Overview essay: Views from the past and the future

an2-7757iw

Economics of Education Review. Vol. 9. No. 4. pp. 283-307,199O.

$3.00 + 0.00

Pergamon Press plc

Printed in Great Britain.

Overview Essay: Views from the Past and the Future MARY JEAN BOWMAN

Departments

of Economics and Education,

University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, U.S.A.

Abstract - “Vocations” are distinguished by specialized clusters of skills and to examine vocational education and training in a development context is to examine formation of progressively more refined mixes of skills. Of critical importance are diverse agencies and institutions in the formation of competencies that are not readily acquired in schools even where complementary with school learning. Predominantly this means attachment in learning to a producing individual or enterprise. “Attachment learning” ranges from the most familistic through various forms of apprenticeships to “firm-specific” and related human capital formation in large modem organizations. Common to all variants are arrangements (formal or informal) for the sharing of costs and returns to human investments. A major problem for LDCs lies in the limitations of social capital and skill base for the provision of such learning opportunities. This issue calls for intensive consideration in labor market and industrial policies. INTRODUCTION ECONOMIC concerns and issues with respect to ways of creating “vocational” competence go back over several centuries in Western Europe in forms that are readily recognizable today. But along the way the scope and characteristics of “vocations” and of education and training for them have changed along with socioeconomic structures. The notion of “lessdeveloped countries” (LDCs), with all their diversities, is of more recent origin, reflecting as it does a perspective from which industrially advanced and especially Western people have been looking at the rest of the world. Belatedly in academic circles we are coming to a rising appreciation of the importance of an immensely diverse array of out-of-school agencies and institutions in the formation of human resources. At the same time there has been an increasing realization of the close association between economic development and a multiplication of vocational specializations, even as there has been also a world-wide expansion of enrollments in

formal educational systems. It is the latter rather than the diverse out-of-school agencies that has attracted the most attention among economists in the years since World War II. One of the reasons is undoubtedly that schooling attainments are more easily summarized and measured and more conspicuously amenable to direct political intervention - not that formal schooling is necessarily the more important in its contributions to formation of a qualified labor force. Indeed, in many situations one could take quite the opposite position. Judgments on this point in particular cases are confounded by the complementarities between learning in the formal school system and subsequent out-of-school learning; the effectiveness of each cannot be understood in isolation of the one from the other except as historical evidence may provide some clues. That out-of-school learning has always been an extremely important component of skill formation and skill maintenance is evident, however, as is also the fact that it continues to be important in the economically advanced countries. This applies in LDCs as well,

*This essay draws on the contributions of many writers, but even so only a smattering of the many relevant books and papers can be cited. Among the most useful to which readers might refer are Dougherty (1989). Metcalf (1985) (which emphasises methodological issues) and Lauglo and Lillis (Editors) (1988). Among earlier books see especially Anderson and Bowman (Editors) (l%S), Staley (1971) and Brembeck and Thompson (Editors) (1973). For especially insightful recent policy-oriented discussion see Middleton et al. (1990) and Ziderman (1990).

283

284

Economics of Education Review

but it is also in such countries that we run into the circular problem that along with economic backwardness today goes obstacles to progress in limited opportunities for the post-school formation of “modern” skills. In this paper use is made of some historical summaries as a background against which to view some of the problems and potentials for the formation of vocational skills in the “LDCs” today. Thus at various points, as seems pertinent, LDCs are compared not only with each other but also with the development of vocational skills in Britain, the United States, or Japan. Obviously we cannot jump into the future and look back from there into the present (nor, it goes without saying, can manpower forecasters). The inclusion of a “future” along with a “past” view in the title of this essay refers to the essential future orientation that must be involved in considering options in the mixes of general and vocational education and training today. This is the more important because the one thing that can be expected with certainty is that world-wide we will continue to live with substantial change within the time-span of a normal working life. For two reasons principal emphasis is given to the acquisition of skills outside of core formal educational systems. First, non-school agencies of education and training have been much less studied than the regular schools. Second, post-school education and training take on increasing importance in the face of continu~g change. Section I opens discussion with a look at three of the key terms in the titles of this essay and of the volume of which it is a part: “vocational”, “education” and “training”. Section II asks briefly just what distinguishing traits (if any) do LDCs have in common and what contrasts among them may be most relevant to an examination of vocational education and training. Initially a discussion of farming and household work as vocations constituted the third section of this paper, which was too long. The formation of skills in the exercise of these activities is of vital importance for development, however, and that discussion is published as a separate short essay. Accordingly, Section III now turns immediately to skill formation among artisans, craftsmen, and small-scale entrepreneurs - rural and urban vocations that account for most of the active non-farm populations in many of the LDCs. This is where a relatively intimate sort of “attachment” learning

constitutes the main long-term avenue of skill formation, sometimes quite broad in scope and hence “education” as well as “training”, though the education is not in “schools”. But included also are more limited modes, in the formation of artisan skills by participant observation. Section IV continues with learning on the job, but in quite a different context. Here the treatment of on-the-job training in modern human capital theory is summarized in non-technical language, followed by a discussion of the timing over a life span of investments in people and some aspects of the nature of “internal labor markets”. Section V asks the question “Where do Schools and Training Centers come in?” and goes on to consider education and training as factors in change. Finally, Section VI attempts to pull some of the pieces together in reference to LDCs in the making of history. I. MEANINGS OF “%‘OCATIONAL”, “EDUCATION” AND “TXAINfNG” In common speech the adjective “vocational” when attached to either training or education normally has a narrow connotation, referring to what differentiates one “vocation” from another. This is not at all the same thing as to ask what compete&es are called for in the effective conduct of a vocation, a matter to which we must ultimately return for unde~tanding human resource forutilization, and productivity. For the mation, moment, however, it is the narrower perspective that is appropriate, and is indeed implicit as the starting point in the present volume. It is in this perspective that I begin here with two partially overlapping ways of distinguishing the “vocational”. The Market Test of What is ‘Vocatioaaf” In a situation not far removed from a subsistence economy, most learning will be by participant observation. There are no real school systems although, as any anthropologist will assure us, there are educational systems imbedded in the ways in which people acquire productive skills, and in the divisions of labor by sex and age. Are the hard-working men and women of such a society engaged in “vocations”? It is notable that the 1940 Mexican census includes as “economically active” the women (and men) who work only in and for their own households, whereas such activities are

Vocational Education in LDCs dropped from the “economically active” count in the 1960 census. Meanwhile, id Japan, as in most Western countries over at least the past generation, “family workers” have been counted among the “economically active” only as they contributed to family incomes involving some sort of market exchange (monetary or otherwise). Moreover, as increasing numbers of Japanese men engaged in “off-farm” work and women came to take over the principal responsibility for the operation of a family farm, the census has nevertheless treated the men as the “farmers” and the women as “family workers” on the farm, Were these women less “vocational” than the men? It would seem that what is deemed to be “vocational” depends on (a) participation of the individual in some sort of market economy, whatever the extent to which these may be “free markets” or state operated and controlled, and (b) under some circumstances on sex. Confounding these distinctions is the confusion of what is “vocational” with what is “practical”, addressed in Section V. For most purposes distinguishing by degrees of skill specialization may be a more fruitful approach than the market versus non-market demarkation. “Vocations” as Distinguished of Skis

by Specialized

Clusters

Probably at no time or place has sex specialization of activities been so limited as in some of the economically advanced nations of today - a fact we tend to forget because of the sex differentiation that remains. But there is also more within-sex specialization in these same countries than ever before. It will sometimes be difficult to define unequivocally the substance of a particular “vocation” or “occupation” or even a “job”. But this reflects in considerable measure the complex mixes of skills, rapid changes in skills, and the various ways of packaging them. Let us consider literacy. While literacy may be, and indeed is, of importance to the effective pursuit of most vocations today, it would normally be categorized as a function of general, not of “vocational” education. But this has not always been so, nor is it universally the case even in this last decade of the 2Oth-century. Where literacy is the exception, it has been a distinctively vocational subject - whether in the courts of unschooled nobles or in religious orders or among village scribes. Clearly, then, what is a distinctively

285

“vocational” skill in this sense is not defined simply by skill content or even by use in a vocation. It entails at least some degree of “specialization” to use in a particular vocation or cluster of vocations. This distinction between “vocational” and “general” will be seen to be extremely important when we come to look at the somewhat confusing debates over the nature and value of “pre-vocational” curricula vs the case for “practical” subjects in the schools. Adam Smith was well aware of the importance of division of labor, and even though he was writing in an economically far simpler age his treatment of this subject has come back into prominance recently in the writing of several economists about human investment choices and economic progress in advanced countries. In its present reincarnation this centers around “increasing returns”. In Rosen’s words (1983, p. 44) “The return to investment in a particular skill is increasing in its subsequent rate of utilization because investment costs are independent of how acquired skills are employed”. He demonstrates that so long as there are no declining returns to levels of utilization for the individual while costs are independent of utilization it will pay to specialize. Assuming no direct private outlays, he finds that “the decision to specialize rests only on the optimality of time allocation at a given level of investment and not on the level of investment itself’. Generalizing to include direct outlays and rationalist criteria for public investments does not alter the substance of Rosen’s argument. [Schultz (1988) applied it in an aggregative approach to issues in economic development.] There is of course a scale of the market effect on potential rates of utilization of specialized skills. Thus we find Guild Certificates in London, but the “jack-of-all-trades” among pioneering settlers in 17th century New England. And among doctors today we have the general practitioner in rural areas but high degrees of further specialization among doctors in metropolitan cities. But notice that the scale of the market depends in turn on general levels of income, on settlement patterns, on transport and communication infrastructures and on the extent of political barriers to trade. While Rosen’s findings can have quite universal validity whether we are looking at an advanced or a less developed country, in the less developed countries both the level of investments and the associated scope for specialization will be modest.

