As a preliminary step towards analysinghow young people actually make theeducation-to-work transition (using datafrom school leaver or labour force surveys),the CATEWE team produced reports foreach of the countries included in theirstudy. The main purpose of these countryreports was to get a good overview of thespecific characteristics of institutionalset-ups and contexts. The detaileddescriptions provided by the countryreports also allowed the CATEWE team tolocate the different countries within atypology contained in or based on theconceptual framework.

One example of the result of this exerciseis depicted in Figure 2 (overleaf). It showshow it is possible to construct a typologythat allows differentiation betweencountries using just three elements in theconceptual framework, namely, degree ofstandardisation, degree of differentiation,and nature of school-to-work linkage. Thistypology can be used in empiricalresearch in order to assess whetherdifferences between groups of countriesaccount for differences in transitionpatterns or outcomes.

In other words, the typology enablesempirical verification of whether thecountries also differ with respect to, say,the length of the transition period, the easewith which young people find jobs, theextent to which their education and trainingmatches their jobs and so on.

At the start of the project, the members ofthe CATEWE team worked on a doublehypothesis. The first was that some of thepossible combinations of the elementscontained in the three sets of institutionalformats (represented by three of thebuilding blocks) would be more commonthan others. The second was that somecombinations within the set of the morecommon combinations would be moreeffective than others in terms of successfuleducation-to-work transition by youngpeople. The underlying assumption wasthat two main school-to-work transitionmodels would emerge from the nationalcase studies.

It was anticipated that countries with ahighly differentiated education and trainingsystem would combine this feature with anoccupationally segmented labour marketand with apprenticeships as a major linkbetween both components in the model,while it was expected that countries with aless differentiated education and trainingsystem would combine this with a moreopen labour market and with substantialnumbers of young people entering thelabour market as so-called early leavers(that is, directly after initial education andwithout any further training).

17


One of the general but remarkableresults of the empirical analyses (Müller &Gangl, 2003) is that the hypothesis as totwo ideal transition models is not in factconfirmed. In fact, three specific patternsemerge from the data, which can beinterpreted, broadly speaking, as beingconsistent with differences in educationand training systems.

A first pattern pertains to the set ofcountries operating extensive vocationaltraining systems at the upper secondarylevel, including Austria, Denmark, Germany,the Netherlands, Sweden, and Finland.The three typical characteristics of thispattern are as follows:

� The proportion of young people notprogressing beyond compulsory

18


Figure 2. Education and training systems and labour market linkages

Degree of education and training system standardisation

School-work linkages

High Low

Degree of education and training system

differentiation (and vocational/occupational

specificity)

High Low High Low

(a) Tightly coupled educationand training/employersystems.

Strong linkage (dual system).Substantial sharing andcooperation between providersand employers in education andtraining delivery. As inapprenticeships. High labourmarket occupationalisation.

Germany

Austria

Switzerland

Denmark

(b) Tightly coupled educationand training/employersystems.

Collinear linkage. High levels ofin-school provision of educationand training specific toparticular occupations, agreedwith employers. High labourmarket occupationalisation.

Netherlands

(c) Loosely coupled ordecoupled education andtraining/employer systemswith strong market signals.Low degree of education andtraining provider and employersharing of education andtraining provision. Low labourmarket occupationalisation andlimited school involvement inemployment decisions.

England/Wales

Scotland

Italy

France

Portugal

Finland

Sweden

Ireland

(d) Loosely coupled systemswith strong market signalsand strong school placementfunction.

Japan

(e) Decoupled education andtraining/labour marketsystems with weak marketsignals (from second level).

USA

Canada

Source: CATEWE

education levels is very low (typicallybelow 15% of an age cohort).

� A significant proportion of young peopleobtain tertiary level qualifications(typically 25% of an age cohort, with theexception of Austria).

� Those who leave the education systemfrom the upper secondary level obtainvocational qualifications either throughdual-system arrangements (Austria,Germany, and to a lesser extent,Denmark) or school-based training(Netherlands, Sweden and Finland).

A second pattern, pertaining to theremaining northern and western Europeancountries, is in many respects similar to thefirst, but with a slightly different educationstructure—although this difference isexpressed more in qualitative terms than interms of education level. Typicalcharacteristics of this second pattern areas follows:

� A fairly large proportion of uppersecondary level leavers enter themarket with general rather thanvocational qualifications (the UK,France, Belgium and Ireland).

� The progression rates beyondcompulsory education are significantlylower compared to those of morevocationally oriented systems.

A third pattern applies to the southernEuropean countries. Its most distinguishingcharacteristic is the significantly lower levelof educational attainment, although rapideducational expansion in recent times mayclose the gap with other Europeancountries very quickly. A main feature ofthis set of countries is the fact thatvocational training systems are poorlydeveloped, with a consequent limitedprovision of vocation-specific training. Itseems likely that the specificcharacteristics of this third (andunanticipated) pattern are related toelements, such as family structure, thewelfare system or the role of informal work,that are typical in at least some southernEuropean countries. Since the CATEWEframework does not describe suchelements in sufficient detail or as importantin their own right, another buildingblock—the welfare state system—mayneed to be included in the framework.

1.3 TOWARDS GUIDELINESFOR WRITING A COUNTRYREPORT

This section aims to convert the conceptualframework into a series of simple questionsaimed at focusing the attention of localexperts on potential indicators that could beincluded in their national reports. In thissense, the questions can be viewed as initialguidelines to be consulted when constructinga country report and that provide thebackground knowledge necessary tointerpret—in a meaningful way—the dataavailable on how young people make thetransition from education to work.

In order to be able to assess the performanceof the school-to-work transition systemthree key questions need to be answered:

Question 1. How do young people movethrough the education systemand what determinesdifferences in their educationalachievement?

Question 2. How and through whichchannels do young peoplemove from the educationsystem into the labour marketand what determines theirsuccess at labour market entry?

Question 3. Do processes, patterns andoutcomes of early labourmarket entry influence thelabour market outcomes andcareers of young people at alater stage in life?

It should be clear that, to answer thesequestions properly, micro-level data isneeded that enables the educational andearly labour market careers of youngpeople to be tracked and linked to themany different variables that influencecareers. In other words, the best sourcesare school leaver or labour market entrysurveys. These surveys collect data at themicro-level and use instruments thatenable detailed reconstruction (at leastpartly and eventually retrospectively) of thepathways that lead young people fromdifferent social backgrounds along differenteducational tracks to different positions inthe labour market.

19


However, in order to interpret the data in ameaningful way, a thorough knowledge isneeded, both of the institutional frameworkgoverning and structuring the circumstancesin which young people make their choicesalong the road from education to work, and ofthe context in which the education systemand labour market structures operate. This isthe information on which the national reportsneed to focus. The country report, therefore,needs to provide information as follows:

� A review of the available knowledge onthe relationship between education andemployment—and, more specifically, onthe transition from education to work.The country report must provide thenecessary material with which to draw apicture in which the additionalinformation collected from micro-data(such as school-leaver surveys) can beplaced.

� A detailed description of the educationsystem, the labour market structure andthe institutional framework governing thetransition from education to work. Thisdescription should distinguish the keystages along the pathways taken byyoung people between education and thelabour market and should mark the maincrossroads that young people negotiatewhen choosing between different options.An important function of this description isto draw a distinction between theinstitutional structure and the uses madeof it by young people (and changes overtime in both structure and uses).

� A brief (but topical) review of social andpolitical developments affectingchanges in education and labour marketinstitutions in recent decades, and areview of recent policy initiatives inthese areas.

When trying to describe and assess anational school-to-work transition system,therefore, it will only be possible toaddress the three key questions referredto above if these areas are coveredthoroughly.

A place should be found within thisoverall structure for the following topicsand associated information—whichshould be described in as much detail aspossible.

Indicator set 1:

available information sources

� What information is available on theeducation-to-work transition? Whatdatabases can be used?

� Are data from labour force surveysavailable?

� What are the main studies on the linkbetween education and employment?

� Do studies exist on the attitudes ofyoung people towards work? Do studiesexist on the attitudes of employerstowards hiring young workers?

� Which economic, social and culturalfactors are important to understandingthe specific nature of the school-to-worktransition system?

Indicator set 2:

general transition system context

A. Demographics

� What are the broad population trends interms of numbers and age structure?

� What is the overall size of the educationsystem (number of students andparticipation rates, etc) and distributionbetween different parts of the educationsystem?

� What are the relevant trends?

B. The labour market

� What is the situation of first-time labourmarket entrants or young people withrespect to labour law and social securityregulations? To what extent are theseregulations implemented in reality?

� Does a minimum wage law exist? Whatsegments of the labour market orsections of the working population doesit cover? To what extent is the minimumwage legislation implemented in reality?

� Does a system of wage subsidies exist?If so, what segments of the labourmarket does it cover or what specificgroup of workers does it target?

C. Policies

� Which are the main education/ trainingand youth labour market issues thathave dominated or are prominent on thenational policy agenda?

20


� What major policy proposals orinstitutional reforms have beenimplemented in recent years?

� Does government policy containexplicitly stated quantitative and/orqualitative targets for education? Dosuch targets exist in the domain ofyouth employment and unemployment?

� Are education targets mostly set at thenational, regional or local level?

Indicator set 3:

education and training system structure

A. Overall structure

� What is the main structure of theeducation and training system? Whatnational agencies are involved in theformation of educational policy?

� What are the central goals andobjectives of the different parts of theeducation system?

� What is the overall size of the differentparts of the education system (numberof students and participation rates, etc)?

� Which are the main education pathwaystages?

� Where are the potential turning points inan educational career situated?

� What is the compulsory schooling age?

B. Standardisation

� To what extent are curricula,examinations and certificationstandardised?

� How are quality standards ensured?Are they ensured on a national orregional basis?

� Who defines or regulates thecontent/levels of curricula in differentsubjects?

� Is there an obligatory minimum set ofsubjects to be taken? Who defines thisset?

� Are there minimal endpoints orstandards for particular courses orstudy periods? Who sets these?

C. Differentiation

� Is there a difference betweeninstitutions or programmes at thesame stage of the education system?In other words, are students allocated

to or divided into separate curriculartracks or even into separate linkedschool types? To what extent arevocational options occupationallyspecific? Is there a difference betweenacademic and vocationalroutes/tracks, even within the sameestablishment? Is there a differencebetween types of school, albeit notbased on differences in curricula orprogrammes?

� Do any rules for pupil selection andprogression exist? In other words, isstudent selection into tracks or schooltypes a random, neighbourhood orcommunity-based process? Or arepupils selected into a certain track orschool on the basis of academicperformance or other social criteria(social, ethnic or gender segregation,streaming on the basis of ability,schools as sorting machines, etc)?

� Is there formal differentiation at the endof each stage of the education system?In other words, is there outcomedifferentiation? If so, in what sense andto what extent does it exist? How doesthe education/training system rank orsort individuals at the end of eachstage?

� Is there a relationship betweendifferentiation and progression into thenext stage? In other words, is thereflexibility of progression? Is access toupper secondary level/higher educationopen or selective? On what basis is thisprocess selective? Can students moveeasily between different routes ortracks?

Indicator set 4:

labour market structure

A. Overall structure

� What are the main characteristics of theindustrial and occupational structure?What are the main trends for themid-term?

� Is the labour market occupational,internal or external? How has thissituation changed over time?

� Is the labour market heavily regulated?What are the main regulatorymechanisms (for example, for hiring andfiring workers)?

21


B. The youth labour market

� What is the unemployment rate foryoung people? In what sectors oroccupations do labour market entrantstypically find jobs? What are the maincharacteristics of these entry-level jobs?

� What is the importance of the informalsector, both in general and for youngpeople?

� How important is temporary work orpart-time work, both in general and foryoung people?

� What is the pay structure? What arerelative employment costs of hiringyoung people?

� Is it normal practice for young peopleto perform paid work while studying?

Indicator set 5:

school-to-work transition process

� Which are the important ages in thetypical lifecycle of young people?

� At what age do young people typicallyleave the education system?

� When can the transition process be saidto start and end? (Internationally, theformer is reckoned to be the point atwhich 25% of the cohort have left theeducation system and the latter isreckoned to be the point at which 75%have entered the labour market.)

� What guidance and information systemsexist?

� Is there a system in place to detectyoung people at risk on leaving theeducation system? Is there a significantnumber of young people at risk?

� What is the main strategy for helpingyoung people at risk?

Indicator set 6:

education and labour market interface

A. Employer involvement

� What role do employers play in theeducation/training system?

� Do employers provide training to youngpeople?

� Do employers have a say in specifyingcurriculum and qualifications? Do theyhave institutionalised input intoprovision within the mainstreameducation/training system?

� Are there any specific employeerecruitment links between particularschools/institutions and particular firms?

B. Educational linkages with the labour

market

� To what extent is there explicit andvocationally relevant curriculardifferentiation in the school system thatis linked to occupational specificationand entry requirements in the labourmarket?

C. Youth training

� What specific forms of youth trainingexist? What is its level of provision?

� Do young people have a right toparticipate?

� Is youth training subsidised in any way?� Are there special provisions to

encourage young people to obtainadditional training while employed?

D. Guidance

� Do guidance systems exist within theeducation structure?

� Are there systems for assisting youngpeople to look for work?

Indicator set 7:

welfare and social support

� Does unemployment insurance cover allyoung people leaving the educationsystem?

� Is there a social assistance system inplace? Does it cover young people?

� How does the level of social protectionfor young people compare to that foradults?

� Does the level of social protection allowyoung people to live independently?

� Do young people have to rely oninformal or family networks for socialprotection and/or to find jobs?

� Does the housing market play animportant role?

As stated earlier, this list of questions isintended as a guideline for what toinclude in the national report. However,the list is neither exhaustive norcomplete. It may well exclude items that

22


are particularly important for certaincountries or include items that may beirrelevant. As such, it is a list indevelopment which should be adapted tolocal circumstances as needed. Theimportant point to stress is that thenational reports should, insofar as ispossible, give a faithful and completeoverview of the mechanisms thatstructure the circumstances and optionsin which young people navigate from therealm of education and learning to therealm of work and employment—meaningthat, in both realms, the picture shouldnot, for example, only include formallyrecognised structures, regulations orinstitutions.

The importance of focusing onmechanisms, structuring circumstancesand choice sets can be briefly and aptlyillustrated by looking at the frequentlydiscussed problem of skill or labourshortages. The CATEWE focus on laboursupply leaves the role of labour demandlargely out of the picture, and what thismeans is that an opportunity is missed forspecifying the different labour demandmechanisms that could be involved.Indeed, the notion of a skill or labourshortage can be interpreted in at least sixdifferent ways—each hinting at a differentkind of labour market problem—as follows:

1. Low skills equilibrium. Since employerspursue corporate strategies and productspecifications which do not require highlevels of worker skills, there is littledemand for qualifications and littleincentive for young people to obtainthem.

2. Weak signalling. Employers lackconfidence in existing qualifications asindicators that young people possessthe skills required in the labour market.

3. Information failure. Young people areinsufficiently aware of employer demandor of the existence of certainqualifications when making decisionsabout further study.

4. Poor quality training. Even if incentivespotentially exist, young people arediscouraged from participating ineducation and training by the poorquality of much of the existingprovision.

5. Other disincentives. Young people arediscouraged from participating ineducation and training by other factors,such as a need for an income to sustaina preferred lifestyle.

6. Non-rational behaviour. Young peopledo not act rationally when makingdecisions about education and training,so they would not respond to incentiveseven if these existed.

Distinguishing between these differentmechanisms not only enhances theanalytical and explanatory power of theconceptual framework, but also makesthe framework more useful for policymakers.

1.4 FINAL REMARKS

Departing from the CATEWE conceptualframework and its building blocks, a set ofquestions and indicators aimed at guidingpotential authors of a background report oneducation-to-work transition in a particularcountry have been developed thatessentially consist of a list of topics anditems that should not be excluded from anydetailed country report of this nature.

It may seem surprising to take theCATEWE conceptual framework as astarting point, since it was originallydeveloped in order to conduct acomparative analysis of core Europeannations. Is it feasible, one might ask, todescribe and assess the case of aparticular country using a set indicatorsconstructed in order to compare a differentset of countries? Does the notion ofapplying a common set of indicators notrun the risk of overlooking precisely themore salient or crucial elements of acountry that has its own unique history?

Although this point raises legitimatequestions, it should not be a major concernin this case (and maybe not in any case).In fact, precisely because of its aims interms of comparing and contrastingcountries, the CATEWE conceptualframework looks carefully at the part of theinstitutional set-up or context that mightcause two or more countries to differ interms of school-to-work transition systems.

23


This framework, therefore, is a very usefulheuristic instrument for describing thecharacteristic features and majormechanisms of the school-to-worktransition in any country.

There are certain important factors to bearin mind when relying on the guidelinesdescribed above to write a national report.Although the focus is on thecharacteristics of the institutional set-upgoverning the circumstances in whichyoung people make their choices whennavigating from education to employment,the description should take care todistinguish between the institutional set-upas such and the use that is made of it bydifferent social groups (and which maychange over time even if the institutionalset-up itself stays the same).

Given that the institutional framework ofany country will be characterised byidiosyncratic features particular to acountry and its history, the country reportwill need to point out if and how elementsof pathway dependence and institutionalinterlock are involved.

Probably the most important factor is thatthe conceptual framework should not beused in a rigid and static way, nor shouldthe indicators and questions be seen asexhaustive and fixed. The list is notexhaustive and the content of the buildingblocks may need further development inorder to make sense if specificarrangements are typical for the countryunder consideration2.

In fact, it may be necessary to elaborateand develop the CATEWE frameworkfurther by adding other building blocks(for example, a welfare system buildingblock, as suggested earlier). In order tofit other institutional set-ups, moreover, it

may even be necessary to reconstructthe content of each building blockpresented in the original CATEWEformat.

A good example of such internalreconstruction is the building blockrepresenting the structure of the labourmarket. The reconstruction of this buildingblock might be useful due to the fact thatthe CATEWE conceptual framework couldbe read as focusing primarily on laboursupply mechanisms. Indeed, in this modelthe labour market building block functionsin what could be called a receptive mode.The three different labour market structuresrepresent possible destinations, eachconsidered to be adapted to the kinds ofeducation systems from which youngpeople originate. In other words, in thispicture the labour market is represented asquite a passive system.

This particular aspect of the CATEWEapproach is to a great extent due to itsorigins in the so-called socio-economicachievement models. These modelsexplain present statuses or destinations bylooking at forces or origins influencingcareers or pathways. Although this is auseful approach for educational careers, itmay have unfortunate effects when appliedrigorously to the transition from educationto employment. This is because it pays littleattention to the factors determining labourdemand and the factors pulling youngpeople into the labour market—even whenit is clear that the latter undoubtedly playsan important role in school-to-worktransition.

In writing national reports on the transitionfrom education to work, therefore, themechanisms structuring supply anddemand in the youth labour market mustnot be overlooked.

24


2 There are a number of other elements in the transition from education to work that can be taken into account,for example: the role of the media; labour exchanges; apprenticeship systems; job hunting methods;employment services; overemployment; labour market information systems; migration and regional mobility;and issues related to gender and population groups with special needs.

2. AN ASSESSMENT OF THE

USE AND RELEVANCE OF

THE EDUCATION-TO-WORK

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

FOR EU NEIGHBOURING

COUNTRIES

Walter Van Trier, Anastasia Fetsi and Henrik Huitfeldt

2.1 INTRODUCTION

The main objective of this chapter is toassess the use and relevance of theconceptual framework for representing thetransition from education to work in EUneighbouring countries. The conceptualframework was developed as a heuristicdevice to guide analyses of school-to-worktransition systems and provide a commonstructure for the description of thesesystems. The chapter takes as a startingpoint national reports on education-to-worktransition in Ukraine, Serbia and Egypt,produced within the framework of the ETFproject on education-to-work transition.

