wide diversity in the approaches to training and development, but also substantial
diVerences in the skills equilibrium which are not explained by diVerences in the
sectoral composition of economies. Several sector studies by the National Institute
for Economic and Social Research have compared the UK and Germany (Steedman
and Wagner 1987 ), conWrming the UK economy as having a ‘low skills equilibrium’
(Finegold and Soskice 1988 ). While the higher skill level of the German workforce is
generally seen as a source of competitive advantage, permitting GermanWrms to
focus on higher-value-added market niches, the narrow specialization of skilled
workers in Germany has also restricted the development of cross-functional adapt-
ability necessary for the lean production and quick response associated with the
USA and UK (Herrigel 1996 ).
Anglo-American approaches to skill formation share a high proportion of low-
skilled workers and a higher proportion of high-skilled than those at the inter-
mediate skills level (in the USA case, a much higher proportion of graduates). This
approach contrasts with the ‘typical’ EU approach, where there are fewer low-
skilled and a highly formalized apprenticeship system that creates a higher pro-
portion of those with intermediate skills. The diVerences reXect prevailing labor
market conditions: the Anglo-American model is associated with low unemploy-
ment but more casual and precarious employment, while the European model is
associated with highly regulated labor markets with high employment security but
high levels of unemployment. The OECD agenda is concerned with encouraging
the Anglo-American approach to labor marketXexibility but also with raising skills
overall.
The ‘Americanization’ of labor markets is tied to a belief that training to raise
skills is a panacea permitting economic growth, higher employment, and lower
unemployment (the one is not the dual of the other since labor market participa-
tion rates vary enormously, especially for women) as well as (in Europe at least)
promoting social cohesion. Despite the apparent consensus among policy makers,
there are academic critiques. Crouch et al. ( 2001 )oVer the most comprehensive
critique, whilst accepting key elements of the OECD analysis: the acquisition of
knowledge and skills is the main challenge and opportunity for full employment;
low-skilled work, rural and domestic, is disappearing; and some countries (like
Sweden) have succeeded in a high-skills strategy. However, they have serious
reservations with this essentially supply-side approach: public service employment,
a major source of high-skill and entry-level jobs is contracting; improvements in
productivity stem job growth; new secure high-skill jobs are insuYcient to absorb
those displaced in low-skill sectors; labor markets are becoming polarized into
high-skill and peripheral jobs; labor market deregulation reduces living standards
to reduce unemployment; lifelong learning devolves responsibility to the individ-
ual and reduces state obligations. If everyone becomes educationally successful,
then the criteria of success shift to a higher level and improving the educational
level of a potential workforce does not immediately create new jobs. There is
training, development, and competence 327