During the 1970s, there was considerable optimism among policymakers, donors and researchers about the potential impact of vocational training on productivity and incomes for the poor. In particular, the 'discovery' of the informal sector resulted in a wave of recommendations and interventions to support mainly non-regulated micro and small enterprises (MSE). While this optimism had largely dissipated by the mid-late 1980s, there are still those who see the role of training for the informal sector as relatively unproblematic. For example, a recent study by the OECD confidently concludes that "All persons, whether small or micro enterprises, must be helped to acquire minimal training in the trade concerned and in elementary management. Even if an artisan knows his trade, he is often handicapped by ignorance of the simplest management techniques. Knowledge of these techniques can transform a worker into a head of a micro-enterprise. Very short training sessions (a few days) adapted to the sector can be devised. The state could often entrust this task to NGOs" (Morrison, 1995:28). Clearly, however, this begs the question, 'if training is so easy to deliver and the potential pay-offs are so great, why hasn't this happened throughout the developing world'?
Most of the leading experts on vocational training in developing countries are in broad agreement that formal training has had little impact in overcoming economic vulnerability among the poor, and that, as a result of 'unintended consequences', the overall impact of some interventions may even be negative. In their recent book on training for self-employment, Grierson and McKenzie state that "most training systems offer only limited support to those seeking work or self employment. Indeed it is commonly accepted that the inability of vocational training systems to serve labour markets is a problem of crisis proportions...It has yet to be demonstrated that vocational training institutions can re-orient themselves to the specialised field of enterprise development" (Grierson and McKenzie, 1996: 15). Most other leading commentators have reached similar conclusions (see Box 1).
It is important to emphasise that this lack of impact is not just confined to the developing world. For example, in his submission to the G7 Employment Conference, the Director-General of the ILO noted that "the economic and social returns to standardised labour market training measures for vulnerable groups is low" (ILO, 1997:4). Similar conclusions have been reached by numerous other reviews of the role of special training programmes in reducing poverty in the advanced industrial economies (see, for example, Lalonde, 1996).
EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING PAPERS 43 Learning to change: Skills development among the economically vulnerable and socially excluded in developing countries Paul Bennell Employment and Training Department International Labour Office Geneva First published 1999
To learn more about this author, visit International Labour Organization's Website.
Like this article? Share it with your friends
 |
Related Articles |
|
 2.2.1 Training provision, outputs and impacts: Contributory factors
|
| |
There are a number of additional factors that have further compounded the pervasive concerns about lack of impact and re-orientation. In particular, there is considerable confusion about what exactly "training to ov...
|
|
Study objectives: Learning to change
|
| |
The main objective of this paper is to analyse the reasons for this alleged failure of national VET systems to provide the main target groups among the poor with the knowledge and skills needed to increase significa...
|
|
Executive Summary: Learning to change
|
| |
In the context of mass poverty in most developing countries, the critical role of training in furnishing badly needed skills to improve productivity, incomes and equitable access to employment opportunities seems pa...
|
|
2.1 Dimensions of crisis
|
| |
There are two basic sets of concerns about VET and poverty reduction. The first focuses on the failure of most targeted training interventions to have any appreciable, sustained impact on livelihoods.
|
|
4.1 The potential for training interventions: The demand for training
|
| |
As is well known, the supply of training does not usually create its own demand. Clearly, therefore, training provision for the poor has been powerfully shaped by the nature of the demand for training among targeted...
|
|
|
|
![[Get Copyright Permissions]](http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.gif){kind=small}