The rest of this chapter is structured infour parts. Section 2 reviews the mainobjectives of the national reports and theprinciple features of the conceptualframework to give a benchmark againstwhich to evaluate use of the conceptual

framework. Section 3, which opens withsome general comments, looks in moredetail at how the main building blocks ofthe conceptual framework are handled inthe three national reports, given that theframework was originally developed from amodel for conducting comparative researchin core western European nations. Section4 considers some of the potentiallimitations of the framework when appliedoutside these boundaries and looks atwhether the national reports provide cluesin regard to potential extension tosituations not covered by the originalformulation. This section also includes areflection on the policy implications ofstrengthening education-to-work transitionsystems in EU neighbouring countrieswithin three main areas: the educationsystem, the functioning of the labourmarket and the transition system itself.Finally, Section 5 closes the chapter withour concluding remarks.

25

2

2.2 WHY NATIONALREPORTS AND WHATCONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK?

The basic objective of the national reportson school-to-work transition was to providepolicymakers with data that would enablethem to assess and evaluate theeffectiveness and efficiency of thetransition process. This assessment andevaluation can be made in terms of threedimensions, each potentially signalling adifferent kind of youth labour marketproblem.

The first dimension relates to problems ofdifferential access to labour marketpositions and social status and is usuallyconsidered under theequality-of-opportunity label. The seconddimension is primarily concerned withproblems of social exclusion from the maindomains of social life and goes under thelabel of social integration and socialcohesion. Although these two dimensionsmay be related in practice, they are clearlynot the same. One can imagine a state ofaffairs without social exclusion, but inwhich there is no real equality ofopportunity. The third dimension signalsskill formation problems and primarilypoints to potentially inefficient humanresource use and welfare resource waste.This kind of problem may again be relatedto the other two dimensions; nonetheless, itis important to bear in mind that a situationin which there is social inclusion andequality of opportunity does not necessarilyimply that skill production and utilisation isoptimal.

It needs to be stressed that the prevailingview of many academics and policyadvisers is that these three dimensions areintimately related. Better performingeducation and training systems promisegreater personal development andeconomic success. Thus, the failure toprovide all young people with equal and fullopportunities in the realm of education andtraining deprives society of the talents ofthose left behind. Problems withschool-to-work transition signal potential

problems in both the youth labour marketand in terms of future economicperformance.

In order to arrive at a proper judgment inregard to school-to-work transitionoutcomes, the following three keyquestions (referred to in the previouschapter) need to be answered:

Question 1. How do young people movethrough the education systemand what determinesdifferences in their educationachievement?

Question 2. How and through whichchannels do young peoplemove from the educationsystem into the labour marketand what determines theirsuccess at labour marketentry?

Question 3. Do processes, patterns andoutcomes of early labourmarket entry influence thelabour market outcomes andcareers of young people at alater stage in life?

To answer these questions properly, onewould ideally want to have availablemicro-level data on the pathways followedby young people when making thetransition from education to work. Withinthis perspective the role of a conceptualframework is clear: it allows the existingmaterial to be structured so as to providebackground information on the basis ofwhich to interpret the data resulting fromschool leaver surveys3.

The conceptual framework on which thenational reports were based focused on thecharacteristics of the institutional structuresthat provide and constrain the optionsavailable to young people as they navigatethrough the education system and fromeducation to employment.

If the actual pathways used by youngpeople going from school to work (as

26


3 In fact, for Serbia and Ukraine the national reports were expected to be read alongside the data of schoolleaver surveys planned to be implemented in both countries. The country reports for Serbia and Egypt areavailable on the ETF web site.

revealed by micro-level data from schoolleaver surveys) are the result of choicesmade under particular circumstances, thenational reports are expected to give aclear picture of the institutional settinggiving rise—at each educational stage andduring the initial transition to the labourmarket—to the set of options available toyoung people, and also the relevantincentives and potential barriers that applyto the different options.

It is important to note that this focus on theinstitutional structure should not be seen asa second or third-best option that is onlyuseful because micro-data on transitionpathways and results is not available. Onthe contrary, from a policy point-of-view,detailed knowledge of the features of theinstitutional set-up structuring theschool-to-work pathway options availableto young people—whether potential orrealised—is an indispensable ingredient ofany attempt at institutional reform, if only tothe extent that a thorough analysis of theinstitutional set-up would allow policymakers to differentiate between the rolesplayed by choice and circumstance in therealised pathways.

Finally, given the different recent historiesof the EU neighbouring countries, adetailed comparison of different institutionalset-ups might give important clues as tothe extent of the role played by pathwaydependence. Indeed, national differencesin the original set-up and in thedevelopment of education or labour marketinstitutions could very well account forsome of the particularities of existinginstitutional configurations and result indifferent transition patterns or outcomes.

2.3 HOW WAS THECONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKUSED?

The conceptual framework consists of fivedifferent building blocks, each containingone or more subsets of indicators reflectingthe characteristics of each particularbuilding block. As structured, theconceptual framework can best be viewedas a particular way of representing thesocio-economic advancement process.

The first of the building blocks refers to thegeneral context and consists of indicatorsfor factors that potentially affect thetransition from school to work in a specificcountry or region. Although not immediatelyconnected to the education or employmentsystems, the indicators nevertheless reflectnational (or regional) differences intransition processes and outcomes. Incomparative analyses, they reflect thevariables that control differences at thecountry level.

The education system and the employmentsystem constitute the second and the thirdbuilding block of the framework,respectively, and represent the origins anddestinations of the pathways young peoplefollow from school to work. It would makeno sense to evaluate the transition processand its outcomes without taking intoconsideration differences in outcomes orskills produced by the education system,and the opportunities provided by or skillsdemanded in the employment system. Theindicators for these building blocks should,in principle, allow distinctions to be drawnbetween different types of education andlabour market structures.

The fourth building block concerns thetransition system itself, that is, the set ofactors, regulations and institutions that linkthe education system and the labourmarket. The indicators attempt to reflect thedifferent channels through which youngpeople can navigate from school to workand also the main differences in thesechannels.

The fifth building block contains a set ofoutcome indicators, reflecting the differentdimensions—namely, equality ofopportunity, social integration and efficientmatching—along which the outcomes ofschool-to-work transition should bemeasured and evaluated.

Before considering how the three nationalreports made use of this conceptualframework we need to place theassessment in a proper perspective. Thenational reports that provide the resultspresented here used nothing butpre-existing material, such as officialdocuments, research reports, labour

27

2. AN ASSESSMENT OF THE USE AND RELEVANCE OF THE EDUCATION-TO-WORKCONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR EU NEIGHBOURING COUNTRIES

market statistics, and so on. No originaldata collection or additional researchactivity based on the conceptual frameworkwas (or could be) undertaken in the contextof preparing the national reports. It shouldnot come as a surprise, therefore, that theauthors had to use material that did notreally fit very well within the conceptualframework they were asked to apply.

The school-to-work transition domain is acomplex field, involving several disciplines.Experts on labour markets are notnecessarily knowledgeable in the field ofeducation and vice versa, and this fact mayaccount for the profound differences in howsome parts of the conceptual frameworkwere applied.

With respect to research and informationon school-to-work transition in thecountries under consideration, theassessment of how the national reportsmade use of the conceptual frameworkreflects the state-of-the-art as much as—ifnot more than—a critical appraisal of theway the authors of the respective reportsput the pieces of the puzzle together.

The following three general series ofremarks about the use made of theconceptual framework in the nationalreports should, therefore, be read withthese facts in mind.

A first general remark concerns therelationship between the structure of thereports and the structure of the conceptualframework. It should be noted that only inthe Egyptian case was the conceptualframework used to structure the nationalreport. This does not mean that theconceptual framework and its relatedguidelines did not inform the content of theother national reports; in the Serbian caseand, to a slightly lesser extent, in theUkrainian case, most of the elementspresent in the conceptual framework wereincluded at some point in the report.

� The most important and striking featurewas a lack of information and data onboth the outcomes and characteristicsof the main building blocks.

� There was a lack of information onregional differences.

� Despite remarks about skill gaps, noreal information was provided on eitherskills available or required.

� Despite informal employment beingsubstantial in the countries examined,no data were available as to the size orthe functioning of the informal economy.

A second general remark concerns thefact that, unlike most applications of thisframework in EU countries, contextualinformation does make a difference—andan important one at that. This is the case inthe following areas:

� The role and importance ofdemographic changes, particularly agestructure in Egypt (the continuinggrowth in the number of young cohortsentering the labour market) andmigration patterns in Ukraine (ashortage of people with highereducation because of migration).

� The significance of transitional changes,which can quickly outdate informationon institutional structures and affectbehavioural patterns because ofmodifications to incentives structuresand the set of choices. It could even beasserted that there are three differentdimensions of transitional change:towards a deregulated market economy,towards a knowledge-intensiveeconomy, and towards becoming part ofa global economy.

A third general remark is that, despiteclear differences between the threecountries concerned, several importantsimilarities emerge:

� A major feature common to the picturepainted in all three of the national reportsis the clear disconnection between theeducational structure and the labourmarket. Although this does not mean thatthe quality of educational output as suchis bad, it seems clear that the skillsproduced do not, to a large extent, matchthe skills demanded.

� In several instances, references aremade to problems of rational individualchoices resulting in collectively negativesituations. This occurs mostly in choiceof study field (for example, too manyUkrainian pupils choosing to study law or

28


economics and not enough choosingengineering) or choosing to stay in theinformal sector even if formal sector jobsare available (as happens in Egypt).

� Massification of higher education seemsto lead to problems of higher educatedyoung people not finding proper work,resulting in some cases in emigration.Higher education consequently is not afactor that necessarily lessens the riskof being unemployed.

2.4 DOES THE CONCEPTUALFRAMEWORK NEED FURTHERDEVELOPMENT?

The guidelines for writing the nationalreports were based on the CATEWEconceptual framework constructed in themid-1990s as part of a comparativeresearch project that endeavoured toestablish whether and why differences innational institutional configurationsresulted in differences in the nature andsuccess of school-to-work transition byyoung people.

Since it could be expected from the outsetthat this initial format might (and mostprobably would) need some adjustmentwhen applied to countries with a verydifferent history—particularly those whichhave experienced major changes in theirrecent past—a major message of theguidelines was that the conceptualframework should be used as a heuristicinstrument. Consequently, a major issue onwhich the national reports should also beassessed is the extent to which theyenable a pinpointing of the instances inwhich the conceptual framework needsfurther elaboration to better fit the reality ofthe countries under study.

The main conclusion in this respect is thatall three reports clearly show that theframework needs to be further elaboratedand extended. Below we discuss the mainissues that need further discussion.

2.4.1 EDUCATION SYSTEM

The conceptual framework views theeducation and training system as a sortingmachine and aims at capturing the major

mechanisms used by the system to sortstudents, that is, to differentiate andclassify them according to specified rulesand procedures embedded in eachparticular national set-up. The extent ofstandardisation and diversification ineducation and training provision are thetwo characteristics of the system that aretaken into consideration. This approach isrelevant for the EU neighbouringcountries, in particular when linked toequality of opportunities—in terms ofprogress and integration in the labourmarket—afforded to young people fromdifferent socio-economic backgrounds bythe education system structure and sortingmechanisms. The approach proposed bythe conceptual framework needs to befurther explored by policy makers, in fact,given that issues of equity are notgenerally high (or, at least, are not givenvisibility) on the education reform agendasin any of the countries underconsideration, nor are they examined indetail in the national reports for thisproject.

An example of how education and trainingsystems can have a negative impact onequality of opportunities is the existence ofvocational education and trainingprogrammes that transmit narrowoccupation or job-specific knowledgeand/or outdated skills and knowledge.Such programmes are dead-ends foryoung people who follow them from eitheran educational or labour marketperspective (a lack of possibilities forprogression within the education system ora lack of job opportunities). It is even worsewhen such programmes are used as ameans of social protection for youngpeople from poor socio-economicbackgrounds (as is the case in a number ofEU neighbouring countries), rather than asa vehicle for endowing young people withcompetences that enable them to competein the labour market. This shows howeducation provision itself can lead to adisadvantaged labour market position forcertain categories of young people.

However, as an alternative to approachingthe education system as a sorting machine,it is also interesting to approach it as asystem capable of adapting tosocio-economic change. The capacity of

29


the education and training system tointegrate or absorb and eventually adaptitself to socio-economic developments isparticularly relevant for the EUneighbouring countries, especially for thosewho have been making the shift fromcentrally planned to market economies.The ongoing and frequently abruptchanges in the economic structures of thecountries under consideration added touncertainty about where jobs are created,the content of those jobs and the skillsneeded to exercise them (as expressed bylevels of education, specialisation and/ortypes of knowledge and skills developedthrough education and trainingprogrammes) all go to create a need for aflexible education system.

The principle of education system flexibilityentails different aspects, one of which isabout keeping options and opportunitiesopen for young people as long as possibleby:

� Delaying track choice (to generaleducation or vocational education atsecondary level and to differentspecialisations within vocationaleducation) and thus delaying thedecision on future careers within theeducation system and the labourmarket.

� Keeping open the possibility for movingfrom one track to another (horizontalmobility).

� Ensuring different pathways forprogression towards higher levels ofeducation (vertical mobility).

� Diversifying post-secondary education.

The above options imply both a structuraland curricular adaptation of the educationsystem (for example, by introducingmodular educational programmes) of thekind that rarely takes place (at least on alarge scale) in the EU neighbouringcountries. Education systems remainrelatively inflexible and organised alongrigid and largely impermeable tracks.Young people themselves, however, seemto use every available opportunity to keeptheir options open. Two trends are evident:(i) a greater demand for educationprogrammes that provide access to highereducation (mainly general education

programmes), and (ii) an increasingpercentage of people who progresstowards higher education. The latter choiceseems to be justified by the labour market,as evidence from the surveys in Serbia andUkraine suggests that higher educationgraduates have better labour marketoutcomes. However, the other choice—thatis, to participate in generaleducation—seems to have poor outcomesif not successfully combined withprogression to higher education; accordingto the surveys, general educationgraduates probably have the worst labourmarket outcomes. This observation wouldimply a need to diversify post-secondaryeducation and open it up to youngpeople—even if they are not early schoolleavers—at a risk of entering the labourmarket with no preparation.

A second aspect is about adapting thecontent of education programmes to theneeds of the labour market. Mismatchbetween the skills with which young peopleenter the labour market and those requiredby employers has been mentioned in allthree reports of this project as one of themajor challenges to ensuring successfulschool-to-work transition. But what dothese skill mismatches really imply? Is itabout the level of education (as a proxy forthe level of qualification)? Is it aboutspecialisation in the secondary vocationaleducation and training system? Or is itabout the knowledge, competences andattitudes that young people are equippedwith on leaving the education system? Theanswer is probably that the skills mismatchis a mix of all these aspects. Labourmarkets characterised by uncertainty and alarge level of informality often send blurredmessages to the education system.Despite possible improvements in thereception of these messages—forexample, through improving the interfacebetween education and the labour marketby involving employers in the design anddelivery of education and trainingprogrammes—a more or less perfectmatch cannot be expected and may noteven be desirable, first of all becauseemployers are often not capable offormulating their needs, and secondly,because employers may not even be sureof what their future needs might be. Also,

30


given more or less high levels of emigrationamong young people in some countries,responding to the needs of local employersdoes not necessarily resolve the problemof the relevance or adequacy of skills.

In this context, education and trainingsystems need to be proactive (rather thanresponsive) in their efforts to adapt content,taking into account general economicdevelopment trends, both within thecountry itself and at the international level.The increasing share of services, declaredpolicy objectives to expand and strengthenthe small-and-medium business sector inmost EU neighbouring countries, andparticipation in the knowledge economy areall indications that the development of keycompetences and soft and transversalskills are at least as important as thespecific or technical skills corresponding tothe traditional occupations. The recruitmentof graduates from higher education to jobsrequiring intermediate-level skills (asobserved in the results of the surveys inSerbia and Ukraine) may be an indicationthat employers need the breadth ofknowledge and the transversal skillsdeveloped in higher education rather thanoccupation-specific or technical skills.

To conclude, the uncertainty about jobcreation and the unclear messages comingfrom the labour market present a challengefor education and training systems in EUneighbouring countries. Although there isroom for improvement in the interfacebetween the education system and thelabour market/economy, education andtraining systems need also to learn to livewith and accommodate uncertainty whileensuring valid education opportunities forall young people without exception. Thismeans that education and training systemsneed to develop more flexibility andproactivity through structural and curricularadaptations.

2.4.2 LABOUR MARKETS ANDINFORMAL EMPLOYMENT

The CATEWE model was developed forEU countries, where competing labourmarket models coexist. The occupationallabour market model focuses primarily on

labour mobility across organisations basedon occupational specialisation, whereasthe internal labour market model focuseson upward labour mobility withinorganisations. In addition, the concept ofthe external labour market is used todescribe more competitive andnon-organised labour markets. Theimportant issue for education-to-worktransition is that the first two of these labourmarket models imply different types ofcareers (within professions versus withinfirms) and provide some job or employment(but not necessarily income) security. Theyalso have different implications for skillsdevelopment.

The functioning of the labour markets in EUneighbouring countries differs from thesecontexts, in particular because the roleplayed by regular formal jobs in the labourmarket is less important than in the EU.Instead, different forms of informalemployment and other income-generatingactivities are playing an increasinglyimportant role in providing jobs to largegroups of people in most EU neighbouringcountries.

In neighbouring countries in eastern andsouth eastern Europe, jobs in the formerindustrialised economies have beendestroyed at a slow but increasing rate,while job creation—especially in the form ofregular jobs in the formal sector—has beensluggish. As a consequence, new labourmarket entrants are competing for adecreasing number of regular jobs and, inthe absence of job options, are often forcedto fall back on other kinds of labour marketsurvival strategies, including short andlong-term emigration and informalemployment.

In the MEDA region and in other lessdeveloped neighbouring countries, thesituation is different. A large part of thepopulation could be said to still live and workin traditional labour markets where there isan emphasis on agriculture and small-scaletrade and services. Furthermore, the formalregular labour market is small and labourmarket segmentation is pronounced. Manypeople have to struggle to make a livingfrom a range of different, often insecure andlow-productive jobs.

31


We can define the typical labour marketstructure in EU neighbouring countries assegmented or non-inclusive. To whatextent, however, do these segmented ornon-inclusive labour markets influence theanalysis of education-to-work transition? Inorder to answer this question we need tobetter understand how jobs are created inthe informal part of the labour market.Three major schools of thought have beenprominent in discussions on the functioningof the informal labour market (ILO, 2004;Jutting, Parlevliet & Xenogiani, 2007).

The traditional view of informal employmentis in the context of labour marketsegmentation where good regulated jobsare scarce. Workers outside the formallabour market queue for such jobs whileworking involuntarily in low-productiveinformal jobs. The reasons why jobs arenot regulated could be several, rangingfrom intentional or non-intentionalgovernment policy, poor competition inlabour or product markets leading to fewjobs that can be regulated, or choices byentrepreneurs or workers. The secondschool of thought, which arises in relationto the work by Maloney (2004), is thatmany workers voluntarily choose informaljobs because they have a higher returnthan formal ones. Finally, the third schoolof thought sees the informal labour marketas a two-tier labour market with an uppertier of voluntary informal employment and alower tier of involuntary low-productiveinformal employment that often takes theform of self-employment (Fields, 2005).The debate on the functioning of theinformal labour market has generated agreat deal of interest in studying itsheterogeneity and links with the formallabour market.