286

Economics of Education Review

As an economy .advances in productivity, ability to pay, and associated absolute marginal pay-offs, the 1eveLFof investments, both private and public, will tend to rise even though marginal rates of return may fall. The rising levels of education and training carry with them a wider scope for specialization, and ultimately we reach the situation summed up by Rosen when he wrote that “The enormous productivity and complexity of modem economies are in good measure attributable to specialization”. At this point, what has happened to the concept introduced above, of vocations as entailing “specialized clusters of skills”? It seems that we are back again to the problem of distinguishing between the generally “practical” and the vocational, which is related also to potentials for increasing returns through specialization. Concerning 6%ducation” and ‘%aining” So far I have been avoiding any definition or specific distinction between the meanings of “education” and “training”. A common and empirically convenient short-cut here would be simply to define education as the learning that takes place in the schools that make up a central formal system. Training is then everything else. It is extremely diverse, but in each case more narrowly and specifically action-oriented, whether it applies to dogs or horses or babies or to students in a shortcourse barber or cooking school or to 7-year apprenticeships. This would lump together as “training” all presumed contributions to learning that are provided by “non-formal” institutions defined as those that are not part of the main formal school system. In fact, nevertheless, some of the “nonformal” learning institutions may be quite highly formalized, and long-term apprenticeships are sometimes set apart from “training” because they are less narrowly focussed. Staley (1971) was explicit in making this distinction. While it is often convenient to distinguish “education” and “training” as simply a school vs nonschool dichotomy, this can hide a more fundamental distinction. When we speak of a “highly educated man” we are more likely to be referring to the scope and depth of his knowledge than to his years of schooling. And so we find that schools do not always “educate”, whereas both other agencies and informal experience (including self-education) may prove to be powerful educators in a very real sense. The more fundamental distinction is thus between

“education” as involving learning with substantial breadth on the one hand and “training” as providing a more narrowly delimited, specialized learning on the other. Apprenticeships of various sorts and durations can lie along a large central section of an education-training continuum defined in terms of degrees of specialization in potential applications of what is learned. II. JUST WHAT ARE LDCs? A few decades ago it was easy to identify the background of a person involved in the problems of “developing” or “less developed” countries according to whether his remarks fitted Sub-Saharan Africa, or Latin America, or India, or perhaps some part of Southeast Asia. Today this is less the case, but it is no less true that the countries often lumped together as “LDCs” are extremely diverse in economic structures, levels of living, and cultural heritage. Sometimes “middle income countries” are distinguished from “low income countries”, as in many of the World Bank statistical tabulations. But sometimes the “LDCs” seem to be almost all that are neither “Western” nor Japanese - nor Russian. And there are those that may have once been viewed as an LDC but are no longer properly so seen today (as Korea), or those that were once among the economically advanced countries but have slid backward to the edge at least of “The Third World” (as Argentina). It must be obvious that statements concerning vocational education and training that would be applicable to so heterogeneous an array of countries would have to be put in highly generalized terms. What, in fact, do LDCs have in common with respect to education and training? What are some of the most significant contrasts? Common Features of “Less Developed Countries” The only truly common feature is virtually definitional. LDCs are “less developed” economically and educationally than most of the countries we regard as “advanced”. Usually the comparison is a concurrent one, but there is also a longitudinal perspective in which the earlier period of a now advanced country was “less developed” than not only itself today but also other advanced countries of the late 20th-century. We have thus two sorts of “less developed” countries, the concurrent, which I will call LDCs, and the longitudinal. Concurrent

Vocational Education in LDCs relativeness in development today is unquestionaly important; coming relatively late to the develop ment process can affect significantly the nature and speed of whatever development occurs. Common to the LDCs, whether past or present, are relatively limited intensities in skill specialixation, which is associated with scale of the market and related potentials for increasing returns. Economists writing on development frequently distinguish between large and small countries. Behind that distinction is an implicit emphasis on barriers to international trade. But there is another way of viewing this situation, which may be to ask to what extent market scales and communications in a small country are enlarged by participation in wider markets that spread well beyond national boundaries. Increasing returns from skill specialization both among and within vocations are neither manifest in all large countries nor confined to them. Mass poverty, both rural and urban, is generally a characteristic of LDCs, whether in absolute terms or from the perspective of those of us living today in predominantly affluent countries. Indeed, it is this poverty that accounts for most of the concern about LDCs and their development. When we move up along the scale of economic welfare in the vernacular of LDC labeling mass poverty becomes less severe, but in relative terms it remains a trait of LDCs. Finally, predominance of rurality has been and remains common to many (not all) LDCs despite vast migrations into their urban areas. And the large fractions of rural in-migrants and small-scale producing units are a common feature of their cities. This has had important implications for vocational structures and the composition of human resources. It has drawn the attention of both pragmatic and fantasizing “experts” on planning for rural human resource development or for the “traditional sector” - not always with fortunate results. Some Particularly Relevant Contrasts among LDCs Most of the countries of Sub-Saharan Africa stand apart from all but a few other countries in their scaling on degrees of “lesser development”, seen in terms of relatively low vocational specialization and large numbers in poverty. Indeed, they stand as the prototypes of LDCs. It is here that the dilemmas are most severe, that external assistance is most needed, and that the distance to go is greatest. But limited vocational specialization and poverty are by no

287

means the only traits that distinguish the countries of Sub-Saharan Africa. They stand apart on at least two other critical features as well. One of these is the lack of an indigenous literate heritage. The other is lack of a craft heritage that requires high precision in execution or of architectural skills that incorporate basic engineering components. Africans are understandably sensitive on this matter, and point correctly to the fact that they have valuable cultural heritages and have contributed from these to the rest of the world. This is true. But theirs has not been a base on which complex, highly productive economies have evolved. Let us consider literacy first. While the heritage of a literate “higher” culture does not in itself assure economic development, it is on the foundations of a literate heritage that formal communication and accounting systems have been built - systems that have supported advanced organizational structures and the associated vocational specialization that Rosen stressed as the foundation of high productivity in the economically advanced nations. Max Weber is often cited for the “Protestant Ethic” (the Japanese share it), but of equal or greater importance is his emphasis on the development of accounting. In brief, a literacy heritage provides the base for development of communication and record keeping in complex economic structures. Such a heritage prevails throughout most of Asia and Latin America, rich or poor, currently “developed” or not. It has long been there to draw upon, but this does not by any means guarantee that the advantage of the literacy heritage will be exploited to foster progressive change. So far as literacy is concerned, the more immediately important distinction among LDCs becomes how far a solid command of reading and writing is spread among an adult population. But there is ample evidence in educational achievement studies of the advantage to educational performance in having an indigenous heritage that can lend support to educational endeavors. Similarly, the existence of highly developed and refined precision crafts or of basic architectural engineering skills does not assure progress to high levels of productivity in the economy as a whole. But if reasonably well spread through a population they may provide a base that can facilitate technological learning and associated creative imitation. Most Asian countries had an indigenous head start in basic technical skills that may survive in subtle

288

Economics of Education Review

ways even where particular ancient skills are in disuse. III. “ATTACHMENT LEARNING” AND THE MAKING OF ARTISANS, CRAFTSMEN AND SMALL-SCALE ENTREPRENEURS Small-scale entrepreneurs was added to this heading for several reasons. Apprenticeships in varying degrees of formality may apply not only to manual skills but also to commercial ones. Many artisans and craftsmen become self-employed small enterprisers. And, whatever the skills taught, a full apprenticeship will automatically incorporate what is almost certainly the most efficient way of acquiring such entrepreneurial ability. The label “attachment learning” was introduced some years ago, as one of four main dimensions in the characterization of modes or institutidns involved in human resource development (Bowman and Anderson, 1976). This refers to an attachment of the learner to the person or agency providing the training. In full-fledged apprenticeships that attachment continues with utilization of the increasing skills acquired over an extended period of learning and usually for some time further. In one form or another, “attachment learning” is found in every society - in a long distant past and today, in the poorest of LDCs and in the most complex of economically advanced nations. The forms this takes are extremely diverse, however. In this section I shall discuss primarily their relatively familistic variants: (a) growth into a family vocation, and (b) traditional forms of apprenticeships in the formation of artisans and craft skills, with their adaptations over time and across societies today. Though they may involve “attachment learning” more broadly defined, I will not discuss here two other variants that lack the familistic and hence the sometimes holistic qualities of (a) and (b). These are: (c) training by and for particular government employing agencies (as railroads, postal and commuication services, or in construction work for various public agencies) and (d) the development of non-govemmental firm-specific qualifications, with an associated low turnover of workers. The last of these is discussed in Section IV, where it is argued that attachments to a firm may incorporate some general as well as firm-specific job-linked training. An economic question that is common to all four categories, but with varying answers both between

and within those groupings, is this: how are the obligations of trainees and trainers (or training agencies) defined, and how between them (or third parties) are the costs and rewards of training distributed? In the “non-formal” or “traditional” Sectors of an LDC, indigenous “apprenticeship” may fall away into training that is little more than participant observation, the trainee paying with his cheap labor from the start.

Growing into a Family Vocation This variant of “attachment learning” of a vocation is both ancient and a survivor even into the most advanced economies of the present day. It does not necessarily imply direct taking over of a family enterprise as sons grow to maturity and parents grow old. The distinctive feature of what I have termed here “growing into a family vocation” is the learning that takes place with quite informal instruction and through participant observation in a parental vocation. We can see this happening in urban as well as rural settings across the world, but with most persistence perhaps in rural areas and in agriculture and household employments in particular. It has been an almost universal source of learning for domestic roles, most intensively illustrated perhaps among Islamic females in extended family units, but not only there. Notable past exceptions are the professionalization of domestic service in upper class households, as in 19th-century England. Today there is a considerable substitution of written guides and time-saving equipment for earlier participant learning as women’s working time is shifted out of the home. Notice that the vast majority of farmers in most countries are sons of farmers, and this is not just a matter of lethargy or lack of other opportunities. Farming, whether at humble or high and even capitalistic levels, is an activity in which learning by participant observation plays a central role. Parents provide the learning opportunities, as the informal “masters”. “Repayment” to the provider, insofar as it is either expected or realized, takes a personal form, without formal contract or legalistic spelling out of mutual obligations. Such obligations exist nevertheless, and whether in Asia or the United States repayment has commonly been in the form of commitment to carrying on the family enterprise along with provision of security for family members in their old age.

Vocational Education in LDCs The most formal counterpart of this sort of attachment learning is to be found in the oriental practice of adoption, common even today, and adoptive apprenticeship was regulated by the code of Hamurabi in Sumerian Babylon over 4000 years ago (Dougherty, 1989, p. 11). In recent times adoption may be of a close relative because the adopting parents have no sons. But the adoption has also been more formal, of unrelated young boys, and with an arranged marriage to a daughter of the adopting family. In either case, this entails familistic attachment learning when (as was often the case) the adopted son is vocationally trained within the adopting family. He acquires both the opportunity and the future obligation to carry on with the family’s affairs, ensuring its social and economic continuity and honoring its ancestors as though his own. But to talk of “repayment” in this context misses much of what is involved, including the place of altruism in relationships between the older and younger generations (Becker, 1981; and, in the processes of demographic transition, Willis, 1982). Whether the development of vocational skills is under the guidance of a natural or an adoptive family, the vocational training is imbedded in an holistic educational family environment that goes beyond “training” to the shaping of people in multiple dimensions. In some societies that we still call LDCs the family heritage is a rich one, and may be supported by extended family and clan. In others, however, the family heritage is impoverished both economically and in the scope and quality of skills that could be passed on to sons and daughters. In-family provision of vocational training can contribute to the restructuring of skills in succeeding generations only as the parents themselves extend their skills. This calls for an understanding of underlying principles (basic science), reading and interpreting available materials (as the old “popular mechanics” or trade magazines), participation in exchanges in the coffee house (Armytage, 1965) or, calling for less individual initiative, learning through the services of agricultural extension agents. Callaway (1974) was entirely right in his emphasis on the importance of attention to adult learning and skill acquisition as a key to the spread of skills into the cohorts of their children. Familistic provision of vocational training is still an important part of vocational skill formation in some spheres of economic life across the world. But in relative share it is almost everywhere a declining

