Participation in formal and/or non-formal education increases with educational attainment across countries and economies that participated in the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC). But it increases more steeply for native-born adults and foreign-born adults who arrived in the country by age 25 than for foreign-born adults who arrived in the country at age 26 or older.
On average, the participation in formal and/or non-formal education of foreign-born adults who arrived at age 26 or older is slightly lower than that of native-born adults and foreign-born adults who arrived by age 25.
Having a job increases participation in formal and/or non-formal education overall, but slightly more for native-born adults and foreign-born adults who arrived by age 25 than for foreign-born adults who arrived at age 26 or older.
Education at a Glance 2018
Indicator A7. To what extent do adults participate equally in education and learning?
Figure A7.1. Participation of native- and foreign-born adults in formal and/or non-formal education (2012 or 2015)
Note: The percentage in parentheses is the share of foreign-born adults who had arrived in the country at the age of 26 or older out of the total adult population. Blue zone denotes statistically significant percentage-point differences. Some data points are not displayed because there are too few observations to provide a reliable estimate. See Definitions and Methodology sections for more information.
1. Reference year is 2015, for all other countries and economies the reference year is 2012.
2. Age at arrival in the country is not taken into account for the disaggregation between native- and foreign-born adults. Thus, the two categories presented are native-born adults and foreign-born adults.
* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Source section.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage-point difference between the two groups.
Source: OECD (2018), Table A7.1. See Source section for more information and Annex 3 for notes (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-36-en).
Context
Adult learning can play an important role in helping adults to develop and maintain key information-processing skills and acquire other knowledge and skills throughout their lives. It is crucial to provide and ensure access to organised learning opportunities for adults beyond initial formal education, especially for workers who need to adapt to changes throughout their careers (OECD, 2013[1]).
Lifelong learning can also contribute to non-economic goals, such as personal fulfilment, improved health, civic participation and social inclusion. However, the large variation in adult learning activities and participation among OECD countries at similar levels of economic development suggests that there are significant differences in learning cultures, learning opportunities at work and adult-education systems (Borkowsky, 2013[2]).
This indicator looks for the first time at participation in formal and/or non-formal education by country of birth (i.e. native-born or foreign-born adults), complementing the analyses on adult education and learning published in earlier editions of Education at a Glance. Formal and/or non-formal education is particularly important for foreign-born adults, whatever their level of education, as it can help with their integration process in the host country (OECD, 2017[3]). For foreign-born adults lacking expertise in the language(s) spoken in the host country, it is crucial to have access to language training. Other types of adult training are also important for all foreign-born adults, to help them adapt their skills or acquire new skills for labour-market needs in the host country.
The 2015 OECD/EU report, Indicators of Immigrant Integration 2015: Settling In, identifies notable differences in literacy skills between native-born and foreign-born adults, with a decreasing gap as the period of stay in the host country increases. The report also concludes that a weaker mastery of the host country's language may affect immigrants' participation in formal and/or non-formal education. Foreign-born adults report needing training more often than native-born adults, but foreign-born adults are less likely than native-born adults to attend education and training courses. The cost of training and the lack of required standards are the two main reasons reported by foreign-born adults for not participating (OECD/EU, 2015[4]).
Other findings
The difference in participation in formal and/or non-formal education between native-born adults and foreign-born adults who arrived in the country by age 25 and foreign-born adults who arrived in the country at age 26 or older is observed regardless of the overall share of foreign-born adults who arrived in the country at age 26 or older and the overall level of participation in formal and/or non-formal education in a country.
In countries where the difference between participation in formal and/or non-formal education by native-born adults and foreign-born adults who arrived by age 25 and that of foreign-born adults who arrived at age 26 or older is statistically significant for all adults, in most cases, the differences are also statistically significant when disaggregated by employed adults and tertiary-educated adults.
Note
While formal education provides a basis for adult education, it is important that those who have gone through a formal education system outside of their host country also have access to and benefit from formal and/or non-formal education.
Foreign-born adults may face different barriers to participation in education. For instance, foreign-born adults who received all or most of their education in a different country may lack familiarity with the educational opportunities provided in their host country. As a result, they may participate less than native-born adults or adults who arrived in the host country at an early age.