In the context of the EU neighbouringcountries, the traditional informal labourmarket model may suit some of the leastdeveloped countries in the MEDA regionand central Asia, while the two-tier informallabour market model may be more relevantfor transitional countries in eastern andsouth eastern Europe. Emigration shouldalso be included as another importantphenomenon in EU neighbouring countries,which could be seen as having an uppertier of voluntary emigration providing higher

returns than formal employment in thehome country, and a lower tier ofemigration providing higher returns thanthe lower tier informal employment in thehome country.

We thus need to see education-to-worktransition as a multifaceted transition thatincludes, at least, the transition fromeducation to formal employment, thetransition from education to voluntaryinformal employment, the transition fromeducation to involuntary informalemployment, the transition from educationto work abroad, and the transition frominvoluntary informal employment to formalemployment. This last transition could beseen as a prolonged transition period,given that it is observed in many EUcountries where short-term employment isa common entry point to permanentemployment.

This discussion poses two majorchallenges for policymakers in EUneighbouring countries in the context of thetransition from education to work: firstly,how to make labour markets more inclusiveso as to facilitate a larger share oftransitions from education into regularformal jobs, and secondly, how to ensuremore efficient transitions that lead to moreproductive jobs in the youth labour market.

Policy responses to the first challenge arelikely to include measures that improve theoverall functioning of the economy, thebusiness environment and the workorganisation of firms, but also steps toprevent individuals from being pushed intolow-productive subsistence jobs—forexample, measures that strengthen theemployability of young people out of work,improve the social safety net andstrengthen worker interest groups (tradeunions and other labour institutions), andregulations to protect the disadvantaged inthe labour market (via minimum wage,wage equality and redistributionmeasures). The second policy challengewill include measures to improve theproductivity of all workers (includinginformal workers), stimulate upwardmobility to better jobs, and prevent socialexclusion during the education-to-worktransition process. This last challenge is

32


essentially a question of broadeningaccess to quality education and trainingwith the aim of increasing the employabilityof all individuals.

2.4.3 TRANSITION INTERFACEOR TRANSITION SYSTEM?

The national reports assessed in this paperprovide only very limited information onexactly how young people enter the labourmarket after leaving the education system.What channels are available to search foremployment and which channels do youngpeople actually use? What channelseffectively provide them with jobs? Whatactors or institutions guide their choices? Dothese actors merely provide information onvacancies or do they also give informationon additional training? Do the actorsmediate actively between applicants andfirms? What role do schools play in thisrespect? How do existing institutions andregulations influence the motivations of bothfirms and young people? None of thesequestions are dealt with adequately in thenational reports.

Of course, the national reports wereintended to provide a picture at themacro-level and micro-data about theactual pathways followed is needed torespond to these questions adequately.Yet, one could read this omission as alsosignalling a problem with the conceptualframework itself. Indeed, insofar as theexact meaning and potential policy werenot clearly specified it might have beendifficult for users of the conceptualframework to adequately describe theactors, processes and institutions active inthe no-man’s land between the educationsystem and the labour market.

Two basic points are made here: first of all,a clearer conceptualisation of the transitionsystem is provided, and secondly, adifferent and more active role than hithertorecognised is argued for the transitionsystem.

In the CATEWE model, national differencesin institutional linkages between theeducation system and the labour marketrefer to two mechanisms: the nature and

extent of the involvement of employers inthe organisation of the education andtraining system, and the characteristics ofthe youth training system. The intuitionbehind this assumption is that someinstitutional links provide better fits thanothers between, on the one hand, theeducation system and the labour market,and, on the other hand, young people’seducational resources (skills, knowledgeand attitudes) on leaving education and theresources required to integrate rapidly andsmoothly in the labour market.

As is usually understood, the CATEWEmodel focuses on institutionalcharacteristics allowing for a productivesynergy between the education and theemployment systems. However, theCATEWE model stresses the nature ofthe linkages between education andemployment as a variable that isimportant in adequately understandingnational differences in the way youngpeople make the education-to-worktransition; consequently, it can also beunderstood as signalling the existence ofa space between education and work.This space consists of a particular set ofactors, processes and institutions thatare defined by their being instrumental inequipping young people with resources(additional to or different from thoseprovided by the education system) and inimproving their potential for making thetransition from the education system tothe employment system. The compositionof this set may differ over time or indifferent national contexts. But in allcases these actors, processes andinstitutions perform a specific societalfunction. The set includes employmentservices, retraining institutions,temporary work agencies, providers ofcareer guidance, specific youthprogrammes, and targeted wagesubsidies.

From the point of view of economicefficiency the answer to the question as towhether the transition system performs well(or well enough) depends on whether ithelps allocate individuals to jobs in such away as to attain an optimal match betweenskills supply and demand, with it obviouslybeing necessary to distinguish between the

33


quantitative and qualitative dimensions ofmatching supply and demand.

Conceptualising the space betweeneducation and employment as a transitionsystem—that is, as a cluster of actors andinstitutions that in some way worksystematically together—clarifies how theexistence and importance of a specifictransition system and the function itperforms could easily be overlooked. In astate of affairs where most young peoplemove from education to work with noparticular difficulties and in a very shortperiod (as has been the case in manyEuropean countries until recently) thisspace was probably hardly noticed—or,indeed, may not even have beennoticeable. When transition becomes moreprolonged or more chaotic (as seems nowto be the case in many industrial countries)its importance becomes vital—not just as atransient phase in the life-cycle of everyindividual, but as a permanent and distinctfeature of society with potentially importantconsequences for the efficiency andeffectiveness of transition.

To bring home the importance of thetransition system let us focus on one of thecommon features of the three reportsunder review: the diagnosis that the skillspresently produced by the educationsystem do not match the skills required bythe present or, even more so, the futureemployment structure.

That a skills mismatch exists in thecountries under consideration hardlycomes as a surprise. Given thecharacteristics of the presentsituation—with the labour market intransition in several senses of the word andwith the educational structure proving to bevery path-dependent and resistant tochange—a growing discrepancy betweenthe skills supplied and the skills in demandseems a natural outcome.

The question to focus on here, however, iswhether and to what extent the transitionsystem has a role to play with respect tothe efficiency and the effectiveness of themove from education to work andindependently of the functions performedby the education system (equipping young

people with skills, knowledge and attitudes)and by the labour market (putting skills,knowledge and attitudes to optimal use).

One might expect this role of the transitionsystem to be quite limited for at least tworeasons. First of all, with respect to theskills supplied, the role of intermediariesbetween the education system and thelabour market can only be remedial, andonly long-term changes in the educationsystem can be expected to develop thestock of skills available so that it matchesthe stock of skills required. Secondly,whether the skills supplied are actuallyused in the jobs available depends on therequirements of the labour market. Ifemployers opt for a low wage/low skillsstrategy, however, very little can be doneby other institutions.

Nevertheless, there seem to be at least twogood reasons for conducting a morein-depth scrutiny of the standard view ofthe interface between education andemployment. The first reason is that even ifmismatches are dealt with by changes inthe education system over the long run, it ishighly unlikely that in the short run noaction would or should be taken. Indeed,one would expect that, in the spacebetween education and the labour market(and especially in the circumstancesdescribed in the three national reports),opportunities would arise for tackling someof these problems. Young people actuallyfind jobs and it is important to know howand by what means they do so. Do most ofthese young people find their first job bydirectly contacting employers? Do thenational employment service or temporarywork agencies play a part? Does theinformal sector act as an additional trainingperiod and, if so, what skills does itprovide? These and similar questions couldshed some light on how young peopleactually make the transition from educationto work. The second—and probably moreimportant reason—is related to the pointthat the transition system should not to beconsidered as a passive element thatmerely transmits information about supplyor connects supply to demand, but as anelement that plays an active part inmatching supply and demand throughbrokering, training or retraining.

34


The existing literature commonly considerslabour market intermediaries as onlyrelevant to the extent that they shapesupply and demand dynamics or affectpower struggles between workers andemployers. In most cases, therefore, theyare not viewed as a third significantcategory of actors (or regulations) affectingthe basic structure of labour markets.However, recent case studies on regionallabour markets in the knowledge economy(Benner, 2003, and also Peck, 1996)suggest that the role of labour marketintermediaries may well be more extensive.Indeed, when firms need to adapteffectively and rapidly to changing marketconditions, identifying and capitalising onopportunities and successfully respondingto new challenges are key factors inensuring a competitive advantage. Rapidchange and unpredictability lead to higherlevels of displacement and job-hopping andweaken ties between employers andworkers. Workers and employers thusplace greater reliance on a wide range ofdifferent types of intermediaries to helpthem navigate through an increasinglycomplex and shifting labour market. Theactivities of these intermediaries also affectthe structure and dynamics of regionallabour markets which are not easilyunderstood in the context of classicworker-employer dynamics.

“(...) Labour market intermediaries areessential for [Silicon Valley’s] regionaldevelopment because they play a centralrole in shaping processes of labouradjustment. By fundamentally shaping thespeed and the character of adjustments inregional labour markets, they have animportant impact on the ability of the regionas a whole to adjust to economic change.”(Benner, 2003)

Intermediaries perform three labour marketfunctions for workers and employers. Firstof all, they reduce transaction costs,thereby increasing the ability of bothworkers and employers to adjust tochanging labour market conditions.Secondly, they help build both social andbusiness networks, which are essential forstrengthening a region’s innovativecapacity while diversifying opportunities

and reducing worker vulnerability. Thirdly,they help workers and employers managethe increased risk associated with volatileeconomic change and so contribute to thedevelopment of a risk-takingentrepreneurial culture. In other words,although not directly involved in theproduction process, labour marketintermediaries help the regional productioncomplex rapidly take advantage ofinnovative opportunities. They thuscontribute directly to a region’sdevelopment.

Labour market policy has traditionallyfocused on either the demand side or thesupply side of the labour market.Demand-side policy is designed to affectfirm behaviour, either by regulating theemployment relationship or by providingincentives for investments in training,research and capital. Supply-side policy isdesigned to improve the skills of workers.Recognising the strategic importance ofintermediaries in the labour market opensup a third broad focus for labour marketpolicy that can contribute directly toregional development by implementing amore systematic approach to improving thefunctioning of the various social institutions,processes and actors within the transitionsystem.

2.5 CONCLUDING REMARKS

The main aim of this chapter was to assessthe use and relevance of the conceptualframework developed for EU neighbouringcountries within the framework of the ETFproject on education-to-work transition.Departing from national reports for Egypt,Serbia and Ukraine, conclusions in regardto three broad areas are highlighted.

Firstly, some limitations of the nationalreports in the use of the conceptualframework were observed. These relate inparticular to a focus on desk research ofexisting material, a lack of information, andthe cross-disciplinary aspect of theschool-to-work transition, all of which madeit difficult for a single national expert toapply the framework fully in all potentialareas of coverage.

35


Secondly, a series of general remarks weremade with regard to the national reports.Even if the conceptual framework was notalways used to structure the reports, most ofthe elements in the conceptual frameworkwere dealt with in some form in the reports.Unlike most previous applications of thisframework in EU countries, contextualinformation such as demographic evolutionand changes in the economic structure dueto transitions to a market economy andglobalisation seem to matter more as far asthe school-to-work transition is concerned.Another general remark relates to the factthat despite the differences between thethree countries, some interesting similaritiesemerged from the national reports—largelyreferring to a clear disconnection betweeneducational structures and labour marketsand the implications of further highereducation expansion. Finally, we makesome comments in regard to the extent towhich an extension and further elaborationof the framework are both needed in orderto cater for the specific features of EUneighbouring countries.

A major conclusion regarding the educationsystem is that the uncertainty of job creationand the difficulty in forecasting labourmarket needs requires the development ofan education system that would be capableof accommodating uncertainty andbecoming more flexible and proactive.

The most striking fact about the situation ofthe youth labour market is the small roleplayed by formal permanent jobs in theeducation-to-work transition. The mainconclusion and policy recommendationwould be the urgent need to develop aninclusive employment policy that wouldlead to more and better jobs. However,policy responses need to be multifacetedand support the transition to the labourmarket of all workers, including workerswith few opportunities in the formal labourmarket.

Despite a main policy conclusion toincrease the rate of job creation, animportant requirement is to improve theinterface between the education systemand the labour market. First of all, theeffects of a policy aiming to create moreand better jobs might be felt only in themedium term, but in the short term,action could and should be taken toprevent wasting the resources that youngpeople bring to the labour market at anygiven moment. Secondly, the effect ofgeneral policy measures may not havesufficient impact on young people. Giventhe specific characteristics of youngpeople—of their being, by definition,outsiders in the labour market—it seemsevident that measures targeted at youngpeople during the transition period mayplay a key role.

36


3. THE YOUTH TRANSITION

SURVEY:

A METHODOLOGICAL NOTE

Irena Kogan

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The transition from education to workinglife is a key topic in current social researchand policy discussions as it touches uponthe core issue of youth labour marketintegration. Studying the transition fromschool to work can go a long way towardsdetermining how well younger generationsbecome integrated in labour markets, andin turn, in social life in general. Thetransition is also important because anindividual’s first labour market steps oftencrucially shape subsequent careeropportunities.

While there is a considerable body ofresearch on these issues for westernindustrialised countries, far less is known ofeastern European countries. Differenthistorical backgrounds and the rapidtransformations witnessed by thesecountries in recent years would indicate aneed for research on the specificconditions governing school-to-worktransition and the outcomes of thisprocess. From isolated research it is known

that the transition to a market economy hasincreased inequalities between socialgroups, in terms of educational andoccupational attainment and incomedistribution among young people ofdifferent social backgrounds. But manyimportant questions remain to beaddressed. What are the implications of thenew social order for social stratification andliving conditions in eastern Europe? Canyoung school leavers in eastern Europeancountries be successfully integrated in thelabour markets of their home countries, orwill they add to those seeking their fortunesin neighbouring western and northern EUcountries? To answer these and relatedquestions a deeper understanding isrequired of the nature of stratificationprocesses, and in particular, ofeducation-job linkages in eastern Europeantransition countries.

Despite its importance, however,conducting such research remains adaunting challenge, not least due to a lackof adequate, accessible and longitudinal(or retrospective) data for many of these

37

3

countries. Whereas considerable effort hasbeen expended on collecting and analysingsuch data at the EU level for new EUMember States—thereby increasing thepotential for learning more about thesecountries—knowledge on the situation ofyoung school leavers in eastern Europeantransition countries outside the EU-27remains scarce and fragmentary.

This methodological note4 seeks to definepossible formats for youth transitionsurveys, on the basis of which suggestionsare made with regard to both the ideal datarequired for analyses of young people’stransitions and criteria are definedaccording to which any data collectionarrangement should be judged.Conclusions are drawn in both respects,and specific recommendations for theimplementation of youth transition surveysin eastern European countries are made.

3.2 SURVEY FORMATS FORSTUDYING YOUTHTRANSITION

The data used for studying school-to-worktransition processes should includelongitudinal or retrospective elements,since only this kind of data permitspatterns of transition from education to thelabour market to be investigated from adynamic perspective; in other words, youngpeople are studied over time until theyobtain stable and secure employment.Cross-sectional data, on the other hand,would only offer a snapshot of thetransition process and of its outcomes, andno exploration of its dynamics would bepossible.

In a number of European countries,national surveys of school leavers havebeen the main source of information on theearly labour market experiences of youngpeople. These surveys have a number ofadvantages for the researcher exploringthe transition from school to work. First ofall, they usually collect detailed informationon educational background and history andinclude aspects considered important in the

given institutional context. Secondly, theyallow researchers to directly relate youngpeople’s educational backgrounds to theirexperiences in the labour market at theindividual level. Thirdly, the fact that thesurveys refer to school leavers means thatthey survey young people entering thelabour market at the same point in time andthus encountering the same institutionaland labour market conditions. Fourthly,these surveys typically provide rich data ona range of transition outcomes for youngpeople, including labour market integration,type of job, participation in furthereducation and training and, in someinstances, household configuration. Finally,the surveys tend to be conducted on aregular basis, thus enabling an explorationof the impact of socio-economic andinstitutional context changes on earlylabour market integration.

There are, however, limitations to surveysof school leavers. Typically they refer to asingle cohort followed up for about a yearafter leaving education (for example,leavers corresponding to the academicyear 2003-2004 monitored until 2005).Consequently, although very detailedinformation on their educational history isobtained, very little can be said about theiracclimatisation within the labour market,since very little time will have passed sinceleaving education, and young people canhardly be expected to attain stableemployment in such a short period of time(particularly in transition countries markedby more volatile labour markets).Therefore, to obtain more informationabout the labour market trajectories ofschool leavers, repeated surveys need tobe conducted for the same cohort of schoolleavers for a period of some five years afterleaving education. A panel design for sucha study would certainly be very effective,although it would also be quite expensive.Another limitation of the single-cohortsurveys of school leavers is that theyreflect only one specific school leavercohort. Since this cohort cannot becompared to older cohorts, the question ofwhether the transition process andoutcomes observed for a single cohort can

38


4 This note draws on the report Recommendations on the replication of the module produced within theframework of the Eurostat-funded project Evaluation and Analyses of the LFS 2000 Ad Hoc Module Data onSchool-to-Work Transitions (see Iannelli 2002).

be generalised to other school leavers (orwhether they merely reflect the country’sgeneral labour market situation at themoment of the survey) cannot beaddressed.

The samples for most youth transitionsurveys5 are either age cohorts or eventcohorts. A typical survey of school leaverswould use an event cohort if the surveyedindividuals—that is, all young people in aparticular age group—experienced aparticular event, such as leaving initialeducation, during a specified period of timeprior to the survey. The main requirementfor an event-cohort design is for the chosenevent to correspond to a significant andrelatively standard stage in the process, insuch a way that the status and variousevents defined relative to this eventrepresent comparable points in the causaland chronological sequence for all samplemembers.

The alternative to an event-cohort design isan age-at-survey design, in which thesample is drawn from all individuals whoseages lie within an appropriate age range atthe time of the survey. Various events inthe transition process could then becollected in calendar format (seediscussion below) and recorded along withthe point in time at which the event occurs.However, such a design would require afairly broad observation window (ages15-34 at least) in order to cover all potentialeducational careers plus the initial years inthe labour market. This might proveimpractical in the context of a transitionsurvey with a limited budget, due to thelarger volume of data that would berequired and the poor reliability ofinformation collected retrospectively oversuch a long period.

3.3 MAJOR YOUTHTRANSITION DATAREQUIREMENTS

Sample design

A transition survey should be based on arepresentative sample of all young peoplemaking the transition. A survey that wasrestricted, say, to young people leaving theeducation system at a given level could notcompare the labour-market outcomes ofleavers at different levels, nor could itexplore issues of equality and social justiceacross the whole age cohort.

Considering the pros and cons of event-and age-cohort designs, it seems advisablefor the transition surveys of the easternEuropean transition countries to draw on asample school leaver cohort. Furthermore,based on the experience of the EU LabourForce Survey (EULFS) Ad Hoc Module onSchool-to-Work Transitions in six centraleastern European countries (Slovenia,Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Romania andSlovakia) in 2000 and in Estonia in 2002, itwould seem prudent to set the age rangeof the target group at 15-34 years and thefollow-up period after leaving education atfive years6. Defining the target group forthe transition survey as individuals aged15-34 years would increase comparabilitywith most aggregate statistical data (basedon conventional age breaks, such as, forexample, those used by OECD).Restricting the target group to those wholeft education and training within theprevious five years would help to minimisethe impact of recall bias on educationaltrajectory records (more pronounced ifschool leavers are tracked for up to tenyears after leaving education) and initiallabour market history. This time spanshould be sufficient to cover the mostimportant stage of labour market entry,while the restricted data should still yield asignificant historical database once thedata is supplemented by regularreplications of the module—for exampleevery five years. Problems connected with

39

3. THE YOUTH TRANSITION SURVEY: A METHODOLOGICAL NOTE

5 Youth transition surveys are broader surveys that also include traditional surveys of school leavers.

6 It should be noted that the fieldwork in the EULFS 2000 Ad Hoc Module on School-to-Work Transitions wasconducted in early spring. Taking into account that young people normally leave school in late spring or earlysummer the bulk of the most recent school leavers were thus interviewed about a year after leavingeducation. If the transition survey is conducted during the summer, it might make sense to restrict the targetgroup to people who left continuous education from one to five/six years prior to the survey.

a survey capturing young people who haveexperienced very different labour marketcontexts could be partially compensated forby including time since leaving educationas a control variable. However, forcountries that have undergone dramatictransformation processes and in whichyoung school leavers face extreme labourmarket difficulties, the inclusion of onlythose who left education in the previousfive years might be insufficient as far asobserving acclimatisation within the labourmarket is concerned. In such a case itmight be desirable to extend the sample tothose who have left education and trainingsystems within the previous ten years7.