289

part. This is not incidental. It is probably inseparable from both increasing specialization and a rapid pace of economic development. An Early Apprenticeship Prototype A pure prototype of “apprenticeship” might have the following characteristics: (1) A master joumeyman takes on one or more trainees (apprentices) to be initiated into his craft, and they work with him under his instruction and guidance. (2) The journeyman provides subsistence for the apprentice and as he gains in skill and experience the apprentice will receive some pay. (3) The apprenticeship contract specifies a period of some years during which the apprentice will work for the journeyman. (4) At the end of that period the former apprentice becomes a full-fledged journeyman who can take on his own apprentices. The close approach to the family model in the operation of such a system is evident, but so is the more formal relationship to indenture. In all instances this involves an “investment in human beings” and for the indenture and the apprenticeship prototype models there is an exchange of limited “property” rights in an individual or his services. This is of course one of the reasons why apprenticeships can easily be exploitative even as they can also open up opportunities to the trainees and provide more productive human beings to a society at large. Evolution of British Apprenticeship

Let us step back in history to a pre-industrial world. This is a world in which there are no common schools as we know them today, so for most people the “education” on the back of which vocational training and learning can build is without benefit of formal schooling. The limited general and the specialized proceed in close association. The preoccupation of our time with “the problem of transition from school to work” has not yet been born. But something different is being injected into medieval life. As we move into the 14th century some of the villeins of the feudal estates are contracting out to the lords the labor of their children, who are placed to work in “manufactures”. With time this practice expands and becomes for the child “apprentices” a route into the guilds and freedom of the borough. We arrive at 1562 and this process is nationalized by statute. It becomes increasingly regulated, partly at least in the name of

290

Economics of Education Review

quality control, but also to restrict access to preferred occupations and to rights of fuller civic participation.’ Training includes personal habits and morality, and the system is regarded, among other things, as a method of birth control (Bowman, 1965, p. 107). Things do not always work out to the satisfaction of all concerned. There are some critical problems in defining and enforcing the mutual obligations of master and apprentice. How can the obligation of the master to provide training, and not simply to exploit cheap labor, be ensured? How can the obhgation of the trainee for service to the master be enforced? And if enforced on behalf of the master, how is the new craftsman assured exit from a subservient situation to independence when he has fully repaid the master through his services? Over time, what about the rising numbers of artisans coming from rural areas to practice in the city without going through the long years of craft apprenticeship required under the guild system in the towns? These are issues that have been common to apprenticeship systems ranging from pre-industrial Britain and Europe to modem Nigeria. Indeed, a major part of the history of disputes and of public interventions in apprenticeship practices is centered around just such questions. Over a period of 300 years in Britain there were swings back and forth in the tightening and weakening of guild controls over access to apprenticeships. New efforts were made to tighten regulations against the “pirating” of apprentices and to enforce their continuation in the service of their masters for some years after they had acquired the skills of journeymen. But attempts to enforce such rules were increasingly unsuccessful. The British Civil War of 1660 weakened guilds that had already experienced the attrition of many regulations in a period of weakening belief in minute regulation of trade. A century later when a guild sued a man for trading without having been an apprentice “the court ruled that every man had a natural and legal right to the exercise of whatever trade he pleased” (Bowman, 1965). Before the end of the 18th~century the guild system was breaking down in the face of a growing spirit of capitalistic commercialism and the pre-factory victory of freedom over regulation. Meanwh~e, the whole system had provided the capital for investment in training by contracts based on private returns first through subsequent repayment in services by the trainee, but later

through direct initial payments to the masters without further service obligations. In Britain both apprenticeship and early economic development led literacy and formal general education. This inheritance fostered a ~gmentaI~ation of res~nsibi~ties and of ~ti~tions for the development of human resources. England remained content with that segmentalization on into the 2Othcentury. The century-old contrast between the British worker who “knew his steam engine” and the Saxon engineer who was favored by an innovatiove Swiss entrepreneur has haunted England up to recent times (Bowman and Anderson, 1976, p. 36). It is associated with the persisting sharpness of the educational pyramid up to the middle of this century and the belated and limited development in Britain of “sandwich courses” in transitions from school to work.2 Modern contrasts among Germany, Britain, and France today, studied by Noah and Eckstein (1986), reflect distinctive heritages, They summarize the situation (p. 67) with respect to transitions from school to work roughly as follows: (1) In Britain there is nothing that could be called a “system” in relations between business and educational institutions but rather a collection of ad hoc independent arrangements. (2) In France “the major locus of change remains in the schools, with relatively little willingness to accord business/industry more than a supplementary specialized role in preparing young people for work”. (3) In Germany employers have iong been heavily committed to the training of young people in the transition from school to fuily qualified employment, but with little direct connection with the schools. This “dual” system reaches a majority of youth and has high status. As Noah and Eckstein observe (p. 62) the German arrangements exemplify “the adaptation of a traditional apprenticeship system to the requirements of a contemporary economy”. In all three nations the extension of secondary schooling to the masses of the population have brought increased pressures for and readiness of business/industry to become further involved. Under present circumstances (p. 67) “it is not surprising that both Britain and France look to Germany as a model of transition to work in which they find much to admire”. That they do not look to Japan, which has seemed to provide the best model of all, is no doubt a reflection of cultural distance. And paradoxically (though understandabIy) Japan continues to look elsewhere, toward something more like “comprehensive” education.

Vocarional Education in LDCs The Undiierentiated American” Across the Atlantic in New England, the 17thand l&h-centuries had quite a different look from Europe of those times. In America the apprenticeship system was discouraged from the start by a mood of resistance to any interferences with free men, although something resembling European apprenticeships reappeared later in some of the AFL unions. Labor was relatively scarce, literacy was widespread, and the “common school” emerged early. The frontier demanded versatility and ingenuity. Out of such a milieu came what Boorstin (1958) described as “the undifferentiated American”. He might not be intimate with the steam engine, nor at home in mathematics or at the drawing board, but he was partially knowledgeable in many trades. Frankel (1955) saw in this environment the determination of the techniques that came to characterize American in contrast to European indust~alization, even as it also fostered a relative disinterest in the higher levels of manual skills. The phrase “jack-of-all-trades and master of none” is a distinctively American survival. This has its place, but in our everyday lives we still rely (when we are lucky) on well-trained and committed craftsmen who have migrated from Europe. Thus, despite our strong initial Anglo heritage, the British apprenticeship system broke down rapidly in a pioneer society, and the development of vocational skills in the American northeast and subsequently to the West, along with the emergence of the ‘~common school” for all, was in marked contrast to British as well as to European experience. Common and Variant Features of Apprentic~hips in LDCS The LDCs of recent times have faced very different worlds from either the early stages in British (or European) development or the pioneering colonials of what was to become the northern states of the United States of America. They are facing a world in which skilis that are highly developed elsewhere are lacking or rare on home grounds. At the craft and artisan skill levels, the less developed countries have lacked the cadres of journeymen equipped to serve as masters to new apprentices. Their creation has posed and still poses some serious probIems. Meanwhile, skill mixes are changing at all levels, as newly imported technologies penetrate not only the urban but also the rural sectors in the LDCs. And general education plays a

291

greater part than ever before in the facilitation of skill acquisition and adjustment to change at all levels in the economic structure. “Apprenticeship” in one form or another continues to be critica in the formation of human resources everywhere, including in the LDCs. It takes on modified and diverse forms, but in all those variants it entails two common features. First, in all variants the term apprenti~ship refers to the acquisition of a vocational skill through work in some degree at least under the tutilage of established practitioners. Second, although apprenticeships may vary substanti~ly in duration, covering both artisan and craft skitls, generally excluded from this category are the numerous short training programs that last well under a year. Among the various apprenticeship programs in LDCs (as elsewhere) four distinct dimensions are important: (1) a skilllevel scaling based on duration and depth of training, (2) how costs of and returns to the training are shared over time, (3) an indigenous-imported dimension, and (4) the extent to which the learning institution are initiated autonomously or through public sponsorship and control. These are not simple dichotomies, but shade into one another. Thus by “imported skills” I refer to skills that have been brought into a country with their carriers in individuals or enterprises that are themselves foreign imports. But just what is viewed as “indigenous” wili depend in part on dating. Eventually imported skills and some aspects of essentially imported training institutions can come to be indigenized, or adapted and absorbed fully into indigenous practices. And the institutional transmission of imported skills can cut across the autonomous vs publicly sponsored distinction. Discussing the belated recognition of indigenous apprenticeship on the part of educational planners, Dougherty (1989, p. 12) has described that situation as follows: “At first there was a tendency to belittle indigenous apprenticeship as a pale shadow of its counterpoint in industrialized countries, in much the same way as the contribution of small enterprises to economic activity had been underestimated. Partly this was because, being entirely autonomous, it escaped the attention of national planners who were in any case largely preoccupied with institutionalized forms of training. Partly it was because, when examined,

Economics

292

of Education Review

it could not stand comparison with the modem apprenticeship schemes found in industrialized countries, the skills imparted being relatively narrow and unsophisticated, and unaccompanied by theoretical instruction.‘* Apprenticeships

and the Small LDC Enterpriser

Attempts to apply the techniques of agricultural extension to the improvement of business know-how and decision-making among small non-farm enterprisers in the LDCs has been disappointing. Taub and Taub (1974) found such methods to have been unsuccessful among small enterprisers in India with the important exception of those who were relatively educated. Coombs and Ahmed (1974) reported failure of such attempts unless they were associated with development strategies along a broader community front, observing that the basic initial problem was commonly in weakness of the artisan skills on which many small businesses were based. In fact, initially Coombs and Ahmed had intended to treat the training of artisans and of small entrepreneurs separately, but they found this was not workable, since these tended to be the same people. Adding a slightly different perspective to the cumulation of reservations about direct approaches to the small enterpriser, Marsden (1984) reported fundamental problems in the provision of qualified advisers to diverse businesses in Thailand. In his words (quoted in Dougherty, 1989, p. 69): “The problems experienced by small firms are specific to the product produced and the materials and machinery used. Rapid changes and innovations take place in all three areas. Advisers must be familiar with these developments and be continuously involved in the industries concerned before they can make reliable diagnoses of problems and suggest appropriate solutions which carry conviction with established entrepreneurs.” Dougherty in turn, basing his assessment on a review of the limited available research evidence, concluded (p. 13) that attempts to impart business know-how as a complement to school-based or non-formal training was usually both ineffective and expensive. The only approach that seems to have been generally successful has been the communication of the rudiments of business know-how in association

with apprenticeship training vation, rural or urban.

