Skill Formation in Central and Eastern Europe

Preface

The idea of this book emerged from various comparative educational research projects and European fora of researchers and experts of vocational and higher education, skill formation, qualifications and human resource development in recent decades. Although the accession of eleven countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) to the European Union (EU) after 2004 stimulated interest in skill formation, there has been no systematic research of recent developments of skill formation processes and institutions in this part of Europe. Existing typologies and models of skill formation predominantly characterise well established skill formation systems of post-industrial Western economies. Liberal market economies like the UK are contrasted with coordinated market economies like Germany in the literature on Varieties of Capitalism (Hall & Soskice 2009). Associated with these economies are market-based skill formation systems in the UK and Ireland, collective skill formation systems in the German speaking countries and neo-corporatist state-led skill formation systems in the rest of Continental Europe (Brockmann, Clarke & Winch 2011).

Categorising and characterising the skill formation systems and regimes of the post-communist countries is a challenge in many respects. Although Central and Eastern European countries are often labelled post-communist, or post-socialist, in reference to their common history in the second half of the 20th century, this ‘historical’ categorisation is not very helpful, because of the rich variety of socio-economic, institutional and cultural transformations of these countries after the fall of the Berlin wall. The variety of societal and institutional development pathways produced a diversity of skill formation systems in this region. There is no holistic understanding of skill formation systems and models of Central and Eastern Europe, especially with respect to the implications of different educational reforms and other political, legal and institutional transformations. Development of skill formation in this region should be regarded as an historical process with uniqueness and contingency of change, irreversibility, givenness and unpredictability as well as its dynamic and processual character.

These knowledge gaps were instrumental in developing the idea of this book in Spring 2019 and in November of that year the editors, Vidmantas Tūtlys, Jonathan Winterton, Jörg Markowitsch and Samo Pavlin, met in Vienna to discuss the concept in more detail. Vienna, the hospitality of 3s and conviviality of Jörg Markowitsch provided a stimulating environment for the conception of this book. We agreed to invite leading researchers and experts in vocational ←13 | 14→education, higher education and skill formation from the Baltic states, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Croatia and Ukraine to contribute chapters on the skill formation systems and institutions in their respective countries. These chapters aimed to describe, analyse and explain trajectories of development of skill formation from the communist period to the present, with some prognosis for the future. The findings of these chapters are compared and discussed in five concluding chapters focused on important cross-cutting topics: development of social dialogue over skill formation, specificities of qualifications policy and development of qualifications systems, implications of European integration and EU policies for governance and institutional reform of skill formation, features and implications of policy borrowing and policy learning from the Anglo-Saxon and German speaking countries, respectively.

Although there is still much uncertainty about the consequences of this war for the future of Ukraine and the world at the time of writing, existing evidence enables some cautious observations. The resistance of this country to aggression and the heroic mobilisation of society demonstrate that the Ukrainian nation and civil society are stronger than ever before. Attempts to suppress or destroy Ukraine by the invading regime are expected ultimately to fail, thus rendering impossible the country’s annexation and the overthrow of democratic rule ←14 | 15→sought by the aggressor. The education system and skill formation institutions of Ukraine described in the chapter by Melnyk have contributed to developing this resilience of the Ukrainian nation and society. By extrapolation, tentative conclusions can be proposed about the implications of these events for the development of skill formation in Ukraine and other CEE countries.

In relation to the implications for skill formation in Ukraine, we posit several assumptions. Dealing with the consequences of war in the short-term perspective will create skills shortages and growing demand in areas like waste (especially dangerous waste) disposal, de-mining and land reclamation. Increased demand for social, rehabilitation, medical and psychological services to the suffering population, could accelerate restructuring of obsolete post-Soviet institutions of social infrastructure. Reconstruction of the economy and infrastructure after the war, including possible de-industrialisation of territories in the Eastern part of the country can be anticipated, along with restructuring of sectors like engineering and military-industrial complexes and transformation of agro-industrial complexes. Rehabilitation of the natural environment and natural landscapes in the context of such restructuring will require major mobilisation of human capital that could alter patterns of population migration and enhance return migration, in some sectors. Such trends could trigger the development of continuing training and competence development processes in key sectors of economy. The need to strengthen digitalisation of society, ensuring sustainable access to reliable information, as well as developing cybersecurity will require investment in skill formation in the ICT (information and communication technologies) sector and in the development of digital skills of civil society. Reconstruction of the skill formation system will be necessary because of the destruction of infrastructure, and the loss of teachers and trainers to the conflict. The processes of reconstruction could facilitate the development of a more open and balanced skill formation system with active engagement of civil society, SMEs, trade unions and NGOs, in contrast with the domination of big enterprises and government before the war. Another possible implication of the war could be strengthening and intensifying efforts to Europeanize skill formation processes and institutions to accelerate efforts towards EU integration. Of course, the war itself has disrupted the reform of the skill formation system and relaunching the process will depend on the success of the restitution of institutions and actors, which could be a key priority for EU and international actors supporting reconstruction. A major challenge for pedagogical processes is the integration of Ukrainian war refugees in the education and skill formation systems of receiving countries and their successful reintegration in the education system or labour market of Ukraine after the war.←15 | 16→

What could be the implications of the war for skill formation processes and institutions in other CEE countries? Firstly, the education systems and skill formation institutions in countries close to Ukraine (Poland, Romania, Moldova, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Slovakia) now are facing the challenge of integrating large numbers of war refugees, which includes not only the provision of shelter, but also at least temporary integration into the labour market and economy. This could have positive implications for developing the capacities of skill formation institutions to integrate refugees and migrants in these countries. Secondly, the war will probably strengthen the efforts of these and other EU countries to gain energy independence from Russia or at least reduce dependence on supplies of energy from this country. In addition to profound implications for the energy sector, this should prompt demand for new skills and qualifications associated with green energy and renewables, as well as exploitation of alternative technologies with diversification of transport and storage of hydrocarbon energy sources or switching to hydrogen from hydrocarbon fuels. Thirdly, the ongoing aggression changes the attitudes of societies and governments to military defence, leading not only to increased public funding and investment in military hardware, but also to expansion of the armed forces through conscription and fostering voluntary military service and activities of the paramilitary organizations and structures. Such ‘Israel-like’ reorientation of public defence policies can have profound implications for skill formation policies and processes, starting from the stronger integration of the military sector qualifications in the national system of qualifications and increased attention to policy measures for integration of former/retired military personnel in civilian labour markets (Tūtlys, Liesionienė & Winterton 2018, 2019). Increased attention to developing civil safety and security capacities, as well as developing civil engagement and resilience to totalitarian ideologies might strengthen the provision of these skills and competencies in public education systems, including VET and HE. Whatever the wider implications of this military aggression, it is evident that skill formation institutions must be an integral part of human efforts to prevent their recurrence.

We are convinced that this book offers valuable new information and analysis for all those interested in comparative education and labour market research. It provides a new reference for the international research community and has the potential to stimulate national debates in CEE countries. It is aimed equally at researchers, students, policy makers and practitioners.