An important issue for a transition surveywith an event-cohort design is defining themoment of leaving education, for which thedefinition adopted by Eurostat for theEULFS 2000 Ad Hoc Module isrecommended. Leaving continuouseducation (for the first time, and excludinginterruptions for special reasons such asmaternity leave, illness, national service,etc) was defined as either:

1. Successful completion of education (forexample, graduation or acquisition ofthe final school-leaving diploma) ornon-successful completion of education

2. The interruption of studies for more thanone year8.

Continuous education, meanwhile, isdefined as full-time or part-time educationor training of a vocational or generalnature. Note that restricting continuouseducation to full-time learning might resultin underestimating the age of those leavingthe education system and erroneouslyinclude, within the group of continuouseducation leavers, young people onapprenticeships or combining educationand employment. It is advisable to includea question that would allow researchers todistinguish between types of educationand/or training at the time of leavingcontinuous education (that is, general orvocational, part-time or full-time,

apprenticeship or equivalent programmespracticed in the surveyed countries). Inaddition, data in the transition surveyshould distinguish between young peoplewho left education without completing acertain level or type of education and thosewho left after having successfullycompleted a course of study; in otherwords, a question should be included thatdistinguishes between school graduatesand dropouts.

Another crucial issue for the transitionmodule is sample size. Familiarity with theEULFS 2000 Ad Hoc Module suggests thatfewer than 2000 cases considerably limitsthe descriptive potential, and above all, theanalytical potential of the module.Experience in constructing indicators andusing the module data for statisticalanalyses suggests that the target sample ineach country should constitute at least3,000 cases, with even larger samplescertainly not constituting a drawback.

The survey should not only cover allcategories of young people making thetransition, but should also ensure that thesample obtained is representative. Thebest way to ensure the representativenessof a study is to draw a probability sample(as opposed to a non-probability, quota orsnowball sample, which can neverguarantee that the sample observed isrepresentative of the whole population).The basic principle of probability samplingis that a sample will be representative ofthe population from which it is selected if allmembers of the population have a known(non-zero) chance of being selected for thesample. Moreover, it is possible to estimatethe accuracy and representativeness ofprobability samples, something whichcannot be done with other types ofsamples.

It is also important to ensure that thesampling frame (the list of people fromwhich a probability sample is selected)does not exclude any particular categoryof young people, nor should it bias the

40


7 This decision should be taken by local experts and based on analyses of existing panel or retrospective data.

8 This part of the definition should be checked with local experts and could possibly be extended to 18 months,since it is not unusual, for example, for young people to leave school in May, try to enter university or collegethe same year but fail, and retry the next year and succeed. Consequently, the waiting period after leavingsecondary school and entering the university may extend to 15-16 months.

sample against full representation. For thetransition survey of school leavers, thereare two basic ways of drawing a sample.First of all, a population register can beused to obtain a representative sample ofyoung people aged 15-34 years who couldthen be asked a screening question,namely, whether they had left aneducation or training system in the lastfive years. Individuals respondingpositively would then be issued with anextended questionnaire. An alternativeapproach would be to obtain lists ofleavers from education and traininginstitutions for the five years preceding thesurvey and use these to obtain a sampleof all individuals aged 15-34 years. Thedecision as to the choice of samplingframe (either of those mentioned above orany other option) should be taken by localsurvey institutes and should be based ontheir experience and capacities. Surveyorsshould also endeavour to minimisenon-response bias, since a survey samplewill end up not being representative ifnon-response rates are high. Indeed, alow response rate is a danger signalbecause the non-respondents are alsolikely to differ from the respondents inways other than their willingness toparticipate in the survey. Response ratesvary depending on the data collectionmethod.

Data collection

Survey questionnaires can beadministered to a sample of respondentsin four different ways: as self-administeredquestionnaires, normally in the form of amail survey; as questionnairesadministered by interviewers inface-to-face encounters; asquestionnaires administered over thetelephone; and as internet surveys9. Thislast method will not be discussed in theoverview below, given that it is not afeasible option for eastern Europeantransition countries. It should be notedthat there is no best survey method, aseach approach has its strengths andweaknesses. The following considerationsare intended to assist local surveyorganisers in choosing an appropriatedata collection method.

The basic method for collecting datathrough the mail is to send a questionnaireaccompanied by a letter of explanation anda self-addressed and stamped envelope forreturning the questionnaire. Therespondent is expected to complete thequestionnaire, put it in the envelope andreturn it. An effective method for increasingreturn rates in mail surveys is promptlytimed follow-up mailings. The advantagesof the mail survey are that it only requires asmall staff and is the least costly method ofdata collection. However, it also results in ahigher number of incompletequestionnaires (it has the highestnon-response rate of all survey types). Inmail surveys, a response rate of around50% is considered adequate for conductinganalyses and reporting, with responserates of 60% and 70% considered to begood and very good, respectively. Thesenumbers are only rough guides, however,and do not take into account the issue ofresponse bias. A demonstrated lack ofresponse bias is far more important than ahigh response rate alone. Surveyresearchers have developed manytechniques that address the non-responseproblem (see Yammarino, Skinner &Childers, 1991, for an in-depth analysis ofthe response rates achieved in a number ofstudies using different techniques). Payingrespondents or rewarding them with somekind of gift is one option. The problem withpayment or gifts is the expense entailed bymeaningful compensation for hundreds orthousands of respondents. However, itremains a possibility, particularly forsurveys conducted in less wealthycountries.

The interview is an alternative method ofcollecting survey data. Interviewing is doneeither in a face-to-face encounter or overthe telephone. A face-to-faceinterview—which typically lasts 30-60minutes—is usually longer than atelephone interview. There are severaladvantages to having a questionnaireadministered by an interviewer as opposedto it being completed alone by therespondent. Interview surveys typicallyattain higher response rates (up to80-85%) than do mail surveys. Thepresence of an interviewer also generally

41


9 The review of data collection methods is based on Babbie (2001) and Czaja and Blair (2005).

decreases the amount of missing data dueto ‘don’t know’ or ‘no answer’ responsesand so helps reduce the number ofincomplete questionnaires. Interviewerscan also help with confusing questionnaireitems by clarifying matters, therebyensuring relevant responses. Finally,leaving aside the responses to questionsasked in the interview itself, the interviewerin a face-to-face encounter can also makeimportant observations about the interview.

The chief advantages of telephoneinterviews over those conductedface-to-face centre primarily on time andmoney. Telephone interviews are muchcheaper and can be organised andexecuted quickly. An additional advantageof telephone interviews when conductedusing computer-assisted methods is thefact that the data is almost immediatelyready for analysis10. Another advantage ofthe telephone interview is interviewersafety when working in high-crime ordangerous areas. Moreover, the impact ofthe interviewer on responses is somewhatlessened when they cannot be seen by therespondents. Among the disadvantages ofthe telephone survey is, by definition, itslimitation to people who have telephones.In countries that do not have awell-developed and relatively inexpensivetelecommunications infrastructure, thismethod could produce a substantialsocial-class bias by excluding poor orremote populations. Furthermore, there is agrowing proportion of households with onlymobile telephones that are not included inmany sampling frames. A related samplingproblem involves numbers that are notlisted in local telephone directories. Finally,in some countries the method could behampered by the proliferation of bogussurveys that are actually sales campaignsdisguised as research, which reducerespondent trust in telephone surveys. Theease with which people can hang up isanother shortcoming of telephone surveys.

Another issue to be mentioned in thissection is proxy interviewing, which is oftenused in transition surveys. Proxy interviewsare those conducted with a third-personabout an actual respondent. The method

may reduce the accuracy of the informationcollected and produce a high percentage ofmissing information for certain items(particularly connected with the exact datesof events). Nonetheless, the use of proxyinterviews may ensure an overall low levelof non-response in a survey of this kind.There is a trade-off here, but theadvantages of reducing gaps in the data bycollecting the information even if proxyinterviews are necessary should generallyoutweigh the disadvantages of the proxymethod. The introduction of an identifier forproxy information is also recommended.This could also give researchers theopportunity to assess the quality of the datacollected in proxy interviews.

Central concepts and key variables

The survey should collect data on keyvariables, including the items describedbelow.

� Individual characteristics that mightinfluence the transition, such as age,gender, family background and ethnicity.

The data collected in the transition surveyshould enable gender and ethnicinequalities with regard to educational andearly labour market attainment to beexamined. Information on familybackground should include the highestlevel of education obtained by parents andtheir labour market and occupationalstatus, so as to enable an analysis of socialreproduction processes. The transitionfrom school to work is said to be stronglyinfluenced by parents, directly bysupporting children’s decisions in thelabour market and indirectly by influencingtheir educational careers.

� Education, including level of studies andqualifications, field of study, completionand mode of study (full-time,apprenticeship, etc).

Education should be coded in detail usingthe national classification, but in such away that it can be transformed into aninternationally comparable classification(for example, ISCED97). A distinction

42


10 For example, CATI (Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing). CAPI (Computer-Assisted PersonalInterviewing) has the same advantage.

between different types of programme(general and vocational) at the secondarylevel is particularly important, sincedifferent tracks provide differentopportunities with regard to access totertiary education, not to mention to arange of labour market options.

Useful analyses could be conducted basedon fields of study. Although nationalclassifications of educational fields shouldideally be slotted within the internationalclassification11, a national classification canbe used when this is not possible. It is alsoadvisable to include measures ofeducation-job mismatches (both with regardto the level and field of education), sinceunsuitable employment is a problem faced bymany young people on leaving education.

Furthermore, clear guidelines should begiven for a central concept of the survey soas to prevent misinterpretations byrespondents. This is the question aboutleaving education for the first time. Someguidelines are provided in the questionnaire,but they should be extended if necessary.

The survey should also contain questionson dual-status periods and on instances ofreturn to education or training after a periodof labour market activity. Finally, given thatcomputer and foreign language proficiencyhave become ever more important in theglobalised world, it might be relevant to askschool leavers questions on this topic.

� Key demographic transitions, such asmarriage, parenthood or geographicalmobility.

Statuses outside education and the labourmarket, such as military service, long-termsickness and periods as a home workershould also be recorded. Labour marketentry goes hand-in-hand with othertransitions in youth and it is important toexamine the processes interdependently.

� Labour market outcomes, such asemployment or unemployment,occupation and earnings (ideally withdetails of the enterprise such as sizeand industrial sector).

The transition from education to work hasno precise endpoint, and the time at whichthese outcomes should be recorded is amatter of debate. Ideally all labour-marketstatuses should be plotted over a numberof years, but at a minimum there should bemore than one observation. It has beensuggested that the transition survey shouldinclude information on any significantemployment that started before the end ofcontinuous education (so-calledbenchmark jobs), namely, first ever job,first stable (significant) employment afterthe end of continuous education, as well asany other job held at the moment of survey(Figure 3). In addition, calendar informationon monthly employment status after leavingcontinuous education should be collected,so that an analysis of transition andmobility within the labour market can beundertaken.

In defining significant employment onemight well rely on the EULFS 2000 Ad HocModule on School-to-Work Transition,which defines this concept as employment

43


Leaving educationfor the first time

First significantemployment

Significant employmentprior to leaving education

First ever employment Situation at the momentof survey

Figure 3. Benchmark jobs

11 This would allow a comparison of educational attainment with regard to field of studies with school leavers inother countries.

for a minimum of 20 hours a week lastingat least six months12, excluding any type ofcasual work, apprenticeships, trainingschemes, and compulsory military ornational service.

It is important to collect a wide range ofinformation on each of the benchmark jobs13.Ideally, the transition survey should collectinformation about occupation, industry,earnings and wages, hours (including adistinction between full-time and part-timeemployment), and type of contract(fixed-term/ temporary or permanent) in orderto obtain a more complete assessment ofboth first-job conditions and subsequent jobmobility across different dimensions. It mightalso be interesting to include informationsuch as whether the first-ever or firstsignificant job was linked to on-the-jobtraining, or information on motivational factorssuch as reasons for leaving a first job. Givenproblems of recall and the fact that thetransition survey might remain as a one-shotcross-sectional survey, with no opportunityfor providing additional cues to aid recall,there are obvious limits to further extensionsalong these lines.

The appendices to the questionnaire containinternational classifications of occupationsand industries. It is important to stress in thisregard that, although relying on internationalclassifications enables a morestraightforward comparison of the resultswith those of other countries, it might beeasier to apply national classifications usedin academic surveys of a country.

To determine how young people search foremployment it might be beneficial toinclude a number of variables related to the

job search. Information on methods couldenable the use of informal compared toformal means for obtaining jobs to beassessed. Furthermore, additionalquestions should be addressed to personswho have not been able to secure anyemployment during or after leavingcontinuous education and to thoseunemployed at the time of the survey.

Regarding income and earnings, it shouldbe stressed that the readiness ofrespondents to answer such questions isoften rather low. If experience shows thatnon-response with regard to incomequestions is rather high in a given country,the possibility of providing answercategories in meaningful groups should beconsidered. Respondents would thus notbe obliged to give an exact sum but only tolocate themselves within an income range.

� Contextual variables, for example, locallabour market conditions.

The survey may not need to collect thesedata directly, as it may be possible tomatch them using, for example,geographical or institutional identifiers. As itis assumed that this will generally be thecase, questions regarding contextualcharacteristics are not included in thequestionnaire as it stands at present.

Other data requirements may be accorded alower priority for a transition survey if thebudget is limited. Ideally, however, atransition survey would collect data onsubjective measures such as aspirations andjob preferences, and on direct measures ofbasic and other skills14, although this data ismore difficult to collect and is not likely to be

44


12 The idea of 20 hours per week implies including part-time jobs as significant jobs. If, however, normalpart-time employment is 18 or fewer hours per week in Serbia or Ukraine, this part of the definition of firstsignificant employment may be modified.

13 A problem might arise with those respondents who have experienced many job changes and must thereforeprovide extensive responses. In such cases a pragmatic decision may be made to ask for detailedinformation about only one significant employment rather than all benchmark jobs. This could be decidedafter a pre-test of the questionnaire.

14 The following items can be considered under the rubric of knowledge, skills and competencies: broad generalknowledge; cross-disciplinary thinking/knowledge; field-specific theoretical knowledge; foreign languageproficiency; computer skills; understanding complex social, organisational and technical systems; planning,coordinating and organising; applying rules and regulations; economic reasoning; documenting ideas andinformation; problem-solving ability; analytical competencies; learning abilities; reflective thinking, assessingone’s own work; creativity; working under pressure; accuracy, attention to detail; time management;negotiating; fitness for work; manual skills; working independently; teamwork; initiative; adaptability;assertiveness, decisiveness, persistence; power of concentration; getting personally involved; loyalty,integrity; critical thinking; oral communication skills; written communication skills; tolerance, appreciation ofdifferent points of view; leadership; taking decisions and accepting responsibility.

rated as high-priority information. To theextent that political interest in labour marketprogrammes, innovative curricula,information and guidance or other stateintervention is apparent, it would be desirablefor a transition survey to collect informationabout them so that incidence and impact canbe recorded.

Longitudinal data

The survey should collect longitudinaldata—ideally in calendar form—thatrecords the full sequence of educationaland labour market statuses. It shouldrecord time-ordered data to support causalmodelling—for example, of the effects ofeducational attainment or of traininginterventions on employment,unemployment or occupational level. Thetransition from initial education to work isusually understood as a sequence oftransitions that start at the point wheneducational pathways first diverge and endat the point (not clearly defined) when aperson’s position in the labour marketbecomes relatively stable. The surveyshould cover the whole of this period, withdates and details for each transition in thesequence. It should also record non-lineartransitions, such as moves from the labourmarket to education and other transitionswhich do not follow the normal course, andalso dual-status situations of workcombined with education. This is probablybest done once the data is collected incalendar form.

In order to construct reliable durationindicators—for example, the length of timebefore taking up the first stableemployment or the duration of the firstjob—it is important to collect accurateinformation on the month as well as theyear of the events. In the event of problemswith recall, it is advisable to askrespondents for an approximation to themonth of the event in question rather thanleave a blank in the data. If the month ofleaving education is left unanswered, it canbe imputed from the typical graduationmonth or from the month marking the endof the academic year. It is more difficult,logically, to make deductions for job startand end dates.

Data access and documentation

The final stage is to make the dataaccessible to researchers or analysts. Itshould be accompanied by documentationnot only on the formal definitions but alsoon the operational decisions made inimplementing these definitions. As it isimpossible to achieve absolutelyrepresentative data, the need arises for aspecific weighting system that is capable ofcorrecting for sample representativenessproblems, especially when thenon-response rate is high. Such weightingprocedures must also be well documented.

3.4 CONCLUSIONS

Since transition from school to work is acomplex issue and difficult tomeasure—and even more so in countrieslacking a tradition of suchsurveys—intensive monitoring and pilotingis needed at the questionnaire preparationstage. The major data requirements onschool-to-work transition are apparent inthe draft questionnaire. Due to its currentlength, when it comes to school leaverslikely to have frequently changedemployment, one should concentrate on aminimum set of questions concerningbenchmark jobs and refrain fromdemanding more detailed information15.Full information on all the characteristics ofthe job, the job search method and thetraining provided should only be collectedfor significant employment.

Careful and extensive pre-testing of thequestionnaire is strongly advised, not leastdue to the fact that this should be adapted tonational conditions. At the same time, thedata collected in the survey should bepotentially comparable to similar survey datacollected in other countries so thatcross-national comparisons can be made.Because of the differences in education andlabour market systems, those operating thesurvey in the respective countries should berequired to provide documentation showinghow common variables have beenoperationalised and how classifications havebeen adopted in relation to particular nationalsystems. The pre-test sample should be

45


15 Questions that might be considered optional are marked with an asterisk in the questionnaire.

large enough to include people from diversesubgroups in the target population, to ensurethat the questions and the answer categoriesare reasonably well tested. All in all,pre-testing should allow researchers toassess the impact of word selection, questionsequencing and various formatting andlayout issues.

Successful implementation of the pilotsurvey should be a primary concern.Another priority should be to conducttransition surveys as regularly as possible toallow consistent measurement over time,monitor social, educational and labourmarket change, and provide opportunitiesfor assessing the impact of policy initiatives.

The transition survey will provide ainvaluable database for research intostatistical indicators reflecting the transitionbetween education and work. This, in turn,should allow for marked improvement inreporting on social transition processes ineastern European countries. The experienceof the post-communist countries is indeedunique, offering researchers an exceptionalopportunity to gauge the effects ofinstitutions in dynamic settings and thus toimprove understanding of the interveningrole of institutional factors in socialstratification.

Addendum

For the youth transition surveys in Serbia andthe Ukraine a decision was taken to apply anevent cohort design of recent school leaversaged 15-34. In Serbia 1,504 school leaverswho had left education in the previous fiveyears were interviewed in autumn 2006,whereas in the Ukraine there were 2,015individuals who left schooling up to six yearsprior to the survey which was conducted inspring 2007. The difference in the period thatevolved since leaving education for the twocountries is intentional and was aimed atcapturing young people leaving educationsince 2001 in both countries. Figure 4 showsthe algorithm of choosing respondents.