and participant

obser-

Non-farm Skills in Rural Areas

Despite some large-scale undertakings in countries that would be listed among the LDCs of today, large proportions of the economically active populations of the LDCs are at work in rural areas or in small-scale activities in urban locations. A principal interest of most researchers on human resources in rural areas is in the intrusion and adoption of new or foreign products and technologies with their associated effects on production organization and changes in skill mixes and skill formation. While most empirical research on rural areas is focused on agriculture, there are exceptions. Coombs and Ahmed 1974, cited earlier, is an exception in that it includes an overview of rural non-farming as well as agricultural production. They reviewed evidence from various sources but referring mainly to government sponsored programs in Asia and Africa. Callaway’s (1964) Nigerian street mechanics and their cousins found no place here. In general Coombs and Ahmed “found a dearth of non-farm skill training programs in rural area in most developing countries”. They also “detected a strong inclination on the part of professional advisers to prescribe solutions for rural training needs that were strongly biased by their urban backgrounds and industrial training doctrines and standards” (p. 51). As Coombs and Ahmed put it “in general the rural artisan’s skills are less specialized and sophisticated but he needs a wider range of skills and more ingenuity in applying them. Parallels with the early American “jack of all trades and master of none” are evident, and for similar reasons. The major difference is the rapidity of the impact of technological change appearing in the rural economies of the LDCs, primarily with respect to agricultural inputs from non-farm sources and to communication and transportation. In their final chapter, Coombs and Ahmed present a critique of training programs for non-farm rural skills. Among their principal generalizations (pp. 154-155) were the following: (1) “Programs of this sort are far more effective when they are centered in rural hub towns as key growth points for rural development rather than being dispersed in sparsely settled village areas”. While the details will differ, this is remarkably close to the position taken with respect to backward areas

Vocational Education in LDCs and neighboring “growth points” in the United States in the late 1960s by Charles Schultz (at that time head of the Council of Economic Advisors). It was obviously applicable to Eastern Kentucky (Bowman and Haynes, 1963). (2) “Smallness should not be promoted as a value in itself.” Rather, policies should be directed toward ways of helping small enterprises to grow. training programs (3) “. . . most fundamentally, and related support designed to spur the growth of non-farm enterprises and employment in rural hubtowns and surrounding areas will have greatest effectiveness when they are made an integral part of a broader development strategy . . .“. So long as we fasten on modes of direct govemment involvement, these propositions would seem to be sound enough. But two critical ingredients are missing. Most important, Coombs and Ahmed seem to have little faith in or respect for the ingenuity and rationality of ordinary men. And second, despite their attention to penetration of new technologies and associated skill needs into rural communities they seem unaware of the importance of informal skill transfers associated with short-term ruralurban migrations. There have been some sharp contrasts between Kenya and Tanzania in these respects. In Tanzania the emphasis was on public control over developments. Educationally, emphasis was on expansion of primary schools, with narrowly limited expansion of secondary schooling. And there were forcible movements of rural people into clustered village centers under the “jajmani” system. Moreover, the goal of “self-reliance” was interpreted in aggregative terms, giving little respect or encouragement to selfreliance among individuals. As a result it went badly astray in application. This is epitomized by treatment of the indigenous blacksmiths who were virtually wiped out because the national agency distributing equipment to the farmers could not compete with them! Sadly, in this case (as in others) “self-reliance” turned into a new dependence on foreign imports, at considerable cost with the destruction of viable local endeavors. In Kenya, by contrast, general education expanded in a wide open system, with the Harambee secondary schools filling the gap left by the regular public schools in meeting popular demand. Meanwhile, population increased at an exceptionally rapid pace. The problems of “educated unemployment” were and are manifest. But so have been the

293

changes in attitudes and behavior with respect to jobs that do not match earlier preferred and expected positions open to primary and then to secondary-school graduates. And so has been the ingenuity of both well and little-schooled people seeking a way to earn a living, along with the ingenuity of those who were and are demanding the services of artisans and craftsmen.

Skill Formation formal Sector”

and Utilization

in the Urban ‘In-

Among governmental agencies and educational planners interested in urban non-farmal enterprises a primary concern is commonly the rising rates of urban unemployment, and especially so-called “educated unemployment”, along with continuing migration to urban centers from rural areas. This perspective is stated explicitly by Michel Debeauvais in his preface (p. 7) to Hallak and Caillods’ 1981 book on education and training in what they called the urban “traditional” sector: “Recently . . . the traditional sector has been given increasing attention, as a sector which would potentially increase job opportunities, generate income and help fight poverty in urban areas. Various educational policies and reforms have been designed to facilitate access to the traditional sector and encourage self-employment of school leavers”. Like Coombs and Ahmed, Hallak and Caillods start from an educational planner’s perspective. They draw on documents of limited circulation and availability to assess evidence concerning the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of various education/training approaches for performance in a “traditional” (informal) urban sector. Drawing on their examination of diverse pieces of evidence, Hallak and Caillods point to the fact that most of those working in the informal sectors of LDCs get their technical skills through apprenticeships of various kinds. They note also that the quality of such “apprenticeships” is extremely variable, that they are sometimes highly exploitative, and that, for better or worse, this will remain the chief means of access to the informal sector in many countries (p. 120). In opposition to the position of those who have urged that training policies should be focused on training for the informal sectors among selected categories of the population, Hallak and Caillods have taken a strong stance in these words (p. 125):

294

Economics of Education Review “It is our firm belief that it is neither possible nor legitimate to train given groups of the population for the traditional sector, any more than it is legitimate in a highly stratified and unequal society to select a priori and train ‘target-groups’ to work in the rural sector or the modem sector or in executive positions. In the first place . . . far from being two very distinct sectors, there is a continuum of situations ranging from subsistence jobs to the highestpaid jobs in the modem sector, and opportunities of moving back and forth from one situation to another should remain open.”

They conclude that general education should be for all, and that for the most part “the role of preparing for a [particular] job will lie with vocational training of very short duration”. Behind their position are thus two fundamental perspectives: (1) the equalization of opportunities to the extent possible, and (2) adaptation to and the fostering of continuous change in socioeconomic development, with mobility between and among sectors in this process. Just such cross-sector mobility of newer artisan and craft skills, along with relative informality in associated apprenticeships, was illustrated in the findings by King (1974, 1975) in his research on the transfers of artisan skills in Kenya - primarily from the more recently indigenous Indians to Africans. These skills were and are utilized in small-scale and in large-scale enterprises, in urban towns and in rural villages, though most of them have in fact been acquired in urban centers. In King’s words (1974, p. 183): “The informal sector is already intimately associated with formal employment. A great deal of the business of urban informal mechanics comes from people in formal jobs who expect to get the same repair or replacement done at half the price they would pay in the large-scale motor firm or official agent. This not only takes advantage of the cheaper labor and lack of overheads, but also of the informal unconventional access to sector’s rather genuine spare parts.”

Three Critical Issues Illustrated from Nigeria As the largest country of Sub-Saharan Africa, and one on which (with Kenya) there is the most

empirical information, the early post-war years in Nigeria must claim special attention. They illustrate: (1) the initial problem of developing craftsmen capable of instructing others, (2) persisting issues around the appropriateness or otherwise of applying metropolitan standards in the ex-colonial states, (3) the place of private vs public agencies in the formation of technical skills. Kilby (1969) provided a rich source of information and commentary about experiences with vocational education and training in Nigeria from 1946 into the late 1960s. In the colonial period before World War II there had been no formal provision of technical education for Nigerians beyond limited artisan training for government departments (adding up to about 300 men by 1945). The 1946 Plan called for a tripartite scheme of Handicraft Centres, Trade Centres and Technical Institutes (Kilby, p. 242). The Handicraft Centres were initially adjuncts to primary schools but later became vocational 3-year post-primary streams. And by 1965 most of the government departments were sponsoring education of technicians in the Technical Institute. The Trade Centres attacked directly the initial problem of creating a base in craftsmanship on which subsequent developments in artisan and craft skills for a modernizing economy could be built. From the start they were a subject of controversy. Even before the first Trade Centre was established, a World Bank mission was highly critical of this program, arguing that “the objective of producing a highly skilled artisan of limited theoretical knowledge and without organizational skills is too limited to be of significant practical benefit in meeting Nigeria’s problems of trained manpower for industry”. In fact many of the Trade Centre students never sat for the City and Guilds and among those who did a majority failed, but many went on to labor ministry tests, qualifying for Artisan Grade II or III. In the following years debates continued in Nigeria as elsewhere concerning the appropriate length of apprenticeships and the setting of standards by the City and Guilds criteria. Looking further, Kilby turned to foreign firms, concluding (p. 253) ‘L. . . the most superficial observation of the progress of the indigenous economy reveals that the transfer and immitation of the production organization and techniques of foreign

Vocational Education in LDCs firms has constituted a major if not the principal element in this process. And the carriers of this technical knowledge have been, virtually without exception, the trained employees of the foreign firms.” And so, in much the same perspective that prevails increasingly today, Kilby suggested that some of the problems, including staff recruitment and retention at Trade Centres, could be reduced by giving the private sector a larger role in the training process.’ In particular, he goes on to say (pp. 261-262): “Consider the case of craftsmen. By virtue of their closer contact with the market, an employer-operated system could be more efficient in the selection of trades. Less encumbered by formal regulations and bureaucratic procedures, private firms can establish, expand, adapt or discontinue training courses with greater speed and at lower cost. . . . student motivation to effectively integrate theory with practice is enhanced by greater proximity to the actual working situation and the immediate presence of a prospective employer”. The SENA-type America

Apprenticeship

Programs

in Latin

Governmentally sponsored and controlled programs for the training of craftsmen and artisans have arisen in many of the LDCs. Indeed, the Trade Centres observed by Kilby in Nigeria might have been included under this heading. But the SENAtype (Servicio National de Apprendiazaje) programs in Latin America are distinctive and reflect the fact that they emerged at a much more advanced stage in national economic development. They also contributed to filling an education/training supply gap relative to demand for access to post-primary general education. From this perspective they could be seen as substitutes for formal schooling, although it does not follow that they are substitutes from the perspective of the skill demands to which they were oriented. The first SENA-type programs in Latin America were apparently introduced in Brazil, with SENAI for industrial skills, SENAC for commerce and some others (differently labeled). These programs were initially established by employer groups to provide off-the-job apprenticeships and skills upgrading, and large employers were taxed to cover

