Regulatory governance of ‘training markets’, ‘market failure’, and ‘quasi’ markets: historical dimensions of the post-initial training market in the Netherlands

This article examines regulatory governance of the post-initial training market in The Netherlands. From an historical perspective on policy formation processes, it examines market formation in terms of social, economic, and cultural factors in the development of provision and demand for post-initial training; the roles of stakeholders in the longterm construction of regulatory governance of the market; regulation of and public providers; policy responses to market failure; and tripartite division of responsibilities between the state, social partners, commercial and publicly-funded providers. Historical description and analysis examine policy narratives of key stakeholders with reference to: a) influence of societal stakeholders on regulatory decision-making; b) state regulation of the post-initial training market; c) public intervention regulating the market to prevent market failure; d) market deregulation, competition, employability and individual responsibility; and, e) regulatory governance to prevent ‘allocative failure’ by the market in non-delivery of post-initial training to specific target groups, particularly the low-qualified. Dominant policy narratives have resulted in limited state regulation of the supply-side, a tripartite system of regulatory governance by the state, social partners and commercial providers as regulatory actors. Current policy discourses address interventions on the demand-side to redistribute structures of opportunity throughout the life courses of individuals. Further empirical research from a comparative historical perspective is required to deepen contemporary understandings of regulatory governance of markets and the commodification of adult learning in knowledge societies and information economies. (DIPF/Orig.)

Mind the gap! An exploration of the role of lifelong learning in promoting co-production and citizenship within social care for older people

Contemporary themes in public policy have emphasised co-productive approaches within both the access and provision of support services to older people. This paper provides a cross disciplinary exploration from its respective authors perspectives on social work and educational gerontology to examine the potential for lifelong learning and learning interventions from which co-production with those using social care services in later life might be better facilitated. Using an example from the UK, we specifically elicit how co-produced care can enhance the horizon of learning and learning research. The synthesis of ideas across these two disciplines could enrich understanding and provide essential levers for moving towards empowerment and emancipation by engaging with a more co-productive approach in social care for older people. (DIPF/Orig.)

The introduction of e-learning in European universities: models and strategies

The aim of this paper is to present the models and the strategies of adoption of e-learning in a group of European universities, most of them located in the regions called “the four motors of Europe” (Baden-Württenberg, Catalunya, Lombardy and Rhône-Alpes) and in Switzerland. Our analysis focuses on four dimensions: the rationale behind the introduction of e-learning, the organisation of the activities and, in particular, the existence of a university centre for e-learning, the type of activities, and, finally, the type of public reached by e-learning. The majority of campus universities in our sample introduced e-learning to improve the quality of education of their students and, for the most part, as a support for existing courses. Some of the campus universities went even further insofar as they have introduced some online courses into their curricula. This has led to forms of cooperation where different universities share some of their courses. Finally, a small number of campus universities have included as part of their educational offer full distance degree programs which can be attended also by non residential students. The above cases show that there is no general move from campus universities towards distance education, but rather a more selective behaviour. Thus we conclude that e-learning, although it is undoubtedly spreading in both distance and presence universities, is not yet bringing fundamental changes in the institutions themselves. E-learning is at the moment integrated into the existing organization and educational offer. (DIPF/Orig.)