For both countries the random stratifiedsamples have been drawn and thespecifics of the sample selection could befound in field reports for each country. Thedata collection was conducted in form offace-to-face interviews, proxy interviewingwas not practiced.

The questionnaires are almost identical forboth countries; existing differences reflectpeculiarities of each country. The maindeviation in the questionnaires is in collectinginformation on income for each benchmarkjob in Ukraine but not in Serbia.

46


ASK EACH HH MEMBER 15-34 YEARS OLD (INCLUDED):

Has an HH member ever

interrupted education for

one year or more?

Remember, when he (she) left education

or interrupted it for one year or more (for

the first time), not counting such causes

as maternity leave, taking a

gap/sabbatical period,serious illness,

awaiting a certificate giving access to

education at a higher level or military

service. Was it during the period from

2001 to 2005/06?What was the reason?*

Was it between 2001 and 2005/06?

*If there were severalsuch cases, but at leastone had cause that isn’twritten in the box to theleft, count it as ‘other’

causes

� Maternity leave

� Taking a gap/sabbatical period

� Serious illness

� Awaiting a certificate giving access to

education at a higher level

� Military service

Other causes

POTENTIAL

RESPONDENT!

YES NO

OUTSIDE THE

TARGET

POPULATION

OUTSIDE THE

TARGET

POPULATION

OUTSIDE THE

TARGET

POPULATION

OUTSIDE THE

TARGET

POPULATION

OUTSIDE THE

TARGET

POPULATION

OUTSIDE THE

TARGET

POPULATION

OUTSIDE THE

TARGET

POPULATION

OUTSIDE THE

TARGET

POPULATION

POTENTIAL

RESPONDENT!

Is an HH member getting education nowadays?*

NO

NO

NO

YES

YES

YES

Figure 4. Algorithm for the selection of potential respondents from household (HH)

members aged 15-34

4. AN ANALYSIS OF LABOUR

MARKET ENTRY IN SERBIA

AND UKRAINE

Henrik Huitfeldt, Jens Johansen and

Irena Kogan

4.1 INTRODUCTION

Since the fall of communism and thecommencement of the transition process inthe early 1990s, the functioning of labourmarkets has changed dramatically inpost-communist countries. Although thereare major differences between the differenttransition countries (with the exception ofsome of the new EU Member States),labour market developments in generalhave been disappointing. Jobs in the oldindustrialised economies have been lost at aslow but increasing rate, while job creation,in particular in the form of regular jobs in theformal sector, has been sluggish.

The transition from school to work hasbecome very difficult for the majority ofyoung people. Open unemployment orother forms of joblessness tend to be high.Large groups of individuals cannot afford tobe without an income due to the limitedcoverage of public social welfare systems.Consequently, different short and

long-term labour market strategies areused by young people to manage theirintegration into the labour market.Emigration and different forms of informalemployment have become the preferred oronly choice for many. Unreformededucation systems are likely to have led toskill gaps or mismatches between the skillsacquired and those actually used in thelabour market. In this setting, anunderstanding of the school-to-worktransition process requires an assessmentof both the quantity and the quality of thejobs taken up by young people. Here weanalyse data on school-to-work transitionfor Serbia and Ukraine, two countrieswhich, to a large extent, match thedescription given above.

Traditional labour market analysis is mostoften based on data from labour forcesurveys and analyses of employment andunemployment indicators at different pointsof time16. However, these standardindicators do not capture several important

47

4

16 In many countries in eastern and south eastern Europe, however, labour force surveys have not beenconducted frequently, or they have not been consistent, either over time or between countries.

features of eastern and south easternEuropean economies, such as discouragedyoung people who do not search activelyfor work (and who are therefore notclassified as unemployed in the labourforce surveys) and the large number ofyoung people that involuntarily work inlow-quality jobs. A more complete analysisof the youth labour market would start bylooking at all young people to try to find outwhat they are doing, whether in education,in the labour market or elsewhere. In thisway, their labour market status can beidentified.

In addition, many young people often movebetween different kinds of jobs or otherlabour market activities and/or carry outdifferent activities at the same time. Labourforce surveys fail to a large extent to reflectthese dynamics—and particularly aprocess as dynamic as school-to-worktransition. To better analyse labour marketentry by young people, we would needlongitudinal data that monitors how labourmarket integration takes place. In Serbiaand Ukraine, some longitudinal datasets forrecent school leavers exist17, but thesample sizes are small, which make themless suitable for a detailed analysis oflabour market entry.

We used datasets available for schoolleavers in Serbia and Ukraine, consisting of1,504 Serbian and 2,015 Ukrainian youngpeople who left the education system in thelast five years. They were asked detailedquestions on their school-to-work transitionprocess. The main aim of the analysis wasto assess the use of school leaver surveysin an ETF partner country context and topresent preliminary findings and mainchallenges in regard to school-to-worktransition in Serbia and Ukraine. Our aimwas not to draw up a detailed policyrecommendations for the two countries; inthe case of Ukraine, a separate report willbe prepared jointly with the World Bank asa background document for a policy note.

The rest of the chapter is laid out in sixsections. Section 2 describes basicfeatures of the datasets. Section 3

discusses the main features ofschool-to-work transition and the youthlabour market. Section 4 analyses thecharacteristics of the first jobs taken upafter leaving education, while Section 5looks in more detail at skill mismatches inSerbia and Ukraine. Section 6 looks atearly labour market careers and discussesthe importance of labour market entry forfuture labour market outcomes. Finally,Section 7 discusses the main findings ofthe school leaver surveys in an ETFpartner country context.

4.2 THE DATASETS

Surveys were carried out in Serbia(18-29 September 2006) and in Ukraine(24 March-20 May 2007), with samples inboth countries covering both urban andrural areas. In the case of Serbia nointerviews were conducted in Kosovo andin the case of Ukraine no interviews wereconducted in the Chernobyl area. StrategicMarketing Research (SMMRI) wasrecruited to create the sample, train theinterviewers, conduct the interviews, enterthe data and perform a first verification ofthe dataset in Serbia. In Ukraine, thesetasks were implemented by the KievInternational Institute of Sociology (KIIS).

The questionnaire used during the surveywas structured to cover the followingissues:

� Situation before leaving continuouseducation for the first time

� Monthly calendar of activities sinceleaving education

� First job and first significant job afterleaving education

� Current labour market situation� Education and training since leaving

education� Socio-demographic characteristics.

Although great care was taken to ensurecomparability between the two surveys, thequestionnaires were adapted to thenational contexts. Furthermore, the factthat the survey was conducted in Serbia

48


17 In Serbia, a Living Standards Measurement Survey was carried out in 2002 and 2003 with some panelfeatures. In addition, since 2004, a labour force survey uses a kind of rotating panel that has been madeavailable for research. In Ukraine, a longitudinal survey was initiated in 2003 called the Ukrainian LongitudinalMonitoring Survey.

first led to clarifications to the surveyimplemented in Ukraine to make it moreunderstandable for both interviewers andrespondents. The Ukrainian survey servedas the starting point for a World Banksurvey conducted in late 2007.

The target group was made up ofindividuals aged 15-34 who had lefteducation for the first time in the previousfive years in Serbia or six years in Ukraine.A large majority of the individuals lefteducation in the months of May, June orJuly. Thus, the shortest possible periodsince leaving education for most of thesample was about 12-14 months for Serbiaand 9-11 months for Ukraine. The samplesconsisted of 1,504 respondents from 8,593households contacted (17.5%) in Serbiaand 2,015 respondents from 25,081households contacted (8.0%) in Ukraine.Bearing in mind that not all households hada member falling within the target group,the actual response rates in both countrieswere very satisfying (especially for such along questionnaire), with more than twothirds of possible respondents completingthe questionnaire (67.5% in Serbia and68.3% in Ukraine). It was much harder tofind young people who had recently lefteducation in Ukraine than in Serbia,despite the youth cohorts being of relativelysimilar sizes in the two countries. Thiscould be due to more emigration occurringfrom Ukraine than from Serbia.

4.3 SCHOOL-TO-WORKTRANSITION AND THE YOUTHLABOUR MARKET

We collected monthly data on the labourstatus of individuals between leavingeducation and the time of the survey andconducted an analysis based on job types,with a distinction drawn between two majortypes of job taken up after leavingeducation: first job and first significant job.A significant job is defined as lasting aminimum of six months and having aminimum timetable of 20 hours a week. Alarge set of characteristics collected forthese two major types of job are analysedbelow. All this information provided theopportunity for an examination of thedynamics of early labour market integrationby young people and was used to identifytypical patterns in early labour marketcareers.

Using the monthly data, we calculated theshare of individuals participating in differentlabour market activities since leavingeducation, and also calculated mainindicators such as employment,unemployment and activity rates (Figures 5and 6). Large differences were observedbetween the two countries. The transitionprocess seems to develop relatively rapidlyin Ukraine, whereas in Serbia it was muchmore gradual. The unemployment rate inSerbia started out very high and gradually

49

4. AN ANALYSIS OF LABOUR MARKET ENTRY IN SERBIA AND UKRAINE

Figure 5. Monthly unemployment, employment and activity rates since leaving

education for Serbia and Ukraine

Source: Authors

fell, stabilising at around 30%. In Ukrainethe unemployment rate was fairly low 12months after leaving education. The activityrate in Ukraine, however, decreased overtime, stabilising at around 70% of the totalpopulation. This low activity rate was due tolow labour force participation amongUkrainian women. No major differencesexist in the unemployment rate betweenmen and women. The recordedemployment rate—significantly higher thanin Serbia—was around 70% in Ukraine.However, the difference between the twocountries might reflect differences in thequality of jobs. The social safety net ismore developed in Serbia than in Ukraineand more people at any given time inSerbia might prefer to remain unemployedwhile waiting for a better job.

Using the information on time until first joband first significant job (Tables 1 and 2),we can calculate the length of the transitionperiod, defined as the time betweenleaving education for the first time andstarting a first job or a first significant job. InSerbia, 33% of all young people leaving theeducation system found a significant jobwithin six months. In Ukraine, the transitionprocess was shorter, with almost 60% ofschool leavers finding a significant jobwithin six months after leaving education.However, for a large proportion of youngpeople in both Serbia and Ukraine, thetransition period was much longer. The

share of individuals who had not found afirst significant job two years after leavingeducation was 43% in Serbia and 26% inUkraine.

A comparison between transition to a firstjob and transition to a first significant jobprovides some information on thedynamics of the youth labour market. Inboth Serbia and Ukraine, the share ofnon-significant first jobs is relatively low,with only 6% and 8%, respectively, havinga non-significant first job six months afterleaving education.

Men found a first job more quickly thanwomen in both Serbia and Ukraine.However, women in Serbia had a slightlyhigher probability of finding a significant jobwithin six months after leaving education.Comparing those who quickly gotsignificant jobs to those who got any kindof job in the same period of time, Serbianmen were more likely than Serbian womento accept any kind of job (that is, a job thatwas not a significant job, long-term job, orfull-time job). No gender difference of thiskind was observed for Ukraine.

Education played a major role in quicklyfinding a job—particularly a significantjob—after leaving education (Tables 3 to 6).The major findings were strikingly similar inthe two countries. Post-secondaryeducation graduates (including university

50


Figure 6. Activity and unemployment rates since leaving education by gender for

Serbia and Ukraine

Source: Authors

graduates) did fairly well in both countries,followed by graduates from secondaryvocational schools. Noteworthy is the factthat graduates from secondary generaleducation performed very poorly incomparison with other educationalcategories in both countries.

In Serbia, 47% of university graduates butfewer than 30% of primary and secondaryeducation graduates found a significant jobwithin six months of graduating. In Ukraine,74% of university graduates and 52% ofsecondary vocational school graduatesfound a significant job within six months ofleaving education. Both college (that ispost-secondary vocational education) anduniversity graduates found a job in arelatively short period of time. Nonetheless,a significant share of these educationalgroups failed to find a job soon aftergraduation. In Serbia, 34% and 22% ofgraduates from colleges and universities,respectively, had not found a significant jobwithin two years. In Ukraine, the

corresponding figures were 18% and 14%.Clearly, a higher education qualification isnot a guarantee of labour market success.

Differences between individuals withdifferent educational attainments weresmaller for non-significant jobs. For any kindof first job obtained within six months afterleaving education, the difference betweenuniversity and secondary vocational schoolgraduates was only 16 percentage points inboth Serbia and Ukraine. This compares toa difference of 19 percentage points inSerbia and 22 percentage points in Ukrainefor first significant jobs. Thus, in addition tohaving a lower probability of finding a job,lower educated young people wererelatively more likely to take anon-significant job. That is, both job quantityand job quality are important in terms ofanalysing labour market outcomes fordifferent educational categories, with qualityissues needing to be examined in moredetail in terms of skill mismatches and moredetailed job characteristics.

51


Table 1. Time to first ever job by gender in Serbia and Ukraine (%)

Serbia Ukraine

All Men Women All Men Women

No search 7.1 7.3 7.0 14.8 14.3 15.2

1-3 mths 23.6 25.3 22.0 44.6 49.1 40.5

4-6 mths 8.3 8.2 8.4 8.4 8.6 8.3

7-12 mths 11.4 12.3 10.6 6.7 7.0 6.4

1-2 yrs 17.1 19.2 15.0 7.3 8.0 6.7

> 2 yrs 32.4 27.7 37.0 18.2 13.0 22.8

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100

Source: Authors

Table 2. Time to first significant job by gender in Serbia and Ukraine (%)

Serbia Ukraine

All Men Women All Men Women

No search 6.6 6.8 6.5 13.9 13.6 14.2

1-3 mths 18.9 19.3 18.6 37.7 41.0 34.8

4-6 mths 7.3 6.2 8.3 8.1 8.6 7.6

7-12 mths 10.1 10.8 9.4 6.4 6.4 6.4

1-2 yrs 14.3 14.6 14.0 8.0 9.9 6.3

> 2 yrs 42.8 42.3 43.2 25.9 20.5 30.7

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100

Source: Authors

52


Table 3. Time to first ever job by educational attainment in Serbia (%)

PrimarySecondary

Trade

Secondary

Vocational

Secondary

GeneralCollege University

No search 7.0 5.7 4.7 9.6 7.7 11.7

1-3 mths 22.0 25.7 22.3 19.2 23.1 26.0

4-6 mths 8.4 7.5 7.2 6.7 9.1 12.8

7-12 mths 10.6 10.8 12.4 8.7 18.0 9.4

1-2 yrs 15.0 15.2 19.5 8.4 13.2 21.6

> 2 yrs 37.0 35.1 33.9 47.3 29.0 18.4

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100

Source: Authors

Table 4. Time to first significant job by educational attainment in Serbia (%)

PrimarySecondary

Trade

Secondary

Vocational

Secondary


No search 9.8 5.1 4.3 9.6 7.0 10.9

1-3 mths 16.3 18.3 18.0 13.5 19.0 24.7

4-6 mths 2.3 5.9 6.1 5.8 11.7 12.1

7-12 mths 4.0 9.3 11.9 7.8 14.5 8.6

1-2 yrs 8.8 11.5 16.1 6.2 13.3 21.3

> 2 yrs 58.7 49.8 43.6 57.1 34.4 22.4

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100

Source: Authors

Table 5. Time to first ever job by educational attainment in Ukraine (%)

Less than

Secondary

Secondary

Vocational

Secondary

General

Junior

SpecialistUniversity

No search 0.9 7.3 4.8 9.0 26.6

1-3 mths 32.7 49.5 31.4 58.2 44.4

4-6 mths 6.7 7.6 10.5 7.4 8.4

7-12 mths 7.5 6.9 9.6 6.1 5.2

1-2 yrs 5.2 11.8 9.1 4.5 5.4

> 2 yrs 47.0 16.9 34.7 14.7 10.0

Total 100 100 100 100 100

Source: Authors

Table 6. Time to first significant job by educational attainment in Ukraine (%)

Less than

Secondary

Secondary

Vocational

Secondary

General

Junior

SpecialistsUniversity

No search 0.0 6.4 3.7 9.1 25.6

1-3 mths 26.0 38.2 24.6 52.8 39.6

4-6 mths 5.9 7.1 9.4 7.6 8.3

7-12 mths 1.3 6.4 8.3 7.1 5.9

1-2 yrs 4.9 12.1 9.3 5.3 6.3

> 2 yrs 61.9 29.8 44.7 18.0 14.3

Total 100 100 100 100 100

Source: Authors

Large differences exist between urban andrural areas (Tables 7 and 8). In Serbia,36% of young school leavers in urbanareas found a significant job within sixmonths of leaving education compared toonly 28% in rural areas. This difference—atmore than 20 percentage points—is moreaggravated in Ukraine (66% and 45% forurban and rural areas, respectively). It isinteresting to note, however, that even inrural areas of Ukraine young people foundjobs faster than in urban areas of Serbia. Inparticular, the share of young people inrural areas who had not found a significantjob after two years was very high in bothSerbia and Ukraine. Since no majordifferences were observed between anykind of first job and a first significant job,short-term jobs within agriculture do notseem to explain these differences betweenurban and rural areas.

4.4 RECENT SCHOOLLEAVERS: FIRST JOBS

In view of the existence of a large informallabour market in central and eastern

European countries, one of the aims of thesurvey was to detect informal employmentand explore the determinants of youthlabour market precariousness. Table 9clearly shows that, if successful in obtainingemployment, a large proportion of youngUkrainians found work in the formal labourmarket (whether a first ever job or a firstsignificant job). Informal employmentseemed to be more common among youngpeople in Serbia. The proportion of youngpeople in self-employment appeared to bequite similar when it came to first ever jobs,but was somewhat smaller for firstsignificant employment in Ukraine. Youngpeople helping to run family businesseswere common in Serbia, whereas this groupin Ukraine was very small. Overall, it isnoticeable that the quality of the firstsignificant job appears to be higher than thequality of the first ever job in both countries.Clearly more young people were employedofficially rather than in informal jobs.

Self-employed workers in their first everemployment in Serbia were largelyshopkeepers, followed by employees of theirown company, farmers and self-employed

53


Table 7. Time to first ever job by urban/rural area in Serbia and Ukraine (%)

Serbia Ukraine

Urban Rural Urban Rural

No search 8.0 5.9 17.5 8.1

1-3 mths 25.5 21.0 48.4 35.1

4-6 mths 8.6 8.0 7.8 10.0

7-12 mths 11.0 12.0 6.1 8.1

1-2 yrs 19.6 13.7 5.4 12.2

> 2 yrs 27.3 39.4 14.8 26.6

Total 100 100 100 100

Source: Authors

Table 8. Time to first significant job by urban/rural area in Serbia and Ukraine (%)

Serbia Ukraine

Urban Rural Urban Rural

No search 7.5 5.5 16.6 7.3

1-3 mths 21.1 16.0 41.8 27.7

4-6 mths 7.7 6.7 7.3 9.9

7-12 mths 10.3 9.7 6.6 5.9

1-2 yrs 17.4 10.1 6.5 12.0

> 2 yrs 36.0 52.0 21.2 37.2

Total 100 100 100 100

Source: Authors

craftsmen and street-sellers (in that order). InUkraine, on the other hand, the vast majorityof self-employed were qualified or unqualifiedworkers, followed by professionals,street-sellers and shop/café/restaurantowners (in that order). As for first significantjobs, the distribution in Serbia was similar tothat for first ever jobs; that is, the majority ofyoung self-employed were shopkeepers,followed this time by self-employedcraftsmen, farmers and employees of theirown company. In Ukraine, about 30% ofsignificantly self-employed workers werequalified workers, followed byshop/café/restaurant owners, farmers,self-employed unqualified workers,street-sellers and professionals. Mostself-employed workers in the two countrieshad no employees. Other cross-nationaldifferences were evident, however. In Serbia69% of the self-employed in a first ever joband 62% in a first significant job had noemployees, whereas in Ukraine, thesefigures were around 77% and 70%,respectively. In both countries, nonetheless,once employees are taken on, self-employedworkers are rather classified as smallbusinesses.