295

costs of the program. In some cases employers sponsored particular students. The linkages with employers ensured relevance in the job markets, in contrast to frequently misguided attempts to predict future needs through manpower forecasting. The SENA-type programs have a variety of components, for both short-term training and upgrading and long-term apprenticeships. The first systematic assessment for the apprenticeship programs was the seminal work by Pm-year (1974,1979) in Colombia, which followed up graduates of a 3year apprentice program compared with a random sample of Bogota males who were similar in terms of age and formal education but had not participated in the SENA apprenticeship or other explicitly vocational programs. Even adjusting for a variety of background selectivity variables, completion of the SENA apprentice program remained positively and significantly associated with earnings. While most of the participants in the SENA apprenticeship program were graduates of primary schools, some had had secondary schooling. For both groups Puryear found both private and social rates of return to be high, although the independent contribution of SENA to earnings declined somewhat with rising levels of prior formal schooling.4 There was also an unexpected effect. While over four-fifths of the SENA graduates were still working in their field of study or in closely related fields of study some 5 years later, over half had gone on to formal secondary schooling as well after their SENA training. Puryear suggests that this reflected in part at least the fact that with SENA training and associated employment the SENA graduates were now in an economic position to pursue secondary education to strengthen their skills and range of competence. (A similar phenomenon was observed by Bowman among 1967 graduates of technical secondary schools in Japan who went on to night-school higher education to up-grade their levels of competence while continuing in technical vocations.) The slightly less strong partial returns to SENA apprenticeship training for those with initially more formal schooling has been interpreted to suggest that such training was in part a substitute for more general formal schooling. This is undoubtedly true from the perspective of many SENA students. But we must be cautious in how we interpret this result. It can hardly be regarded as surprising in view of the strong general education components in the SENA apprenticeship program. What seems to be involved

296

Economics of Education Review

is perhaps in fact the importance of a balanced complementarity between general education, wherever obtained, and specialized training in close and direct association with employment and vocational commitment. More recent follow-up research on graduates of SENA-type programs seems to have been primarily, again, on SENA in Colombia, carried out by Jimenez and Kugler (1987) and by Jimenez et al. (1989). They grouped present Colombian SENA programs in two categories: (a) long courses, averaging 2000 hours per course and (b) short courses, averaging about 200 hours each. The long courses included apprenticeship programs (skill training for young people with primary schooling), promotional programs for advanced skill training after apprenticeships, and complementary programs for adults who wish to upgrade their skills to apprenticeship levels. The short courses included “qualifying programs”, meant to introduce new but relatively low levels of skills. Jimenez et al. (1989, pp. 606-607) estimated that both private and social rates of return exceeded 20% for the apprentice and promotional programs, and they exceeded 10% even for social returns to the complementary programs. The only social rates of return falling below 10% were on the short “qualifying” programs, where private rates of return were extremely high because of low foregone earnings.’

IV. ON-THE-JOB

TRAINING IN THE MODERN ENTERPRISE

In the broadest sense, on-the-job training is involved in apprenticeships such as those discussed above, and also in learning through participant observation by the street-side mechanic. The reference here, however, is to types of employment situations more characteristic of large modem firms, and it is in such settings that modem human capital theory and its empirical applications was first evolved. The theoretical base has wider applications, however, and is relevant in many situations that do not meet purist assumptions with respect to competitive conditions or take explicitly into account the various natures of “internal labor markets”. While some of the critiques will be noted in what follows, this is not the place for a fullfledged examination of their implications.

On-the-Job Training in Human Capital Theory On-the-job learning is a major component of human capital formation in the seminal general theory of investment in human beings as first promulgated by Gary Becker in 1962 and elaborated thereafter. I summarize here in an extremely simplified version, but one that distinguishes between transferable skills in a competitive state and firmspecific skills, which introduce a monopsonistic element. The latter constitute a special sort of “attachment learning” in their reduction of labor tumover.6 Observing that life earnings streams typically have a concave form - starting with low wages or salaries but rising, rapidly at first and then more slowly - it was hypothesized that this form reflected postschool “opportunity-cost” investments in further human capital formation. The “opportunity costs” were the time or time-equivalent deductions from potential earnings on full-time employment without training. By this theory, so long as what is learned in a firm is equally valuable when employed elsewhere, the full costs would be born by the trainee. But what if a major part of the learning is of value only in the firm in which it is acquired? In other words, what if much of the addition to human capital is firmspecific? In that case the costs will be shared between the trainee and the firm. The trainee will not accept the full cost in reduced initial earnings since he could not get enough back if he sought to sell his services in other quarters. At the same time, the firm clearly will not be willing to accept the full costs and then pay the trainee in subsequent years wages equal to his entire then-current productivity. Incentives remain for both trainee and firm to stay together. For the employee the penalty in not doing so will be the loss of return on his share in the firmspecific portion of his human capital. For the employer the penalty in failing to maintain the attachment of the worker to the firm will be the sacrifice of that part of the worker’s firm-specific contributions that is represented by the gap between his worth to the firm and what he is paid. Jacob Mincer had anticipated Becker in his interest in the acquisition of skills in the post-school years, but without the elegance that Becker brought to his treatment as part of a unified theory of investments in human beings. Continuing along the lines suggested by Becker’s theoretical formulation, Mincer went on (1974) to introduce the concept of the “overtake” point, at which observed earnings

equal what the earnings potential would have been without post-school human capital investment under the assumption that the internal rates of return to a given increment of schooling and of associated post-school learning are equal. Dropping that assumption, in a forthcoming article he reports on some empirical evidence of the magnitude of onthe-job training in the United States, demonstrating that the observed slopes of earning curves are indeed predominantly reflections of genuine “training” and not just “screening” and selectivity effects of schooling along with associated unstm~ured learning through experience, nor delayed payment strategies in the monitoring of worker performance+ Meanwhile, Mincer and Higachi (1988) have pursued a comparative analysis of wage structures and labor turnover in the U.S. and Japan. They show that the greater steepness of wage profiles in large Japanese firms is NOT a strategy to reduce monitoring costs (as has been argued by a number of labor economists in seeking general explanations of such profiles). Asking “Why is the emphasis on human capital formation on the job so much greater in Japan than in the United States?” they conclude that this has been conditioned by the rapid technological change and associated economic growth over recent decades in Japan. Finally, they estimated that productivity growth accounted for 7040% of the differences between the United States and Japan in the steepness of wage profiles, and hence indirectly for the differences in labor turnover. Modem On-the-Job Tmining vs Apprenticeship As soon as we look a little more deeply into who pays and how for on-the-job learning, it becomes evident that there are some similarities between apprenticeship systems and firm-specific learning in both public and private organizations. There are investments by trainees in foregone uses of their own time, whether or not they pay fees, even as there are also costs incurred by the trainers. And there are in varying degrees u~ac~~e~t of the learner to the master or to the modern employer. There are definite contrasts as well. First, apprenticeship systems are essentially v~tion~-ent~ arrangements. In economically advanced economies, on the other hand, most on-the-job training is relatively short-term at entry, and the entrants have a considerable prior hounding in general, unspecialized school learning. There are exceptions, however, in which both private and public modem

large-scale organizations provide long-term training for new employees. Most obvious are specialized government agencies such as railroads and nationalized utilities, which provide long-term upprenticeship training in skills specific to those enterprises; they can do this without much if any concern for subsequent departure of skilled employees. This has been a common practice in the LDCs. It occurs to some extent in private firms as well, wherever they are is a strong monopsonistic position in the labor markets for particular skills. This is most frequent among foreign firms in relatively small LDCs, since in that setting they are monopsonistic in their skill demands, whether or not operating in international markets for their products. Second, apprenticeship arrangements commonly involve acquisition of skills that have wide applicability, hence are portable across agencies and activities. The post-learning attachment to a master, if it is to persist, must in such cases entail some sort of recognized obligation, formal or informal, on the part of the trainee. The alternative has already been mentioned: payments of fees by trainee to master. This has more in common with attending a private or a public fee-paying trade center or non-formal “school” than with on-the-job learning of portable skills in a modem private orga~ation. Third, unlike apprenticeships, on-the-job training in most large modem enterprises is a continuing process that can upgrade skills, counter obsolescence and undergird innovations within the enterprise. Where this does not happen life-earning curves are flattened, as they may have been in most such enterprises in many of the LDCs. In many of the LDCs so-tailed “educated unemployment” rises as increases in modem-sector and government jobs fail to keep up with the increases in numbers of school leavers; employee incentives to hang on to modem-sector jobs check voluntary turnover, whatever the extent of specialized on-the-job training and learning. What is in the %lack Box”? It is time that we come back to reconsider further the question, just what is in the “black box” or the “internal labor markets” from which earning paths emerge? There is an extensive and growing economic literature on internal labor markets quite aside from and partially in contradiction to the main themes of human capital theory. Metcalf (1985) was particu-

298

Economics

of Education Review

larly interested in this question as it relates to the use of benefit-cost analysis in assessments of the returns to schooling and to alternatives in education and training. He pursued the evidence from various sources, beginning with a review of “firm level studies” that includes discussion of the pa~c~arly interesting work by Fuller (1976) on a factory in South India (well worth examination in the original) along with contributions by Medoff (1981) and Medoff and Abraham (1980). All of these used nonmonetary indicators of job performance. Unfortunately, their quantitative indicators also have severe limitations as productivity measures. This shows up clearly in contrasts between moderate success in attempts to identify determinants of “productivity” at a given job level vs failures in analogous attempts to explain rates of promotion to more demanding jobs. A major difficulty here as in most human resource accounting is the problem of distinguishing between productivity and selectivity effects, both of which are involved. Following his non-moneta~ review by firms, Metcalf went on to further explorations that include comparisons between the steepness of nonmonetary productivity curves and monetary earning curves. His results neither confirm nor undermine human capital theory if one accepts the propositions that (1) internal rates of return to on-the-job investments can exceed those to prior schooling, which Mincer (1989) found for the United States, and/or (2) that, in some cases, implicit contracts between employers and workers can incorporate employee savings, associated earlier at least with life cycle wage policies in Japan. Metcalf (p. 126) comes out with two conclusions. First, he writes that “There is no reason to expect equality between pay and productivity at all points on the experience profile”. This, however, is also what has been implied from the start by human capital theory, which is explicit in its specification that observed earnings will be net of concurrent opportunity cost investments in future earning power. But Metcalf goes on to both a defense and a warning with respect to monetary benefit-cost assessments, in these terms: “Thus even though cost benefit analysis is the superior method of evafuatittg training, any such evaluations based on earnings data should be tentative in drawing its conclusions”. (The italics are Metcalf’s.) And he reaches this conclusion despite a myriad of explicitly recognized problems that include “non-

competitive labor markets, externalities and disequilibria”. A compelling challenge to one element in Becker’s initial treatment of on-the-job training comes from Katz and Ziderman in their July 1989 paper on “General training as a shared ~vestment”. A strong case is made for low turnover and high attachment to firms that provide training even when the skills acquired could have wide applicability in other entrprises. The central theme has two main interrelated components: (a) assymetry in information about trained workers between the training firm and a firm seeking to recruit already trained workers, and (b) diversity in the #mponen~ of training associated with future adaptability of the work force in the face of changes in technologies and skill demands. Pursuing these themes, they argue that the incentives to incorporate general skills in on-the-job training are far greater than in Becker’s model, in which the trainee would bear the entire cost of the aquisition of “general skills”. We could put this in a slightly different way, to suggest that general skills are not necessarily readily portabfe across employing agencies. This again is clearly illustrated in Japan, most obviously perhaps in the extent of general education incorporated in training programs of many large firms in the early post-war years, before secondary schooling became so nearly universal. Three persisting features of Japanese personnel practices are especially interesting here. (1) First is flexibility in job assignments; there is little or no room for jurisdictional disputes in Japan, where the base of union structure has been the enterprise, not the occupation. (2) Second, an emphasis on group identity and interactive communications, both vertically and horizontally within the structure of the enterprise, is pervasive in both private firms and public agencies. This second feature is consciously developed and can be illustrated again and again. Thus when a young Japanese was recently appointed as director of a new unit with a new function in a public agency, his first spontaneous reaction was to state: “First of all I must build a sense of group belonging and mutual involvement in our endeavors”. This carries to its logical conclusion what Sherwin Rosen first picked out (1972) as the principal element in firm-specific human capital the interactive role of individuals in their activities and the costliness of the time it takes to integrate a

Vocational Education in LDCs new employee into a group and the enterprise as a whole. It says something also about traits other than narrowly defined “know-how” that can make for productivity of an individual as a participant in larger entities.’ (3) Difficult to measure but of considerable importance must be personnel policies directed to the development of managerial capabilities at higher levels in complex organizations. As simple a policy as moving prospective candidates for higher positions about beginning at modest levels of responsibility and in different parts of an enterprise - a practice followed to some extent in most large forward-looking enterprises - seems to be carried much further in Japan. That policy can have shortterm costs, but it can lead to better understanding and performance in subsequent higher posts. Indeed, in this as in many other respects, Japanese practices may be suggestive for LDCs even though they cannot be simply lifted out of Japan and set down unmodified in quite another society.

The Foreign Enterprise and Externalities Economists have tended to be cautious about making adjustments for externalities in assessments of returns to investments in education and training, whether in schools or in direct association with work. There is a special need for further consideration of spillovers, however, with respect to jobrelated training in foreign controlled enterprises in the LDCs, including World Bank “Project-related training”. Unfortunately, little seems to have been done along these lines. Kilby (1969, p. 253) was a partial exception. Even the careful assessments of project-related training by Mingat and Tan (1988) are turned inward on the particular projects. Neither they nor Frank (1980) consider the externalities that may follow in subsequent contributions from project trainees to other activities in a recipient country. The selective ways in which South Korea made use of turnkey projects in the formation of foreign-engendered skills illustrate a very different, but highly suggestive, approach to this matter indicated by Dougherty in his citation from Westphal, Rhee, and Pursell. But both the Korean and earlier Japanese experiences are distinctive in that they reflect local initiative in well educated populations capable of creative adoption of new methods and processes. This brings us directly to the main question addressed in Section V.

299

V. WHERE DO SCHOOLS AND TRAINING CENTERS COME IN? Whether our illustration is from a particular case, as the German vs British metal workers or the more sweeping generalizations about labor policies in Japan, of particular importance must be the fact that for most purposes the large modem enterprises build their vocational training on availability of a labor force that has had prior formal schooling. That schooling unquestionably increases efficiency in future skill acquisition and adaptation to change. It facilitates self-education over the life span. Whatever the curriculum, prior formal schooling can undergird use of short-term methods in the transmission of new skills. And such schooling can provide levels of theoretical understanding that can reduce the costs and problems of supervision of a general working force. In other words, schools may come in with what they can do best - the preparation of students for further learning over a life-time. I have argued this point at some length elsewhere (e.g. Bowman, 1970, 1988). But this does not dispose of the question as to how far, at what levels, and for what sorts of skills schools might provide specialized vocational education or training. This large question is approached here only indirectly, under two headings: (1) the general, the vocational and the “practical” in the formal schools, and (2) the foundations of change: an educational and training paradox? The General, the Vocational, and the “Practical” in the Formal Schools Three decades ago UNESCO encouraged occupation-specific education in the schools, but today it suggests only that member states “consider” some school-based vocational and technical education. “Job-readiness” training in the schools (meaning readiness without need for initial on-the-job leaming), has dropped from UNESCO’s curriculum guidelines (Dougherty, 1989, p. 91). Similarly, for some years World Bank assistance to education in LDCs had several features that have more recently been challenged at least to the extent of posing some critical questions. Two of these relate to curricula in the schools. The first is the strong emphasis placed by the Bank until recently on a “manpower planning and forecasting” approach that was far too undiscriminating in attempted applications in the LDCs.

300

Economics of Education Review

The notations of such an approach are now widely recognized, along with the importance of flexible responses to changing conditions. A second emphasis in much of Bank lending for education has been on vocational education, primarily at secondary levels. Initially these loans were concentrated on technical vocational schools, and coincided with the Bank’s emphasis generally on physical facilities. The very cost of these schools was probably a factor in directing funds in that direction. But meanwhile several factors were pushing in another direction, toward “pre-vocational training” in many or most of the general secondary schools. And benefit-cost analyses have been brought to bear on assessments of these programs compared with general, nonvocational schools.’ Findings with respect to the effects of prevocational vs general programs on subsequent jobs and incomes of graduates are mixed, favorable in some cases, not in others. What has been consistent in the benefit-cost assessments, however, is a clear failure to provide a reasonable financial social return on the extra costs of the vocational components in the curricula of at least the “technical bias” programs. It should not escape our notice that where public secondary schools have been supplemented by private schools, the vocational foci have been primarily on commercial rather than technical subjects. Kenya’s harambee schools provide examples. One hope of those urging the introduction of prevocational programs in the secondary schools has been disappointed virtually without exception this is the hope that somehow they would resolve the problem of unemployment among the young school leavers. That hope rested on false premises from the start - the notion that schools could substitute for job-entry training linked directly to employment. Dougherty saw this clearly, and thus (p. 91) he concluded that “the only solution is to acknowledge and respond to the problem of an excessively rapid growth of the labor force. If the existing provision of academic education appears to be excessive, it would be more prudent to cut it back, and use the resources released to improve the coverage and quality of primary education . . .n. These observations do not end the matter, however. One reason is the tendency of local leaders in some of the LDCs to look first to existing institutions to solve the gaps in formation of human resources for economic development. Indeed, this is

one of the biases Dougherty (1989, p_ 6) has attributed in part at least to the remarkably entrenched position of “manpower planning” in many LDCs even today: that it favors the [public] establishment of institutional training facilities (especially technical colleges, polytechnics and non-formal training centers). This, along with simpler, “intuitive” institutional appeals is well-recognized even by those who have been most deeply involved in assessments of “diversified education” and are least enthusiastic about such policies. See as a prime example, Psacharopoulos (1987) on “To vocationalize or not to vocationalixe; that is the curriculum question”. But there are also widespread failures of communication and failures to distinguish between the vocationally specialized and the generally practical. And there must be legitimate questions about the validity of even the best of research efforts assessing particular cases. Meas~ement issues are many, both among those most inclined to challenge use of earnings data as indicators of productivity and even among some who defend those uses as reasonable approximations. Both communication failures and gut reactions that challenge recent research findings are illustrated by reactions in Zimbabwe to the World Bank’s 1987 policy report on Education in SubSaharan Africa. In its executive summary the World Bank report stated: “The main questions that many countries face are when and how to make the transition from subjects that have broad vocational relevance (language, mathematics, science) to programs and subjects that will prepare individuals for particular jobs or clusters of jobs. International experience shows that a strong general education, which schools can provide efficiently, greatly enhances an individuals future trainability. It also shows that job-specific training is very implant. Such training is most efficiently provided after initial job decisions have been made and [with] institutions under, or strongly influenced by, the ultimate employer.” The first issue of a new journal, the Zimbabwe lournal of Educational Research (1989), was devoted to discussions of this report. Particularly interesting are the responses by Chung, the Minister of Education, and by Mutumbuka, the Minister of Higher Education.

Vocut~o~u~Education in LLXs Chung started off by expressing herself as in “complete disagreement with the World Bank” in connection with vocational education. In her words “Fit of all, I think the research work they have done, s . . by Psacharopoulos, is very narrow” (in comparing expensive vocational with general education). Chung illustrated her point by reference to an “0” level graduate who did not know you had to put water in an engine, oil it, and clean it - and who, asked what was wrong with a tractor, said “it is tired”. Chung’s principal arguments are (1) that some basic practical education can be inexpensive, and (2) that the country needs a balanced program, not just university engineers with no intermediate skills. Chung provides a clear example of Dougherty’s point (1989, p. 71), that debates over vocational education are bedeviled by “the failure, on the part of both advocates and critics, to clarify what is meant by it”. And again, in Dougherty’s words, the term is used “to cover a continuous spectrum from the teaching of applied science subjects such as eiectronics which, while technical in nature, are of wide application, to the development of job-specific vocational ski&“. In addition, both Chung and Mutumbuka object to what they see to be the World Bank’s position on teacher pay. They agree that it is hard to retain artisans as teachers because of non-competitive pay, but they take the position that such teachers should be trained as specialists and their pay should be adapted to the market. The real disagreement here, as in Chung’s case of the “tired tractor”, may be in just where the training about use of machinery and the teachers of artisans should be found, not in their inclusion in a total human resource development system. And their plea is for more carefully defined research projects in the assessment of policy ahernatives. This brings us back to what is meant by “vocational”. I have long argued that nothing is more important vocationally than the ~nd~ent~s of basic learning in a primary school. Nevertheless, in this essay I have quite deliberately used a much narrower definition of “vocational” as education and training that is specialized in its orientation to particular jobs or occupations. The criticai question then becomes what is truly specialized, vs what has far wider, general applications, This is not a matter of being “theoretical” vs “pragmatic”. At some levels theoretical understandings can be general, pragmatic, and highly practical in everyday life.

301

The distinction between “vocational” and “practical” is urged by Lauglo (1985) by Lauglo and Narman (1987) and by Lauglo and Lillis (1988a), who approach the debates over ‘%ocationalization” from just such a perspective. They argue that we should cease thinking about school curricula in terms focused onIy on labor markets and jobs, giving more attention to what is practical in the lives of a large part of a population. Respite experience in Kenya, their implicit referants seem to be primarily the economically advanced, relatively rich countries, where the inclusion of “practical subjects” that entail use of special equipment does not post serious financial problems. But what about the LDCs? What wiil have the broadest practical value in the lives of residents of any one of the diverse LDCs is a question that may require special consideration, along with cost-effectiveness in providing such instruction. Two things are clearly general in their relevance, however. First, a little ingenuity can introduce into even poor schools some inventive low-cost instruments for instruction in applied biology or chemistry or physics. This was done for physics by visitors to schools in Kenya 30 years ago, but how many of the teachers of that time were qualified to carry on? (In a science class in one of the intermediate schools a teacher wondered why her two rabbits did not produce babies, but it had never occurred to her to check their sexes!) Second, there can be no question of the very general practical relevance of instruction in nutrition, fundamental health practices, and sanitation at both basic theoretical and immediate practical levels. This is where the monetary biases in thinking about what is “vocational” have got mixed up with how women’s roles are perceived.