The employment status of young schoolleavers and the degree of precariousness ofthe first ever or first significant employmentwere both affected by young people’seducational attainment (Tables 10 and 11). Inboth countries primary school leavers were ata high risk of informal employment and hadthe lowest probability of obtaining aregistered job. In both countries these peoplewere also most likely to be self-employed intheir first ever job; in Serbia this was also true

for first significant employment. In addition,Serbian low-skilled young people largelyfound employment as family helpers—bothfor first ever employment and—even moreso—for first significant employment.

In both countries, young people whofinished school with a secondary generaldiploma were also at a higher risk ofinformal employment. In Serbia graduatesfrom secondary general education werehighly represented among family helpers.Young people who acquired secondaryvocational training, on the other hand, hadbetter chances of obtaining formalemployment than those with secondarygeneral education only or those withshort-course vocational training. Thisfinding is consistent across the twocountries and holds for both first ever andfirst significant employment. Finally, collegeand—to a greater degree—universitygraduates had the best chances of findingregistered employment and avoidinginformal work. In Ukraine, highly qualifiedspecialists were also somewhat morehighly represented among theself-employed; this was also reflected inthe distribution of professions among theself-employed. Overall, a significant jobimproves the chances for secureemployment based on a comparison of thefirst ever and the first significant job ofvarious school leavers in the two countries.

Access to formal and informal employmentwas also stratified by gender (Table 12),with women more often found among theregistered employed in their first ever jobsin both countries. For the first significant

54


Table 9. Status of first ever and first significant employment in Serbia and Ukraine (%)

Serbia Ukraine

First ever jobFirst significant

jobFirst ever job

First significant

job

Registered job /official employee

49.1 58.2 65.0 70.8

Unregistered job /unofficial employee

39.0 29.4 29.3 24.7

Self-employed 4.6 4.9 4.4 3.5

Family business helper 5.4 5.7 1.2 0.8

Other 1.9 1.7 0.2 0.3

Source: Authors

employment the same held true in the caseof Ukraine, whereas differences betweenmen and women in Serbia were small. Menwere more often self-employed in bothcountries. In Serbia, men were alsoover-represented among family helpers,whereas there were hardly any genderdifferences in this respect in Ukraine.

Occupational status by educational

attainment

Despite the higher level of registeredemployment, in Ukraine compared to Serbia

young school leavers were less likely to enterprofessional jobs for both first ever and firstsignificant employment. Instead, they weremore likely to occupy jobs in services and inshop and market sales. In addition, inUkraine compared to Serbia, more youngpeople worked as skilled agricultural andcraft workers and significantly more asmachine operators and assemblers. Youngschool leavers doing clerical work were morelikely in Serbia than in Ukraine. Some degreeof stability in occupational distributionbetween first ever and first significant jobswas also noticeable (Table 13).

55


Table 10. Status of first ever (left column) and first significant (right column)

employment in Serbia by education level (%)

PrimaryVocational

Trade

Secondary

Vocational

Secondary


Registered job 16.1 25.0 37.9 47.4 44.3 53.7 34.9 43.1 62.9 69.7 79.4 84.0

Unregistered job 50.0 31.8 52.5 41.6 44.3 34.0 44.4 37.3 26.7 20.2 12.9 10.2

Self-employed 12.9 15.9 1.8 2.4 5.5 6.5 9.5 7.8 5.7 4.5 2.4 2.1

Family businesshelper

21.0 27.3 6.7 7.7 9.5 3.7 11.1 4.5 2.9 2.1 1.0 1.1

Source: Authors

Table 11. Status of first ever (left column) and first significant (right column)

employment in Ukraine by education level (%)

PrimaryElementary

Vocational

Secondary

Vocational

Secondary


Official employee 33.9 40.4 53.6 50.0 61.4 70.1 46.1 53.4 76.7 78.9 77.0 80.7

Unofficialemployee

52.7 48.9 35.7 36.4 34.9 27.2 43.1 38.6 21.6 19.7 18.3 15.4

Self-employed 9.8 6.4 7.1 13.6 2.7 2.8 7.8 4.8 0.9 0.9 4.2 3.5

Family businesshelper

3.6 4.3 3.6 0.0 0.7 0.0 2.6 2.1 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.2

Source: Authors

Table 12. Status of first ever and first significant employment by gender in Serbia

and Ukraine (%)

Serbia Ukraine


jobFirst ever job

First significant

job

Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women

Registered job / officialemployee

46.7 51.7 58.5 57.9 63.0 66.9 68.5 73.2

Unregistered job /unofficial employee

38.4 39.6 25.1 33.8 29.9 28.7 25.5 23.9

Self-employed 6.3 2.7 7.1 2.8 5.7 3.0 4.7 2.2

Family business helper 7.2 3.3 8.4 3.0 1.1 1.2 0.9 0.6

Other 1.2 2.7 0.9 2.5 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.2

Source: Authors

There were also important cross-nationaldifferences with regard to the economicsectors in which young school leaverswere employed. Employment inagriculture was much more pronounced inUkraine, but also employment in miningand quarrying, construction, electricity,gas and water supply, construction,transport, storage and communication,public administration and defence,compulsory social security, and finallyeducation. In Serbia, on the other hand,young school leavers were more likely tobe found in hotel and restaurantbusinesses and in other community, socialand personal service activities (Table 14).

Overall, youth employment was morepronounced in traditional industries inUkraine, whereas in Serbia young peopletended to take up employment in services.Whether this distribution by industries isspecific to the youth labour market or is ageneral characteristic of the Serbian orUkrainian labour markets could not bedetermined in the survey (but can possiblybe determined by a comparison with thesituation for older individuals).

Job characteristics

Table 15 describes and compares thecharacteristics of first jobs18 held bySerbian and Ukrainian school leavers.Serbian compared to Ukrainian youngpeople were much more likely to beemployed in the private sector.Furthermore, first ever jobs, compared tofirst significant jobs, were more likely to bein the private sector, and this differencewas greater in Serbia. In addition, weobserved slightly fewer women employedin the private sector in either first ever orfirst significant job in Serbia (gender datanot shown in table), whereas in Ukrainethere were hardly any gender differenceswith regard to employment in the private orpublic sectors.

Ukrainian school leavers were more likelyto be employed in middle-sized or largerfirms. About 50% of Serbian school leaverswere employed in firms employing up to 10people, while 70% were employed inenterprises with up to 50 people. Theequivalent figures for the Ukraine were22% and 50%, respectively.

56


Table 13. Occupational status of first ever and first significant employment in Serbia

and Ukraine (%)

Serbia Ukraine


jobFirst ever job

First significant

job

Legislators, senior officialsand managers

2.5 3.1 3.1 3.9

Professionals 21.2 24.7 16.6 18.4

Technicians andassociated professionals

11.5 11.5 10.6 12.0

Clerks 8.9 9.5 5.4 5.3

Service workers and shopand market sales workers

19.3 18.6 22.3 21.2

Skilled agricultural andfishery workers and craftand related trade workers

16.3 16.4 17.3 18.2

Plant and machineoperators and assemblers

3.6 4.0 7.7 7.7

Elementary occupations 16.6 11.9 15.9 12.4

Armed forces 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.5

Source: Authors

18 Here we refer to both first ever employment and first significant employment, irrespective of whether the jobwas acquired before or after leaving education.

With regard to the average number of hoursworked per week, Serbians tended to workabout one hour more than Ukrainians.Young people with significant employmenttended to work somewhat more hours thanyoung people in their first ever jobs. Therewere very minimal differences in the numberof hours worked by men and women in bothfirst ever and first significant employment inSerbia. This difference was morepronounced in Ukraine, however, wherewomen worked 3-4 hours less on average(results are not shown in the table). Theaverage number of hours worked per weektended to decrease in line with highereducational levels in both countries.

Part-time employment appeared to be morepronounced in Ukraine than in Serbia. Whileabout 9.4% of Serbs were employedpart-time in their first jobs only 5.3% wereemployed part-time in significantemployment. In Ukraine, the trend was quitesimilar, but the rates were somewhat higher,at 12% and 9.5%, respectively. Unlike inwestern industrialised countries, youngfemale school leavers in Serbia wereactually less likely to be employed part-time,and this held true for both first ever and firstsignificant employment. In Ukraine, on theother hand, women were more likely to beemployed part-time in their first jobs. Thegap between men and women was even

57


Table 14. Industrial structure of first ever and first significant employment in Serbia

and Ukraine (%)

Serbia Ukraine


job First ever jobFirst significant

job

Agriculture, hunting andforestry

5.5 4.8 8.0 7.2

Fishing 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3

Mining and quarrying 0.5 0.5 2.2 2.3

Manufacturing 15.5 14.1 14.3 14.9

Electricity, gas and watersupply

1.0 1.3 2.0 2.2

Construction 6.6 5.5 9.5 9.8

Wholesale and retail trade,repair of motor vehicles,motorcycles and personaland household goods

24.4 26.0 22.5 22.2

Hotels and restaurants 11.0 10.1 5.0 5.1

Transport, storage andcommunication

3.4 3.8 5.5 5.7

Financial intermediation 2.2 2.4 2.4 3.0

Real estate, renting andbusiness activities

1.4 1.7 1.5 1.3

Public administration anddefence, compulsorysocial security

3.1 3.7 4.7 4.6

Education 6.8 7.3 8.7 8.0

Health and social work 6.8 7.6 6.8 7.6

Other community, socialand personal serviceactivities

11.5 10.9 5.8 4.9

Private households withemployed persons

0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2

Extra-territorialorganisations and bodies

0.5 0.5

Source: Authors

higher with regard to first significantemployment. The main reason for taking uppart-time employment in both countries wasan inability of young people to find full-timework, with more Serbs compared toUkrainians stating this as the main reasonfor part-time employment; the second mostimportant reason for young Ukrainians intheir first ever job was to be able to combinestudies and work. Finally, family reasonswere also frequently mentioned as reasonsfor working part-time.

Permanent employment appeared to bemore of a reality for young school leavers inUkraine, where 59% were employed

permanently in their first job and about 65%in their first significant job. In Serbia thecorresponding figures were much lower: 42%and 52%, respectively. Some cross-nationaldifferences were noticeable. The mainreason for non-permanent employment wasthe inability to find a permanent job for Serbs.More Ukrainians, on the other hand, reportedtheir willingness to do temporary or seasonalwork or to work without a contract.

Mobility comparisons

In referring to employment mobilitybetween the first and current job amongyoung school leavers in the two countries,

58


Table 15. Characteristics of first ever and first significant employment in Serbia and

Ukraine

Serbia Ukraine


jobFirst ever job

First significant

job

Private sector (%) 71.2 67.6 50.3 49.5

Size of enterprise

1-2 people 13.5 12.6 3.9 3.9

3-5 people 23.5 23.1 8.7 8.9

6-9 people 13.4 12.9 9.6 8.8

10-49 people 21.6 21.3 29.3 28.8

50-199 people 15.1 15.7 17.1 17.1

200-499 people 5.7 7.1 4.9 4.5

500 or more 7.2 7.4 12.2 13.6

Non-supervisory status (%) 88.4 86.0 90.2 90.0

Hours work/week (mean) 43.3 44.3 42.5 43.0

% in part-time job 9.4 5.3 12.0 9.5

Main reasons for part-time employment (%)

No full-time job found 51.7 44.7 36.5 38.3

Combining studies and job 8.0 13.2 20.3 13.3

Professional reasons 9.2 13.2

Personal or family reasons 10.3 13.2 11.2 13.3

Own decision 14.9 7.9 15.7 20.0

Type of contract (%)

Permanent 42.7 51.5 59.4 64.6

Temp. with prospects 6.5 6.6 5.2 4.3

Temp. with no prospects 6.2 6.3 3.9 3.3

Seasonal 1.7 1.1 2.0 1.8

No contract 41.3 32.6 28.8 25.6

Main reasons for atypical contract (%)

No permanent job found 79.6 71.2 68.8 68.2

Own decision 14.5 15.4 18.5 18.5

Source: Authors

we need to examine the effects of genderand education. Overall, Ukrainians seem tobe somewhat less mobile than Serbs,whereas Serbs seem to run a higher risk ofpermanent unemployment than Ukrainians.Women were less mobile than men inSerbia. In Ukraine, gender differenceswere less pronounced. Women, however,tended to have higher rates of permanentunemployment in both countries.Interestingly enough, in Serbia, moremobility was observed among both highlyeducated and the least educated people. Itseems that in Serbia having third-leveleducation provided protection fromunemployment; however, although highlyeducated individuals had a lowerunemployment risk, this was not muchlower than—as an example—the risk forthe least educated. In Ukraine, youngpeople with a university education were theleast mobile, and they also had the lowestrates of permanent unemployment, closelyfollowed by college graduates. The mostmobile young people in Ukraine weresecondary vocational school leavers,primary education leavers and collegegraduates (Table 16).

In their first years in the labour market, asubstantial proportion of young people had

already changed jobs. Whether this jobmobility was a positive or negativeexperience depended on the outcome, thatis, whether and to what extent mobilitytended to improve a young person’soccupational status. A substantial fractionof job changes were associated withimproved occupational status or upwardoccupational mobility19. In both countriesupward occupational mobility was morefrequent than downward mobility, which isconsistent with findings across Europe(see Müller et al. 2002). Evident also werecomparatively high levels of lateralmobility in the two countries—butexceptionally high in Ukraine. With respectto gender differences, only marginaldifferences between men and womenwere found in Ukraine; however,differences were somewhat morepronounced in Serbia. Overall, womenwere more inclined to make lateraloccupational changes and were less likelyto be found among the upwardly mobileindividuals (Table 17).

As for income-related mobility of young schoolleavers between first and current employment,more upward income-related mobility wasobserved in comparison to occupationalmobility, especially among females

59


Table 16. Mobility between first ever and current employment in Serbia and Ukraine (%)

Serbia Ukraine

Non-mobile Mobile Unemployed Non-mobile Mobile Unemployed

Total 32.4 43.4 24.2 43.3 41.2 15.6

Men 30.5 48.6 20.8 47.6 41.1 11.4

Women 38.4 38.4 27.4 39.5 41.2 19.3

Primary 36.2 42.6 21.3 20.9 45.9 33.1

ElementaryVocational

37.8 36.1 26.0 37.8 37.8 24.3

SecondaryVocational

31.9 38.7 29.4 36.4 49.9 13.7

SecondaryGeneral

33.3 29.2 37.5 30.1 41.4 28.6

College 29.7 50.0 20.3 46.6 43.5 9.9

University 28.1 54.2 17.6 55.5 35.8 8.7

Source: Authors

19 Occupational status mobility is derived from a comparison of the International Socio-economic Index (ISEI)scores for first and current occupations among individuals who changed jobs. The ISEI score represents aninternationally comparable measure of occupational status that reflects level of earnings and educationalrequirements.

(Table 18)20. Thus, few people experiencedan income loss by moving between jobs.

Regarding young school leaver mobilitybetween different occupations, largedifferences between the two countries wereobserved. Almost half of the young Ukrainianswere employed in occupations with the sameoccupational titles as in their first jobs. InSerbia, on the other hand, the vast majority ofschool leavers (about 80%) were employed indifferent occupations (Table 19).

Second jobs

Results show that having a second jobparallel to the main activity was morepronounced among school leavers in

Serbia than in Ukraine. While in Serbiaabout 21% of self-employed young people(with employees) had a second job (thehighest proportion among all youngpeople), in the Ukraine the highest rate fora second activity was observed amongpaid family helpers (16.7%). In bothcountries unregistered employees hadsomewhat higher probabilities of beingemployed in a second job (Table 20).

Individuals with secondary general anduniversity education were more likely tohave a second job, both in Serbia andUkraine. Men were more likely to holdsecond jobs in Serbia, while there werehardly any gender differences in this regardin Ukraine.

60


Table 17. Occupational status mobility between first ever and current employment

among job changers in Serbia and Ukraine (%)

Serbia Ukraine

Upward Lateral Downward Upward Lateral Downward

Total 33.9 44.3 21.9 21.5 66.9 11.6

Men 46.5 30.2 23.3 23.5 64.8 11.7

Women 23.6 55.7 20.8 19.1 69.5 11.4

Source: Authors

Table 18. Income-related mobility between first ever and current employment among

job changers in Ukraine (%)

Upward Lateral Downward

Total 44.3 39.6 16.1

Men 44.6 39.1 16.3

Women 43.8 40.2 16.0

Source: Authors

Table 19. Occupational mobility between first ever and current employment among

job changers in Serbia and Ukraine (%)

Serbia Ukraine

Different Job Same Job Related Job Different Job Same Job Related Job

Total 80.8 15.8 3.5 48.2 47.9 3.9

Men 85.0 10.0 5.0 44.2 50.5 5.3

Women 77.1 20.7 2.1 52.2 45.3 2.5

Source: Authors

20 This question could only be answered for Ukrainian school leavers, as income information for first jobs wasonly collected in the Ukrainian survey.

Incomes

Analyses of current school leaverincomes (in 2006 for Serbia and in 2007for Ukraine) indicated lower wagesamong those with unregisteredemployment. Unofficial workerscompared to official workers in Serbiaand Ukraine earned less—around 69.9%and 61%, respectively. Results alsoindicated that women tended to earnmore than men in Serbia, whereas thesituation was the other way around inUkraine (the female income level wasabout 58% of that of men). Furthermore,results show that the ultimate winners in

terms of income in Serbia were universitygraduates, with wage levels far higherthan those of the rest of school leavers.In Ukraine the picture was moreequitable; university graduates certainlyearned more than the rest but incomedifferences were much narrower. Thus,as a percentage of university graduateincomes, primary education leaversearned about 74%, elementary vocationalschool leavers about 81%, secondaryvocational school leavers about 82%, andcollege graduates about 84%. Secondarygeneral school leavers, however, onlyearned about 59% of what universitygraduates earned (Table 21).

61


Table 20. Second job holders by employment status in Serbia and Ukraine (%)

Serbia Ukraine

All employment 6.7 3.4

Registered employment 6.1 3.1

Unregistered employment 8.1 4.1

Self-employed without employees 2.9 2.2

Self-employed with employees 21.1 5.0

Paid family helper 3.9 16.7

Source: Authors

Table 21. Average job-related income for school leavers in Serbia and Ukraine

(national currencies21

rounded up)

Serbia Ukraine

Income 2006 Income 2007 Income first job

Average 21,769 831 554

In registered employment 24,768 1,176 570

In unregistered employment 17,304 724 54

Men 19,952 1,045 650

Women 23,722 601 459

Primary 10,241 695 546

Elementary vocational 15,565 762 358

Secondary vocational 18,806 771 562

Secondary general 21,261 558 553

College 18,503 797 547

University 37,362 945 564

Zero-incomes are excluded

Source: Authors

21 Incomes have been left in the national currencies for a number of reasons. One is the inherent difficulty indetermining an appropriate exchange rate for a whole year, and another reason is that the data refers to twodifferent years. Converting both to euro, for example, would implicitly invite the reader to make a directcomparison between the two countries, and this would present an incorrect picture of the reality. Lastly,converted currencies would have diverted attention away from the main research interest, namely howincome is distributed within each country.

Information on income from the first everemployment was also collected in Ukraine,and so it was possible to compare growthin earnings for different categories ofschool leavers. It was evident that incomedifferences between individualsemployed—for the first time since leavingeducation—in both registered andunregistered jobs were much smaller thanfor employment later in occupationalcareers. People taking up unofficialemployment earn only slightly less thanthose in registered jobs. Similarly, thedifferences between men and women aswell as between graduates from differenteducational levels were also much smaller.

4.5 EDUCATION ANDLABOUR MARKETS: SKILLMISMATCHES

As previously mentioned, educationalattainment plays an important role inexplaining labour market outcomes in bothSerbia and Ukraine. We will now discussthe impact of training after leavingcontinuous education22 on future labourmarket outcomes and analyse the extent ofskill mismatches.

Education and training after leaving

continuous education

In Serbia, around 15% of young peopleparticipated in regular education afterleaving continuous education for the firsttime (defined as being out of education forat least 12 months). The number of peoplereturning to regular education after leavingcontinuous education was higher in Ukrainethan in Serbia, with around a fifth of schoolleavers returning to education in Ukraine.However, in both countries just under half ofthese people were still in education at thetime of the survey (Table 22).

There was a higher propensity to return toeducation in Ukraine. The data is based oncurrent labour market status at the time ofthe survey. On comparing the unemployed

in both countries with either employed orinactive workers, a higher proportion hadreturned to education and left it again.

Returning to education without finishing it isclearly not conducive to labour marketsuccess. The unemployed did not appearto be particularly attracted to the idea ofreturning to education to upgrade theirskills, as indicated by the relatively lownumbers in education at the time of thesurvey. Inactive workers were far morelikely to still be in education, which ofcourse, is partly due to the fact thatstudents are considered inactive bydefinition. All in all, Ukrainians in the labourforce were about twice as likely to return toeducation as Serbs.

Although large numbers of people returnedto education in Serbia, this made nochange to the educational attainment of thegroup as a whole in this period. In fact, onlyone person reported having obtained ahigher qualification since going back toeducation (thereby adding a vocationalqualification to a trade diploma). In Ukrainethe picture was more complex, with 148people stating that they currently had ahigher level of education than on firstleaving education. However, as this wasless than 10% of the Ukrainian sample, wewill not distinguish between educationattained before leaving education for thefirst time and the highest level of educationattained, but simply focus on the highestlevel of education obtained.

Training

As discussed above, very few peopleattended regular education after leavingeducation for the first time, and the sameapplied to other kind of courses orseminars. Although young Ukrainians ofboth genders were more likely to return toregular or formal education than youngSerbs, female Serbs were more likely tohave attended courses or seminars outsideof formal education. Compared to Serbianmen, women in Serbia were also more

62


22 The educational structures in Serbia and Ukraine are not similar enough to justify using the same categories, sowhen discussing the transition from education to work national terms are used. In both countries vocationaleducation is important in secondary education. Traditionally vocational education has been seen as providingstraightforward links to the labour market, with students being prepared for very specific occupations. These linksare being severely tested in recent years, however, and vocational education is the subject of much attention witha view to reform. General education at the secondary level was and is seen as preparation for higher education.

likely to report having trained for reasonsrelated to their present or future job. InUkraine men and women were equallylikely—and for the same reasons—to havetaken up education or training. Training inboth countries was taken predominantly forreasons related to present or futureemployment. However, Serbs compared toUkrainians more often reported havingundertaken training for personal or socialreasons (around 39% and 28%,respectively). It must be noted though thatabout one in three Serbs refused to statethe purpose of their training activity(Table 23)23.

More than half of the employed Serbrespondents who were willing to provide

details had to do their training outside of paidworking hours; this would indicate a lack ofimportance attached to training in Serbia byemployers—also reflected in the higherpercentage of Serbs who undertook trainingwhile unemployed. Training was more likelyto be seen as a private responsibility inSerbia than in Ukraine, where training wasmore likely to take place during work hours.Employed Serb women in particular trainedoutside paid work hours. Although womenwere also more likely than men to undertaketraining activities outside work hours inUkraine, they were far more likely thanSerbian women to do so during paid workhours. Ukrainian men were twice as likely tobe trained during work hours as outside workhours.

63


Table 22. Attendance in regular education after leaving continuous education for the

first time in Serbia and Ukraine (%)

Serbia Ukraine

Employed Unemployed Inactive Employed Unemployed Inactive

Yes + have left education 5.7 8.3 6.5 10.5 12.3 11.6

Yes + still in education 4.4 1.7 25.1 8.7 9.7 22.8

No 89.9 90.0 68.3 80.8 78.0 65.6

Total, % 100 100 100 100 100 100

Total, n 813 468 199 1269 504 224

Source: Authors

Table 23. Education and training after continuous and outside formal education by

gender in Serbia and Ukraine (%)

Serbia Ukraine

Men Women Men Women

Formal/regular education since continuous education

Yes + have left education 5.6 7.7 10.9 11.2

Yes + still in education 5.6 7.1 10.6 10.6

No 88.8 85.2 78.6 78.2

Seminars or courses outside of formal education

Yes + complete 9.7 14.1 12.7 13.2

Yes + incomplete 2.6 4.8 1.9 2.5

No 87.7 81.1 85.4 84.3

Purpose of most recent training

Current/future job-related 59.8 61.6 69.9 69.7

Personal/social reasons 40.2 38.4 27.2 27.9

Other 0.0 0.0 2.9 2.4

Source: Authors

23 These respondents were not included in the distribution of Serbs according to training purposes.

Training took place outside working hoursfor unemployed and inactive workers inSerbia, indicating that the unemployedtook training to upgrade their skills24.In Ukraine a sizeable number ofunemployed and inactive workers didhave a job when they were last trained,although the training clearly did not helpthem retain their employment. The mostinteresting feature of how occupationalstatus influenced training in both countrieswas uncovered on examining thedifferences between employees having aformal status and those employedunofficially. The latter category wascharacterised by a large minority who hadreceived training before becomingemployed (42%-46%); moreover, whenthey received training whilst employed thislargely took place outside working hours(Tables 24 to 26).

Only 15%-20% of all unofficially employedworkers received training primarily duringworking hours. Almost half of officialemployees in Ukraine undertook trainingmostly during paid working hours.However; only a quarter of officiallyemployed workers in Serbia were able toattend training during paid working hours.

Training activities mostly took place intraining centres, but more so in Serbia thanin Ukraine. Far more training took place inthe workplace and in a school or formalsetting in Ukraine, especially for officialemployees. Distance learning was rarelyused in Serbia (2%-6%, depending onoccupational status) but seems to havegained a foothold in Ukraine, where almostone in ten used this approach for their lasttraining course (7%-10%). This may partlybe explained by the vast geographicalspread of Ukraine, which makes it difficultto provide a wide choice of educationaloptions in every part of the country (Tables27 and 28).

The result of training activities wasprimarily that employed participants weregiven more responsibilities. Increases insalaries were less common, althoughincreased responsibilities in the long termmay lead to salary increases.

Skill mismatches

The issue of whether students found jobsthat fitted with their educationalbackground was assessed based on asubjective question25. Respondents wereasked what minimum educational leveltheir employer would require of a personoccupying their job. This level was thencompared to the educational level of therespondent. The risk with such a subjectivequestion is that respondents may notcoincide with their employer in theirassessment of the necessary educationallevel. It is also quite possible that arespondent might consider the minimumeducation required by their employer asinsufficient to conduct the job correctly andthat the respondent does not consider theirown level of education as a mismatch.Nonetheless, we will be using a narrowdefinition of the term ‘over-qualification’. Aperson characterised here as overqualifiedmay function well in their job, with theemployer taking full advantage of all theirskills26. The term here only means that therespondents have indicated that theiremployer might be satisfied with a lesseducated person in their job. It is quitepossible that employers use the additionalskills of their employees for other tasks.

Fields of study will also be examined todetermine if a more precise mismatch ofskills and needs can be determined. Thus,the fields of study of the respondents will becompared to the fields of educationdemanded by the employer. Note that, onceagain, there is an element of subjectivitypresent. Each country will be examined inturn, first Serbia and then Ukraine.

64


24 Please note that the training could have taken place during working hours if the respondent had worked priorto being unemployed or inactive.

25 Another method classifies occupations in groups that are then matched with fields of study. This method aimsat being more objective in its assessment. A job mismatch is defined as a discrepancy between the currentoccupation and the original field of education. The danger with this method lies in how occupations aregrouped and in how groups are matched with fields of study. The present report only examines perceivedmismatches based on the subjective question. The second method for determining mismatches may be dealtwith in a future ETF study.

26 Indeed, a study in the Netherlands showed only a rather weak relationship between educational mismatchesand skill mismatches (Allen & Van der Velden (2001) cited in Allen & de Weert (2007); What do educational

mismatches tell us about skill mismatches, European Journal of Education, Vol. 42, No.1, March 2007).

65


Table 24. Training during working hours by gender in Serbia and Ukraine (%)

Did you have a job during your

most recent training activity?

Serbia Ukraine

Men Women Men Women

No 51.1 43.9 38.0 41.1

Yes. Training took place only duringpaid work hours

12.0 7.1 28.5 17.8

Yes. Training took place mostlyduring paid work hours

5.4 5.8 12.4 9.8

Yes. Training took place mostlyoutside paid work hours

9.8 9.0 10.9 16.0

Yes. Training took place only outsidepaid work hours

21.7 34.2 10.2 15.3

Source: Authors

Table 25. Training during working hours by occupational status in Serbia (%)



Serbia

Registered

Employee

Unregistered

EmployeeUnemployed Inactive

No 17.3 45.5 94.8 79.3


15.0 6.1 0.0 3.4


9.4 6.1 0.0 0.0


15.0 3.0 1.7 6.9


43.3 39.4 3.4 10.3

Source: Authors

Table 26. Training during working hours by occupational status in Ukraine (%)



Ukraine

Official

Employee

Unofficial


No 20.1 41.7 86.4 58.1


30.5 13.9 6.8 19.4


16.1 5.6 1.7 6.5


14.4 27.8 3.4 12.9


19.0 11.1 1.7 3.2

Source: Authors

Serbia

Most respondents felt that they were in ajob that required a lower level of educationthan they actually had, which is to say,most respondents in Serbia feeloverqualified for their present job. Note thatwe rated secondary vocational educationas representing a higher level of educationthan secondary trade education. However,even allowing for the possibility that the twolevels of education are similar, it is clearthat there were a lot of jobs in Serbia heldby people who considered themselves tobe overqualified for the post.

Table 29 below (and similarly presentedtables) should be read diagonally. For eachcolumn 1-6 the percentage of peopleholding the precise level of educationneeded for the job is highlighted in bold.Percentages to the left indicate

overqualified respondents, andpercentages to the right indicateunderqualified respondents. Referring byway of an example, to secondaryvocational education leavers (3 in the table),of the 354 people employed with this levelof education, 53.7% worked in a job forwhich they felt that their employer wassatisfied with their exact level of education.Only 1.7% believed that their employer waslooking for a higher level of education—auniversity or doctoral degree (0.6%) orgeneral secondary education (1.1%). Therest (44.6%) believed their employer wouldhave been satisfied with a lower level ofeducation. Thus, this proportion of workerscan be considered to be overqualified inthe narrow sense defined above.

Looking first at the group of people with afirst (non-significant) job after leavingeducation, almost irrespective of

66


Table 27. Training activities by occupational status in Serbia (%)

In which framework did the

education / training take place?

Serbia

Registered

Employee

Unregistered


School / formal education (full-time orpart-time)

14.6 8.6 17.9 39.3

At the workplace (with no additionaltraining in a school)

8.5 8.6 0.0 7.1

Combined system: workplace +additional training (alternate)

13.8 2.9 5.4 3.6

Training centre (private or public butnot school)

59.2 74.3 75.0 46.4

Distance learning (corresp. course) 3.8 5.7 1.8 3.6

Source: Authors

Table 28. Training activities by occupational status in Ukraine (%)

In which framework did the

education / training take place?

Ukraine

Official

Employee

Unofficial


School / formal education (full-time orpart-time)

26.0 25.0 31.6 41.9

At the workplace (with no additionaltraining in a school)

26.6 11.1 7.0 12.9

Combined system: workplace +additional training (alternate)

9.8 8.3 1.8 3.2

Training centre (private or public butnot school)

30.1 47.2 52.6 32.3

Distance learning (corresp. course) 7.5 8.3 7.0 9.7

Source: Authors

educational background the respondentsworked in positions for which they wereoverqualified. Very few people were in jobsfor which they believed their employerwould demand a level of education at leastas high as the level they held themselves.University graduates were better matched,with almost four out of five holding jobswhere at least a university degree wasexpected, and likewise for people withprimary education or less (although thelatter, by definition, cannot be overqualifiedas there is no lower level of education).Two thirds of secondary trade graduateswere in positions requiring that level ofeducation, and more than half of secondaryvocational education graduates were injobs matching their background.

The group that really stood out consistedof people who had finished generalsecondary, as only around one in fourwas in a job matching their educationalbackground and almost 69% were in jobsfor which the employer would have beensatisfied with a lower level of education.This is the same group that had thegreatest difficulties getting into the labourmarket in general. Only 60.6% ofgraduates from secondary generaleducation held jobs on being surveyed,compared to 67.4%-78.9% for the othergroups. This is a relatively small group of

people and probably consists of peoplewho had intended to continue in highereducation, but who, for some reason, hadnot finished a higher level of education.This would explain the poor results forthis group. This theory is furthersupported by the finding that very fewpeople having higher levels of educationthan general secondary worked in jobsdemanding that level, whereassubstantial numbers of college oruniversity graduates worked in jobsintended for secondary vocational orlower level graduates.

Post-secondary or college graduates werealso more likely to work in jobs requiring alower level of education, with just 40%appearing to be well matched.

The picture changes on examining thegroup with a first significant job afterleaving education. Apart from the groups ofpeople with primary education or less andwith general secondary education, therewas, in general, a better fit betweenjob-holder levels of education and theeducation required by employers. Inparticular, secondary trade graduatesimproved their match by more than sevenpercentage points. Nonetheless, thenumber of people who obtained asignificant job immediately after leaving

67


Table 29. First job after leaving education in Serbia: minimum level of education

required by employer (%)

Highest

diploma

obtained

Share

with

job

1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Number

1. Primary or less 67.4 92.7 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 55

2. Secondarytrade

72.2 28.7 67.6 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 275

3. Secondaryvocational

70.8 16.9 27.7 53.7 1.1 0.0 0.6 100 354

4. Generalsecondary

60.6 18.0 29.5 21.3 26.2 0.0 4.9 100 61

5. Post-secondary /college

73.4 5.7 17.1 34.3 1.9 40.0 1.0 100 105

6. University /doctorate

78.9 1.0 1.9 10.1 1.9 6.3 78.8 100 208

Total 19.8 31.0 25.5 2.5 5.2 16.1 100 1058

The numbered headings correspond to the groupings listed in the column on the extreme left.

Source: Authors

education was substantially lower for alllevels of education (Table 30).

Having a university education made iteasier to get a significant job. Almost thesame proportion of university graduatesheld a significant job as held any kind ofjob after leaving education. For all otherlevels of education the proportion that helda significant job was substantially lowerthan the proportion that held any kind ofjob. In other words, it was easiest foruniversity graduates to acquire significantjobs.

College graduates were also likely toobtain significant jobs, but they wereunable to get jobs at their level ofeducation. A third of all college graduateswith a significant job were employed injobs for which the employer demandedno more than vocational secondaryeducation, and a further 17% were in jobsfor which only secondary trade educationwas required.

People with no more than a primaryeducation were less likely to have asignificant job. They are effectively beingsqueezed out of the labour market byoverqualified graduates who are willing towork in jobs for which a lower level ofeducation is sufficient.

Due to the small sample size, trends forrespondents who had a first significant jobbefore leaving education could not becharacterised as significant. Overallhowever, it appears that the skills mismatchwas even greater for this group. Such aresult indicates that employers recruit on thebasis of employee qualifications at the timeof recruitment and not on the basis of theirpotential. This is hardly surprising as manyjobs require certificates. Taking a significantjob before leaving education could thereforelead to a situation in Serbia in which aperson would be overqualified (Table 31).

Education level is not, however, the onlymanner in which a possible mismatch canbe assessed. It is also possible to assessto what extent the educational level of therespondents had any bearing on whetheror not the employer was satisfied that theemployees had studied the right field ofeducation (Table 32).

Respondents were questioned as to whatfield of education their employerdemanded. The responses indicated thatthe higher the level of education thebetter the match between the studiedfield of education and the field demandedby the employer. Strictly speaking, it ispointless to talk of fields of study foreducation below college level.

68


Table 30. First significant job after leaving education in Serbia: minimum level of

education required by employer (%)

Highest

diploma

obtained

Share

with

job


1. Primary or less 47.8 89.5 10.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 38

2. Secondarytrade

53.5 22.1 75.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 204


57.7 10.0 28.6 59.7 1.0 0.0 0.7 100 290

4. Generalsecondary

49.0 16.0 24.0 32.0 22.0 0.0 6.0 100 50

5. Postsecondary /college

62.2 4.5 16.9 32.6 2.2 43.8 0.0 100 89


70.6 1.1 1.6 9.6 2.1 5.3 80.3 100 188

Total 14.2 31.4 28.2 2.3 5.7 18.2 100 859

The numbered headings correspond to the groupings listed in the column on the extreme left

Source: Authors

Nonetheless, the answers indicated thatthe respondents were aware that theiremployers were less critical with regardto specialisations. For jobs demandinghigher levels of skills employers weremore explicit in their demands. Althoughalmost two thirds of university graduateswere employed in jobs corresponding totheir exact field of study, this was thecase for only little more than a third ofcollege graduates. College graduateswere less able to find jobs matching theirqualifications.

The sample of respondents having asignificant job before leaving educationwas too small for meaningful analysis,although the tendency appeared to be the

same as for respondents getting jobs afterleaving education.

Ukraine

Since the educational structure of Ukraine isnot the same as that of Serbia, the resultsfor the two countries will not be directlycomparable. We do, however, expect to seesimilar results in terms of higher levels ofeducation leading to a better match with thejob held, and in terms of a better fit betweenfields of education demanded by theemployer and university graduates.

Table 33 (and similarly presented tables)should be read diagonally (see explanationfor Table 29). In Ukraine compared to

69


Table 31. First significant job before leaving education in Serbia: minimum level of


Highest

diploma

obtained

Share

with

job


1. Primary or less 6.5 50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 4

2. Secondarytrade

5.1 42.1 57.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 19


5.1 19.2 19.2 61.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 26

4. Generalsecondary

7.7 12.5 12.5 25.0 37.5 0.0 12.5 100 8

5. Postsecondary /college

16.1 21.7 17.4 52.2 8.7 0.0 0.0 100 23


16.2 4.7 9.3 27.9 4.7 9.3 44.2 100 43

Total 18.7 22.0 34.1 5.7 3.3 16.3 100 123


Source: Authors

Table 32. First job after leaving education in Serbia: field of study required by

employer (%)

Highest

diploma

obtained

Own

educ.

field

Own or

related

educ. field

Different

educ.

field

No

specific

educ. field

Refusal to

respondN %

Postsecondary /college

36.2 28.6 12.4 22.9 0.0 105 100

University /doctorate

63.2 22.2 5.2 8.5 0.9 212 100

Total, n 326 205 120 426 9 1086

Source: Authors

Serbia, college graduates had a better fitwith their jobs, whereas university graduateswere more likely to be overqualified (41%compared to 49%). General secondaryeducation graduates also had a better fitthan anticipated. Overall, however, theimpression is that of a society where aroundhalf the employees holding significant jobswere overqualified for their jobs.

There were relatively few poorly educatedrespondents so we cannot with certaintyconclude anything with regard to lessereducated people being less likely to have asignificant job. The shares of schoolleavers holding a significant job werehigher than those for Serbia; thus, it waseasier to get a significant job in Ukraine,although at the price of being overqualified.The better educated appeared to push theless educated into more precarious jobs bybeing willing themselves to accept jobs forwhich they were overqualified.