Foundations of Change: an Educational and Training Paradox? With others, I have argued that “where formal schooling comes in” is in providing the foundations for future learning and adaptability (e.g. Bowman, 1988). But I have argued also that an essential feature of on-the-job training is its continuation over much of a working life, including thereby the replacement of obsolescent skills and the upgrading of old skills with new developments. it seems then that solid schooling is the foundation of change, but so also is learning on the job. In so far as the one enhances the effects of the other this is true

302

Economics of Education Review

complementarity and no paradox. But still I have said nothing about how other agencies of education and training, primarily in the so-called “non-formal” sector may come in. Almost any classified urban telephone directory in a non-totalitarian state will include a listing under “schools” of numerous agencies that are very different from those that make up the regular graded system. These are the rich country variants of what often are called specialized “trade centers” in less developed countries, but with the important differences that most of them are privately controlled whereas the LDC trade centers are more often pubiicly supported and controlled. Across countries and even within some countries there are innumerable mixes of private and public roles, however. The so-called “non-formal sector” in education and training is diverse in many respects, and the very existence of this diversity lends flexibility and adaptability to national systems of education and training taken as a whole. It is among the “nonformal” agencies that we will often find the readiest responses to new minor (and sometimes major) skill demands, along with perhaps the greatest diversity in degrees of formality and informality, in the mixes and levels of skills taught, and in the tightness or looseness of associations with particular employers. To a planner who wants a tidy place for everything and everything in its place, this may seem intolerably messy - and especially so if it is not under the wing of any public agency. Debates here center not on what curricula should be, but rather on how much public control or support should be introduced, and where public inte~entions are involved on how far responsibility and initiative may be decentralized. This subject was approached from one perspective in the discussions earlier in this paper of indigenous apprenticeships and the streetside mechanic. In quite another vein, but relevant for LDCs nonetheless, is the research by Hyde (1976) on “The Metropolitan Proprietary School”. He presents clear evidence on the flexibility and adaptability of such schools to changes in the labor markets; as leaders in such adaptations they precede adjustments in the curricula of public junior colleges. But that is not all. Trade centers in the LDCs may often meet temporary gaps in the formation of critical skills among the adult population even as they may also exhibit resistance to change. And they may constitute an independent branch, supplementing on-the-job training, in the

provision of recurrent education. (On recurrent education see Stoikov, 1975.) The importance of an environment that will encourage and accept widely dispersed initiatives in such endeavors has long been stressed by some (Anderson, 1968, 1973, among the earliest). Meanwhile, along with maturation in the development of national training systems have come both a rising awareness of local needs and increasing pressures on national budgets - a combination that is encouraging decentralization of authority. And so Dougherty (1989, p. 16) concludes that “Paradoxically, the creation of a national training system has not required the establishment of a national training authority. Indeed, to the extent that such an authority centralizes decision-making and stifles initiatives its existence may actually have an adverse effect”. Ziderman (1990) looks at the limited situations that may justify state intervention in an analysis that specifies the distinctive sorts of intervention appropriate to each case - by financing training, by its direct provision, by various sorts of complementary policies.g VI. THE PAST LOOKS INTO THE FUTURE: SOME CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS We stand at a moment in time between the past and the future. Such knowledge as we may have derives from the past, but whatever use we may make of it looks toward the future and will have its effects in both near and distant futures, just as the various pasts condition what goes on today. Looking into the future we might start with any one of three basic approaches, but I find the following order most workable: (1) the core dimensions of vocationality, (2) some relevant fundamentals in the nature of human beings, and (3) socioeconomic and educational heritages, with a few lessons from the past. (1) In writing of the dimensions of vocationality I shall depart from the simplistic definition accepted earlier in this study, which identified “vocational education and training” with specialization. Instead, it is time to recognize once again the very fundamental importance of general capabilities for the exercise of any and all vocations. A first dimension in the skill components of a vocation must be in their degrees of general vs specialized applicability. This is associated with but is not identical to degrees of “portabiiity”. A second dimension is in the depth of

Vocational Education in LDCs both the general and the specialist components, which might be conceptualized in terms of the time taken in acquiring those skill~.‘~ An astrophysicist, for example, will have great depth in both the general and specialized components of his vocational skills. The illiterate, untrained laborer has virtually no skills, general or specialized. But most people are at neither of these extremes, and the general and specialized are always matters of degree in any particular societal setting. The concept of “general” as used here is functionally distinct from the usages by Lauglo et al., which referred to commonality among large proportions of a population rather than to multiplicity in kinds of applications. The “practical” but not primarily “vocational” skills (in a narrow market sense) urged for schools by Lauglo et al. could be either functionally general or specialized. Above all, what is functionally general will serve both to facilitate more specialized learning and adaptation and to provide communication skills that are of ever rising importance in all countries in today’s world. (2) Among the most basic of human traits relevant to the present discussion is the importance of motivation for effective learning and action. Where learning is oriented to the future this must underline the importance of visibility of future returns, which is not necessarily monetary. But along with this goes another human trait that is neglected at great social cost. I refer to the potentials for ingenuity in resolving problems that resides in human beings given environments that permit and even encourage exercise of that capacity. Combined with basic general skills this can constitute the foundation not only of adjustments to change but also of the creative imitation across communities and societies that has characterized economic progress over past decades and centuries. (3) Third, we come to past history and hence also to history in the making. The socioeconomic and educational-training heritage that constitutes a starting point at any particular moment in time is in part specific to a particular community or society, but it is also more broadly world-wide. There is no reason to expect a repetition of any of the histories of particular past societies. What they show us is rather that there are many possibilities, many combinations and gradations in ways of doing things. They show us that past history affects the relative viability among options today, even as history in the making may modify creatively selective imitation across

303

societies. The “lessons of history” must be drawn not only from these pasts (and from particular nearpast applied research, epitomized most recently by work on “diversified education” in schools and studies of SENA). Use of evidence from the past calls for intepretation in view of the importance of both functionally general and specialized components in vocational capabilities and with a recognition of the nature of human nature. Several generalizations would seem to follow. (a) It takes a combination of formal schooling, onthe-job training and learning, and diverse sorts of non-formal agencies to provide a flexible system for the formation of human resources in any society. (b) Nearness to applications is of critical importance for investments in specialized skills. We should have learned this as a lesson of history, which includes the failures of indiscriminate uses of manpower forecasting for specialized occupations. (On this see Ahmad and Blaug, 1973; Blaug, 1973; Dougherty, 1989.) But alertness to the importance of motivations and the limitations of futurology should have led us to the same conclusion. (c) The ideal system would entail rational comparisons of cost-effectiveness both between and within diverse modes of human resource formation, including approaches that cut across conventional education and training categories, as has been exemplified in SENA. This is a difficult criterion to apply because it entails challenges to institutional interests and inventiveness in institutional innovation. Moreover, what will be most cost-effective is a function in part of long-term investments (cultural as well as economic in a narrower sense) that are already in place. It does NOT justify sweeping centralized controls. (d) Some fresh thinking is called for in giving heed to the conditions that will provide motivations and opportunities for human resource development. Rather than jumping in with centralized controls this means looking at labor market policies quite as much as at education and training directly. It means giving scope for independent endeavors, thereby enlisting the creative potentials and participation of many people in the formation and utilization of skills. It calls for basic functional literacy for all, as a prime step in unlocking potentials that are latent in “ordinary” men and women. Finally, the scope for progress through specializations that can exploit increasing returns as delineated by Rosen depends on the scale of the

304

Economics of Education Review

market. Ultimately, for most LDCs this will mean greatly enlarged participation in foreign markets. It means having something to offer beyond raw materials and poor imitations of what others already do better. This is where some of the Asian peoples have proven successful and where peoples of some of the Asian LDCs may have the greatest near-term

potentials. And so I come to repeat the words with which I concluded a paper on out-of-school formation of human resources 10 years ago: “whatever encourages innovative performance and the pursuit of excellence in economic life will stimulate both formation of human resources and their more effective utilization”.

NOTES 1. Modern analogues to the occupational restrictions are obvious in the licensing of major professions and in union limitations on apprenticeships in advanced countries today, although without the civic constraints of an earlier era. 2. On some contrasts between Britain and Germany, see citations in Dougherty (1989). pp. 87-88. Emphasis was placed on the higher average attainments of the weakest half of the pupils in Germany. Also of particular interest here is Finegold and Soskice (1988). 3. For penetrating discussions of roles of government in the encouragement of vocational education and training see Ziderman (1990) and Middleton et al. (1990). 4. Castro (1979) reached some similar conclusions on his investigations of parallel programs in Brazil, but with a less well designed methodology. Psacharopoulos (1982) reached what he judged to be negative results in Peru, where he lacked the data needed for a straightforward benefit-cost assessment and estimated what instead it would take in the earnings multiple attributed to SENAI to yield a 10% rate of return. In fact, however, the multiples found by Puryear in Colombia (with careful controls) were substantially higher than those used by Psacharopoulos. 5. They point out that there is no correction for ability in these estimates. If selectivity into SENA is of the more able, the rates of return are overestimated; if it is of the less able they are under-estimated. 6. For a clear summarization and critique of this theory in the case of large firms and inter-firm transferability of skills, see Ryan (1984). From the start, it must be recognized that both labor union bargaining and legally set minimum wages can affect the extent of investments in on-the-job training, and raise some problems in measuring its extent. 7. For an exceptionally thoughtful and insightful discussion of management in complex interacting organizations and the limits of firms and markets, see Rosen (1988). 8. On “diversified” education and pre-employment vocational education see especially Dougherty (1989). pp. 71-92; Lauglo (1985), Lkglb and Narman (1987), Lillis and Hdgan (i983). Psacharopoulos. (1985, 1987). Psacharopoulos and Loxlev_. (198.5) to , and (in strong_ opposition .. Psacharopoulos), Wright (1988). 9. See his summarization in Chart 1, on “The Role of Government in Training”. 10. Unfortunately the values of clock and calendar time are not fixed, and both empirically and conceptually there is no escaping the issue of time-effectiveness in learning.