Surprisingly, on examining first significantjobs compared to first jobs, the fit was betterfor university students in Ukraine. Taking thebroader definition, the percentages of peoplein jobs for which educational qualificationsmatched employer expectations dropped forthe highest levels of education. More peoplewere overqualified when it came to any firstjob, which would imply strong competition inthe Ukraine labour market, with the bettereducated young people forced to accept jobs

for which they were theoreticallyoverqualified. The high percentage ofmismatches for significant jobs would implythat employers were keen to exploit thepossibility of getting better qualified staff forless demanding positions (Tables 33 and 34).

The vast majority of people in Ukrainewho obtained a significant job beforeleaving education continued theireducation and ended up having auniversity degree. This is markedlydifferent from what was observed inSerbia. In fact, there were so fewrepresentatives in any other category thatit was only possible to draw conclusionsabout university graduates. Just a third ofthese graduates were in positionscommensurate with their final educationallevel, which would imply that they werehired on the basis of their existingqualifications; for many individuals thepost did not change once they hadfinished university education. This couldimply that the labour market in Ukraine ismore static than the labour market inSerbia (Table 35).

Gender did not appear to have much effecton the relevance of the field of study,although some effect was noted in Serbia,where women more often held educationallevels relevant to their jobs. In bothcountries, however, rural/urban status andregistered/unregistered status had a

70


Table 33. First significant job after leaving education in Ukraine: minimum level of


Highest

diploma

obtained

Share

with

job


1. Primary or less 43.9 97.8 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 100 45

2. Elementaryvocational

60.0 52.9 29.4 11.8 5.9 0.0 0.0 100 17


74.0 35 .9 3.7 51.9 7.8 0.4 0.4 100 270

4. Generalsecondary

59.7 55.2 1.0 1.0 41.2 1.0 0.5 100 194

5. Technicalcollege

84.3 22.5 0.8 8.1 8.9 58.9 0.8 100 236

6. University 86.2 18.1 1.9 5.9 7.8 15.4 51.0 100 592

Total 30.8 2.2 14.6 12.6 17.2 22.6 100 1354


Source: Authors

significant impact on the relevance of afield of study. Or rather, rural/urban statushad an impact on how possible it was tomatch field of study and a job, given thatthere was a smaller choice of jobs in ruralareas. The apparent link betweenregistered/unregistered status and therelevance of the field of study was mostlikely a product of employers being morewilling to overlook field of study if anemployee was not registered (unregisteredworkers were more likely to have studied afield of education deemed irrelevant by

their employer). If an employee fails todeliver it is relatively easy to replace theperson with someone else. Employershave greater difficulties firing registeredemployees, however, which is probablywhy they make a greater effort to ensurecompatibility before taking on a newemployee. One aspect of compatibility isthe field of study, and, all other things beingequal, having studied the required field ofstudy should be a greater guarantee ofcompatibility with a job’s requirements.

71


Table 34. First job after leaving education in Ukraine: minimum level of education

required by employer (%)

Highest

diploma

obtained

Share

with

job


1. Primary or less 57.0 96.7 1.7 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 100 60


76.7 54.5 36.4 4.5 4.5 0.0 0.0 100 22


85.8 39.6 3.8 49.1 7.3 0.0 0.3 100 316

4. Generalsecondary

71.8 58 .6 0.8 0.8 38.4 0.8 0.4 100 237

5. Technicalcollege

89.9 23.7 0.8 8.3 9.5 56.9 0.8 100 253

6. University 90.9 20.6 1.6 5.9 8.1 15.3 48.6 100 632

Total 34.5 2.3 14.2 12.6 16.0 20.5 100 1520


Source: Authors

Table 35. Significant job before leaving education in Ukraine: minimum level of


Highest

diploma

obtained

Share

with

job


1. Primary or less 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0


3.3 0.0 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 1


6.3 58.3 8.3 16.7 16.7 0.0 0.0 100 12

4. Generalsecondary

4.2 55.6 0.0 0.0 22.2 0.0 22.2 100 9

5. Technicalcollege

10.4 20.0 0.0 10.0 35.0 30.0 5.0 100 20

6. University 30.6 10.8 2.3 8.9 16.4 27.7 33.8 100 213

Total 15.3 2.7 9.0 18.0 25.5 29.4 100 255


Source: Authors

4.6 ANALYSIS OF CURRENTLABOUR MARKETS

Comparison of career patterns was notan easy task due to the various periodsof time elapsed since individuals lefteducation. A clearer pattern emerges ifthe studied group included only thoseschool leavers who were longer out ofeducation. We decided to focus,therefore, on school leavers who had lefteducation at least 51 months before thesurvey. Given the different survey datesin Ukraine, a more meaningful cut-offpoint appeared to be 58 months.Although we were left with a smallersample of school leavers, a comparisonof people with longer experience in thelabour market was certainly moremeaningful.

The sequence analyses were conductedseparately for both countries27, but due tosimilarities in the cluster solutions it waspossible to compare some statusesacross countries (Tables 36 to 38).

Figures 6 and 7 plot labour market careersequences according to clustermembership for young school leavers inSerbia and Ukraine, respectively. The

employment careers for differentindividuals in the sample are plotted aslines and the different colours refer todifferent statuses. The career since leavingschool is measured in months along theX-axis (minimum 51 months) and theY-axis depict the number of relevantrespondents in both cases.

Looking at the overall career entrypatterns in the two countries, thepredominance of unemployment wasevident in Serbia, whose graph wasdominated by orange (unemployment),although blue (registered employment)also featured prominently. About 29% ofschool leavers in Serbia wereunemployed, compared to only 4.69% inUkraine. The Serbian labour market wasalso characterised by a cluster ofunemployment and transition tounregistered employment (5.45%), whichwas not the case for Ukraine.

In Ukraine, meanwhile, the cluster ofyouth out of the labour markets (homeworkers, individuals onmaternity/paternity leave, and thosedoing military or national service orunable to work due to disability) wasquite pronounced (14.24%); the

72


Table 36. Summarised cluster solutions for career sequences (minimum 51 months

duration) in Serbia and Ukraine (%)

Ukraine Serbia

Registered employment predominantly 32.16 25.45

Unemployment, unregistered employment, other statuses �registered employment

12.06 8.86

Registered employment � other statuses (mostly employment exit) 9.05

Registered employment � other statuses (mostly unemployment) 5.91

Self-employment 3.02 5.45

Unemployment 4.69 28.86

Unemployment � unregistered employment 5.45

Unregistered employment 8.21 13.86

Return to education 8.04 3.41

Out of labour market 14.24 2.73

Out of labour market � registered employment 8.54

A nine-cluster solution has been selected for both Serbia and Ukraine

Source: Authors

27 Sequence analyses were conducted using Stata Version 9.2. The matrix resulting from a pairwise comparisonof all sequences was subjected to a cluster analysis and then plotted in the index plots presented here.

comparable cluster in Serbia was muchsmaller (2.73%). In Ukraine, furthermore,young people tended to exit the labourmarket from other statuses more oftenthan in Serbia. Indeed, in Serbia therewas no cluster for people exiting thelabour market after some employmentexperience, unlike in Ukraine (9.05%).

Furthermore, it seems thatself-employment and working in the family

business were more pronounced in Serbiathan Ukraine (5.45% compared to 3.02%,respectively). Periods of unemploymentbefore entry to regular employmentseemed to be shorter in Ukraine, wheremore people overall found themselves inregular employment than was the case inSerbia. More people in Serbiaexperienced job instability (whetherunemployment or unregisteredemployment) before taking up registered

73


Table 37. Cluster membership by basic socio-demographic characteristics in Serbia

(%)

Gender Locality Education

N Cluster Description Men Women Urban Rural Sec.voc. University

1Registered employmentpredominantly

28.3 22.4 29.6 20.2 16.8 54.3

2Registered employment �other statuses (mostlyunemployment)

4.4 7.5 8.1 3.1 5.1 6.4

3 Return to education 3.1 3.7 3.2 3.6 2.2 11.7

4 Various statuses � registeredemployment

9.3 8.4 9.3 8.3 11.0 6.4

5 Out of labour market 0.9 4.7 1.2 4.7 2.9 0.0

6 Self-employment 7.5 3.3 4.9 6.2 5.1 3.2

7 Unemployment 28.8 29.0 25.1 33.7 36.5 7.5

8 Unemployment �unregistered employment

6.6 4.2 4.5 6.7 5.8 1.1

9 Unregistered employment 11.1 16.8 14.2 13.5 14.6 9.6

Source: Authors

Table 38. Cluster membership by basic socio-demographic characteristics in Ukraine (%)

Gender Locality Education

N Cluster Description Men Women Urban Rural Sec.voc. University

1Registered employmentpredominantly

40.78 25.73 36.63 19.08 21.21 51.16

2 Various statuses � registeredemployment

16.08 9.06 11.69 13.16 17.17 6.98

3Registered employment �other statuses (mostlyemployment exit)

3.92 12.87 8.54 10.53 9.09 10.23

4 Self-employment 5.88 0.88 3.82 0.66 1.01 3.26

5 Unemployment 5.49 4.09 2.47 11.18 7.07 1.86

6 Unregistered employment 9.80 7.02 7.19 11.18 14.14 5.58

7 Return to education 10.59 6.14 9.44 3.95 1.01 2.79

8 Out of labour market 1.96 23.39 12.58 19.08 21.21 11.63

9 Out of labour market �registered employment

5.49 10.82 7.64 11.18 8.08 6.51

Source: Authors

jobs. Furthermore, the proportion of Serbswho were predominantly employed inunregistered jobs was much higher thanfor Ukrainians (13.86% compared to8.04%, respectively).

There was a pronounced difference in theproportion of young people returning toeducation or training in the two countries,with more people in Ukraine (8.04%)tending to continue education after ashort period in the labour market,compared to 3.41% doing so in Serbia.

4.7 CONCLUSIONS

Using unique datasets for school leaversin Serbia and Ukraine, we discussed themain features of school-to-worktransition in a dynamic way. The surveydata provided us with detailedinformation on the first five years ofschool-to-work transition for two largesets of school leavers. Information wasavailable for first ever jobs after leavingeducation, for first significant jobs(lasting at least six months and for a

74


Figure 6. Career sequences for Serbian school leavers (minimum 51 months out of

school)

Source: Authors

Figure 7. Career sequences for Ukrainian school leavers (minimum 51 months out of

school)

Source: Authors

1 Registered employed

2 Unregistered employed

3 Self-employed andfamily helpers

4 Unemployed

5 Education or training

6 Out of labour market

1 Registered employed

2 Unregistered employed

3 Self-employed andfamily helpers

4 Unemployed

5 Education or training

6 Out of labour market

7 Unemployed, discouraged

minimum of 20 hours a week), and forcurrent employment at the time of thesurvey (up to five years after leavingeducation).

The transition process occurred relativelyquickly in Ukraine and was much moregradual in Serbia. Three fifths of Ukrainianschool leavers had a significant job sixmonths after leaving education, comparedto only one third of Serbian school leavers.However, significant differences were alsoobserved between the two countries interms of the quality of jobs and the use ofskills acquired at school. In Serbia, youngpeople remained unemployed longer ortook up different kinds of informal jobs. InUkraine, on the other hand, many youngpeople were employed in the formal sector,but often in jobs with low wages and a lowqualification level (regardless of theeducational attainment of the individual).

In Ukraine, many women left the labourmarket soon after graduation. Otherdifferences between women and men were

observed in both countries. Men found anykind of job more quickly than women inboth Serbia and Ukraine, although thisdifference was smaller for first significantjobs. Men were also more likely to beinformally employed or self-employed andworked more often in the private sector.

Education played a major role in obtaininga job sooner after leaving education. Themajor findings were strikingly similar in thetwo countries. Post-secondary educationgraduates (including university graduates)did fairly well in both countries, followed bygraduates from secondary vocationalschools. Particularly noteworthy was thefact that graduates from secondary generaleducation performed very poorly incomparison with other educationalcategories in both countries. Thesedifferences also related to the quality of thejob, with less graduates frompost-secondary education workinginformally and in jobs where they were notusing their qualifications.

75


REFERENCES

Allen and de Weert, ‘What do educational mismatches tell us about skill mismatches’,European Journal of Education, Vol. 42, No.1, March 2007

Allmendinger, J., ‘Education Systems and Labor Market Outcomes’, European Sociological

Review, Vol. 5, No. 3, 1989

Arliaud, M. and Eckert, H. (eds), Quand les jeunes entrent dans l’emploi, La Dispute, Paris,2002

Babbie, E., Practice of social research, 9th ed., Wadsworth Thomson Learning, Belmont CA,2001

Benner, C., ‘Labour flexibility and regional development: the role of labour marketintermediaries’, Regional Studies, Vol.37, 2003, pp.621-633

Blossfeld, H-P., Klijzing, E., Mills, M. and Kurz, K. (eds), Globalization, Uncertainty and

Youth in Society, Routledge, London, 2005

Bradley, H. and van Hoof, J. (eds), Young People in Europe. Labour markets and

citizenship, Policy Press, Bristol, 2005

Crouch, C., Finegold, D. and Sako, M. Are Skills the Answer? The Political Economy of

Skill Creation in Advanced Industrial Countries, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1999

Czaja, R., and Blair, J., Designing Surveys: A Guide to decisions and procedures, 2nd ed.,Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks CA, 2005

Detzel, P. and Rubery, J., ‘Employment systems and transitional labour markets: acomparison of youth labour markets in Germany, France and the UK’, Schmid G. andGazier B. (ed.), The Dynamics of Full Employment. Social Integration Through

Transitional Labour Markets, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2004, pp.106-148

Doeringer, P. B., and Piore, M. J., Internal Labor Markets and Manpower Analysis,Lexington Heath, Mass D.C., 1971

Fields, G., ‘A guide to multi-sector labour market models’, Social Protection Discussion

Paper Series No. 0505, April 2005, World Bank, 2005

Gerber, T.P., ‘Loosening Links? School-to-Work Transitions and Institutional Change inRussia since 1970’, in Social Forces, Vol.82, No.1, 2003, pp.241-276

Hannan, D.F., Raffe, D., and Smyth, E., Cross-National Research on School to Work

Transitions: An Analytical Framework, paper commissioned by the OECD Secretariat toprovide background for the Transition Thematic Review, 1996

77

Hannan, D., Smyth, E., McCoy, S., et al., A Comparative Analysis of Transitions from

Education to Work in Europe (CATEWE): A Conceptual Framework/Demographic and

Economic Changes (Vol. 1), (ESRI Working Paper No.118), ESRI, Dublin, 1999

Heinz, W.R. (ed.), From Education to Work. Cross-National Perspectives, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, 1999

Iannelli, C., Evaluation and Analyses of the LFS 2000 AD Hoc Module Data on

Schhol-To-Work Tranitions. Report on data quality and cross-country comparability,Eurostat Working Papers / Nr. 22, European Commission, Luxembourg 2002

ILO, Global Employment Trends for Youth report, ILO, Geneva, 2004a

ILO, Economic security for a better world. ILO Socioeconomic Security Program,International Labour Office, Geneva, 2004b

Jutting, J., Parlevliet, J., and Xenogiani, T., Work and wellbeing: opportunities and risks ininformal labour markets, OECD Development Centre, paper prepared for the IZA/WorldBank Conference on Employment and Development, 8-9 June 2007, Bonn, 2007

Kolev, A. and Saget, C., ‘Understanding youth labour market disadvantage: Evidence fromsoutheast Europe’, International Labour Review, Vol.144 No.2, 2005, pp.161-187

Maloney, W., ‘Informality revisited’, World Development, Vol 32:7, 2004, pp.159-78

Maurice, M., Sellier, F. and Silvestre, J.J., ‘Politique d’éducation et organisation industrielleen France et en Allemagne’, Essai d’analyse sociétale, Presse Universitaire de France,Paris, 1982

Marsden D. and Ryan P., ‘Institutional aspects of youth employment and training policy inBritain’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol 28, no 3, 1990

Marsden D., Eyraud F. and Silvestre J.J., ‘Occupational and internal labour markets inBritain and France’, International Labour Review, Vol 129 no 4, 1990

Marsden D. and Germe J-F., ‘The dynamics of youth labour markets in Britain and France’,in Ryan P., Edwards R., and Garonna P. (eds) The problem of youth, Macmillan,London, 1991

Müller, W., Gangl M., and Scherer S., “Übergangsstrukturen zwischen Bildung undBeschäftigung.” in Bildung und Beruf. Ausbildung und berufsstruktureller Wandel in der

Wissensgesellschaft, edited by Wingens M. and Sackmann R., Juventa Verlag,Weinheim / München, 2002

Müller, W. and Gangl, M. (eds), Transitions from Education to Work in Europe. The

Integration of Youth into EU Labour Markets, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003

Müller, W. and Shavit, Y. (eds.), From education to work: A Comparative Study of

Educational Qualifications and Occupational Destinations, Clarendon Press, Oxford,1998

Pailhe, A., Labour Market Segmentation in Central Europe during the First Years ofTransition, in: Labour, Vol.17, No.1, 2003, pp.127-153

Peck, J., Work-place: The Social Regulation of Labor Markets, Guilford Press, New York,1996

78


Raffe, D., Conclusion: Where are Pathways Going? Conceptual and methodologicallessons from the pathway study, in OECD (ed.), Pathways and Participation in

Vocational and Technical Education and Training, OECD, Paris, 1998, pp.375-394

Raffe, D., Coming to terms with the longitudinal: cross-national comparisons ofeducation-work transitions, in Les données longitudinales dans l’analyse du marché du

travail, 10e Journées d’Etudes Céreq, Caen, 21-23 May 2003a, pp.27-37

Raffe, D., Pathways Linking Education and Work: A Review of Concepts, Research andPolicy Debates, in Journal of Youth Studies, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2003b, pp.4-19

Roberts, K., The New East European Model of Education, Training and YouthEmployment, in Journal of Education and Work, Vol.14, No.3, 2001, pp.315-328

Ryan, P., The School-to-Work Transition: Issues for Further Investigation, Paper preparedfor the Education and Training Division, DEELSA, OECD, Paris, 1999

Ryan, P., The school-to-work transition: problems and indicators, in: A.-N. Perret-Clermont,C. Pontecorvo, L. Resnick, T. Zittoun, B. Burge (eds.), Youth, Learning and Society,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004

Ryan, P. and Büchtemann, C.F., The School-to-Work Transition, in: G. Schmid, J. O’Reilly,K. Schömann (eds.), International Handbook of Labour Market Policy and Evaluation,Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 1996, pp.308-347

Shavit, Y. and Müller W., From School to Work. A Comparative Study of Educational

Qualifications and Occupational Destinations, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998

Titma, M., Education as a Factor in Intergenerational Mobility in Soviet Society, inEuropean Sociological Review, Vol.19, No. 3, 2003, pp.281-297

Turbin, J., Policy borrowing: lessons from European attempts to transfer training practices,in International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp.96-111, 2001

Yammarino F.J., Skinner S.J., and Childers T.L., Understanding mail survey responsebehaviour: A meta-analysis, Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 55, 1991

79

REFERENCES

EUROPEAN TRAINING FOUNDATION

TRANSITION FROM EDUCATION TO WORK IN EUNEIGHBOURING COUNTRIES

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of theEuropean Communities

2008 – 82 pp. – 21.0 x 29.7 cm

ISBN: 978-92-9157-552-7

SALES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS

Publications for sale produced by the Office for Official Publications of the EuropeanCommunities are available from our sales agents throughout the world.

You can find the list of sales agents on the Publications Office website(http://publications.europa.eu) or you can apply for it by fax (352) 29 29-42758.

Contact the sales agent of your choice and place your order.

TA

-30-0

8-3

59-E

N-C

Publications Office

Publications.europa.eu

Copyrightphoto

:IT

CIL

O/M

.M

onte

sano

transition from education to - europa

Documents