REFERENCES AHAMAD, B. and BLAUG. M. (1973) The Practice of Manpower Forecasting. Amsterdam: Elsevier. ANDERSON,C.A. (1968) Technical and vocational education in the new nations. In Schools in Transition (Edited by KAZAMIAS,A. and EPSTEIN,E.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. ANDERSON, C.A. (1973) Fostering and inhibiting factors. In New Straregies for Educarional Development: The Cross-culrural Search for Non-formal Alternatives(Edited by BROMBECK,C.S. and THOMSON, T.J.), pp. 25-36. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath & Co. ANDERSON, C.A. and BOWMAN, M.J. (Editors) (1965) Educarion and Economic Development. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co. ARMYTAGE.W.H.G. (1965) Education and innovative ferment in England 1588-1805. In Educorion and Economic Devilopmenr (Edited by ANDERSON, C.A. and BOWMAN, M.J.), pp. 376-393. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co. BECKER, G.S. (1964) Human Capital. New York: Published for the National Bureau of Economic Research by the Columbia University Press. Becker’s first publication on specific versus general human capital appeared under the title “Investment in Human Beings”, /. Polir. Econ. October 1962 supplement pp. 9-49. BECKER, G.S. (1981) A Treurise on rhe Family. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

305

Vocational Education in LDCs BLAUG, M. (1973) Education and the Employment Problem in Developing Countries. Geneva: International Labor Office. BOORSTIN,D.J. (1958) The Americans. New York: Random House. BOWMAN, M.J. (1965) From guilds to infant training industries. In Education and Economic Development (Edited by ANDERSON,C.A. and BOWMAN, M.J.), pp. 98-129. Chicago: Aldine Publishing. BOWMAN,M.J. (1970) Mass elites on the threshold of the 1970s. Comp. Educ. 6, 141-160. BOWMAN, M.J. (1979) Out-of-school formation of human resources. In Economic Dimensions of Education (Edited by WINDHAM, D.M.), pp. 141-160. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Education. BOWMAN,M.J. (1988) Links between general and vocational education: does the one enhance the other? Int. Rev. Educ. 34. 149-171. BOWMAN,M.J. and HAYNES. W.W.. (1%3) Resources and People in East Kentucky; Problems and Potentials of a Lagging Economy. Baltimore: Published for Resources for the Future by Johns Hopkins University Press. BOWMAN,M.J. and ANDERSON,CA. (1976) Human capital and economic modernization in historical perspective. In Schooling and Society: Studies in the History of Education (Edited by STONE, L.), pp. 3-19. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Cut version of 1968 paper Fourth International Conference of Economic History (1973) (Edited by LANE, C.), pp. 247-272. Paris: Mouton. BREMBECK,C.S. and THOMPSON,T.J. (Editors) (1973) New Strategies for Educational Development: The Cross-cultural Search for Nonformal Alternatives. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath & Co. CALLAWAY.A. (1964) Nigeria’s indigenous education: the apprenticeship system. Odu 1, 62-79. CALLAWAY, A. (1973) Frontiers of out-of-school education. In New Strategies for Educational Development: The Cross-cultural Search for Nonformal Alternatives (Edited by BREMBECK,C.S. and THOMPSON.T.J.), pp. 13-23. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath & Co. CALLAWAY,A. (1974) Educating Africa’s Youth for Rural Development. Bernard van Leer Foundation. CASTRO, C. DE MOURA (1979) Vocational education and the training of industrial labour in Brazil. Int. Lab. Rev. 118, 617-629.

CHUNG, F. (1989) Policies for primary and secondary education in Zimbabwe: alternatives to the World Bank perspective. (Responses of the Minister of Education to interview questions.) Zimbabwe 1. Educ. Res. 1, 22-42. This special opening issue of the Journal is focused on the 1987 World Bank report Education in Sub-Saharan Africa: A World Bank Policy Study. CRUMBS, P.H. and AHMED. M. (1974) Attacking Rural Poverty. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. DEBEAUVAIS,M. (1981) Preface to Hallak and Caillods. Education, Training and the Traditional Sector. DOUGHERTT,C. (1989) The Cost-effectiveness of National Training Systems in Developing Countries. Washington, D.C.: World Bank working paper, March 1989. FINEGOLD,D. and SOSKICE, D. (1988) The failure of training in Britain: analysis and prescription. Oxford

Rev. Econ.

Policy 4. 21-53.

FRANK, I. (1980) Foreign Enterprise in Developing Countries. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. FRANKEL,M. (1955) Anglo-American productivity differences: their magnitude and some causes. Am. Econ. Rev. 45 (Proceedings), 111. FULLER,W.P. (1976) More evidence on pre-employment vocational training: a case study of a factory in South India. Comp. Educ. Rev. 20, M-39. GUSTAFS~ON,I. (1988) Work as education - perspectives on the role of work in current educational reform in Zimbabwe (Edited by LAUGLO,J. and LILLIS, K.), pp. 219-229. Oxford: Pergamon Press. HALLAK, J. and CAILLODS,F. (1981) Education, Training and the Traditional Sector. Paris: UNESCO, International Institute for Educational Planning. HYDE, W.D. (1976) Metropolitan Proprietary Schools. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath & Co. JIMENEZ.E. and KUGLER, B. (1987) The earnings impact of training duration in a developing country: an ordered probit selection model of Colombia’s Servicio National de Apprendizaje (SENA). /. Hum. Resour.

22, 228-247.

JIMENEZ,E., KUGLER, B. and HORN, R. (1989) National In-service Training Systems in Latin America: An economic evaluation of Colombia’s SENA. Econ. Develop. Cultural Changes 37, 595-610. KA-IZ, E. and ZIDERMAN.A. (1989) General training as a shared investment: the role of information. Processed. KILBY, P. (1969) Ind~ttialization in an Open Economy: Nigeria 1945-1966. Cambridge University Press. KING. K. (1974) Productive labor and the school system: Kenya. Comp. Educ. 10, 181-191.

contradictions

in the training of artisans in

Economics

of Education

Review

KING, K. (1975) Indo-African skill transfer in an African economy. African Aflairs 74,65-71. LAUGLO,J. (1985) Practical Subjects in Academic Secondary Schools. Final report from the Evaluation of Swedish Assistance to Development of Technical Education in Kenya. LALJGLO,J. and LILLIS, K. (1988a) Vocationalization in international perspective. In Vocafionaiizing Education: An Internntionai Perspective (Edited by LAUGLO, J. and LILLIS, K.), pp. 3-26. Oxford: Pergamon Press. LAUGLO, J. and LILLIS, K. (1988b) Vocationaking Education: An International Perspective. Oxford: Pergamon Press. LAUGLO, J. and NARMAN,A. (1987) Diversified secondary education in Kenya: the status of practical subjects, and their uses after school. Int. 1. Educ. Dev. 7, 227-242. Reprinted in Vocafion~Iizjng Educatjon: An Infefnution~I Perspective (1988) (Edited by LAUGLO,J. and LILLIS, K.), pp. 235-256. Oxford: Pergamon Press. LILLIS, K. and HOGAN, D. (1983) Dilemmas of diversification; problems associated with diversification of education in developing countries. Comp. Educ. 19, 89-108. MARSDEN,K. (1984) Services for small firms: the roles of government programs and market networks in Thailand. Int. Lab. Rev. 123, 235-249. MEDOFF, J.L. (1981) Are those paid more really more productive? The case for experience. f. Hum. Resour. 16, 186-216. MEDOFF,J.L. and ABRAHAM,K.G. (1980) Experience, performance and earnings. Q. f. &on. 95,703736. METCALF,D.H. (1985) The economics of vocational training: past evidence and future considerations. Staff Working Paper No. 713. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. MIDDLETON.J., ZIDERMAN.A. and VAN ADAMS, A. (1990) Skills training for productivity: strategies for improved efficiency in developing countries. (Paper presented ai the ‘Regional Seminar-on Technical and Vocational Education and Training. Asian Development Bank, Manila.) Education and Employnlent Division, Population and Human Resources Debartment, The Worid.Bank. MINCER, J. (1974) Schooling, Experience and Earnings. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research. (Distributed by Columbia University Press.) MINCER, J. (1989) Job training: costs, returns, and wage profiles. Working Paper No. 3208, National Bureau of Economic Research. MINCER,J. and HIGACHI, Y. (1988) Wage structures and labor turnover in the U.S. and Japan. J. /up. and Int. Econ. (June). MINGAT,A. and JEE-PENGTAN (1988) The economic returns to project-related training: some empirical evidence. ht. Rev. Educ. 34, 225-240. MUTUMBUKA,D.B. (1989) Policies for higher education in Zimbabwe: alternatives to the World Bank Perspective. (Responses of the Minister of Higher Education to interview questions.) Zimbabwe 1. Educ. Res. 1, 43-70. NOAH, H.A. and ECKSTEIN,M.A. (1988) Business and industry involvement with education in Britain, France and Germany. In Vocationalizing Education: An Internarional Perspective (Edited by LAUGLO, J. and LILLIS, K.), pp. 45-68. Oxford: Pergamon Press. PSACHAROPOULOS, G. (1982) Peru: Assessing Priorities for Investment in Education and Training. Peru Mission, The World Bank, 16 November. PSACHAROPOULOS, G. (1985) Curriculum diversification in Colombia and Tanzania: an evaluation. Comp. Educ. Rev. 29, 507-525. PSACHAROPOULOS. G. (1987) To vocationalize or not to vocationalize; that is the curriculum question. Int. Rev. Educ. ‘33, lk7-2i1. PSACHAROPOULOS, G. and LOXLEY, W. (1985) Diversified Secondary Education and Development. Baltimore: Johns Hookins University Press for The World Bank. PURYEAR, J. (1974) comparative systems of occupational training in Columbia; the national apprenticeship service. PhD dissertation, The University of Chicago. PURYEAR,J. (1979) Vocational training and earnings in Colombia: does a SENA effect exist? Comp. Educ. Rev. 23, 283-292. ROSEN, S. (1972) Learning and experience in the labor market. J. Hum. Resour. 7, 326-342. ROSEN, S. (1978) Substitution and the division of labor. Economica 45, 861-868. ROSEN, S. (1983) Specialization and human capital. J. Lab. Econ. 1, 43-49. ROSEN, S. (1988) Transactions costs and internal labor markets. 1. Low, Econ. Urganiz. 4. 49-64. RYAN, P. (1984) Job training, employment practices, and the large enterprise: the case study of transferable skills. In Internal Lnbor Markets (Edited by OSTERMAN,P.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. SCHULTZ,T.W. (1988) On investing in specialized human capital to secure increasing returns. In The State of Development Economics (Edited by RANIS, G. and SCHULTZ,T.P.), pp. 339-356. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Vocational STALEY,

Education

in LDCs

E. (1971) Planning Occupational Education and Trainingfor Development. New York: Praeger Publishers. STOIKOV, V.I. (1975) The Economics of Recurrent Education and Training. Geneva: International Labour Organization. TAUB, R.P. and TAUB, D.L. (1974) The Promotion of Entrepreneurship in a Socialist Society. (Manuscript. Chapters I-IV.) WILLIS, R. (1982) The direction of intergenerational transfers and demographic transition. Popul. Develop. Rev. Fall 1982, 207-234. WORLDBANK (1987) Education in Sub-Saharan Africa; A World Bank Policy Study. WRIGHT, C.A.H. (1988) Curriculum diversification re-examined - a case study of Sierra Leone. In Vocarionafizing Education: An International Perspective (Edited by LAUGLO, J. and LILLIS, K.), pp. 115-136. Oxford: Pergamon Press. ZACHARIAH,M. (1988) Continuity between school curriculum and vocation: labor’s ineffective role. In Vocational Education. International Review of Education (Special Issue), Vol. 34, No. 2 (Edited by PSACHAROPOULOS. G.), pp. 207-224. ZIDERMAN, A. (1990) Financing skills for development: an evolving role for public sector. (Paper presented at the Regional Seminar on Technical and Vocational Education and Training. Asian Development Bank, Manila.) Education and Employment Division, Population and Human Resources Department, The World Bank.

307