When analysing the impact of the country of birth on participation in formal and/or non-formal education, it is important to factor in the information on when the person arrived in the host country. Indeed, the age at arrival in the country (along with other variables, such as knowledge of the language of the host country, birth country, reason for migration, human development index for the birth countries and educational background) is crucial to assess the difference in access to formal and/or non-formal education by foreign-born adults and native-born adults.
In this indicator, we divide the population into two groups: 1) native-born adults and foreign-born adults who arrived in the country by age 25; and 2) foreign-born adults who arrived at age 26 or older. The term “native-born adults” includes adults who were born in the country; it does not take into account whether their parent(s) were born in the country or not.
Analysis
Participation in formal and/or non-formal education for native-born adults and foreign-born adults
On average across countries and economies that participated in the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (see Source section at the end of this indicator), about half of the adults (age 25-64) had participated in formal and/or non-formal education during the 12 months preceding the survey. Participation rates ranged widely, from 25% or less in Greece, Italy, Turkey and the Russian Federation to above 65% in Denmark, Finland, New Zealand and Sweden (Table A7.1).
For native-born adults and foreign-born adults who arrived by age 25, participation in formal and/or non-formal education in all countries is similar to the average for the whole population, with a difference of 1 or 2 percentage points. For foreign-born adults who arrived at age 26 or older, participation is on average about 2 percentage points lower than for native-born adults and foreign-born adults who arrived by age 25 (Figure A7.1 and Table A7.1).
In Finland, New Zealand and Norway, participation in formal and/or non-formal education is above 60% for both native-born adults and foreign-born adults who arrived by age 25 and foreign-born adults who arrived at age 26 or older. This demonstrates a high level of participation in formal and/or non-formal education overall, regardless of country of birth. In nine countries with data on both native-born adults and foreign-born adults who arrived by age 25 and foreign-born adults who arrived at age 26 or older, the difference in participation between the two groups is statistically significant. In all these cases, foreign-born adults who arrived in the country at age 26 or older participate less in formal and/or non-formal education than native-born adults and foreign-born adults who arrived by age 25. The participation rate among foreign-born adults who arrived in the country at age 26 or older remains relatively high in some countries. In Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden, over 50% of foreign-born adults who arrived at age 26 or older participate in formal and/or non-formal education, compared to 48% on average across OECD countries and economies. In contrast, in Germany and Israel, the difference between the two groups is 15 percentage points, and participation among foreign-born adults who arrived at 26 or older is below average (Figure A7.1).
The gap in participation in formal and/or non-formal education is not influenced by the proportion of foreign-born adults who arrived at age 26 or older. In both Austria and Norway, for example, 7% of foreign-born adults arrived at age 26 or older. In Norway, there is almost no difference in participation between those who arrived by age 25 and those who arrived at age 26 or older, and both groups have a higher-than-average participation rate. In Austria, about 50% of native-born adults and foreign-born adults who arrived by age 25 participate in formal and/or non-formal education, but the share is about 15 percentage points lower among foreign-born adults who arrived at age 26 or older. This suggests that some countries are successful at offering equal opportunities to both groups and thereby ensuring high participation while, in some other countries, foreign-born adults who arrived at 26 and older seem to be left behind (Figure A7.1).
Participation in formal and/or non-formal education for native-born adults and foreign-born adults, by labour-force status
On average across OECD countries and economies that participated in the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC), 50% of 25-64 year-olds responded that they had participated in formal and/or non-formal education during the 12 months preceding the survey. Participation rates are, on average, higher among employed adults (58%) than among unemployed adults (43%) and inactive adults (i.e. not those seeking employment) (22%) (Tables A7.1 and A7.2).
Participation rates also vary between foreign-born and native-born adults, even among those with equivalent labour-force status. On average across OECD countries and economies, 52% of employed foreign-born adults who arrived at age 26 or older participated in formal and/or non-formal education. This share is 7 percentage points lower than the average participation rate across OECD countries and economies for employed native-born adults and foreign-born adults who arrived by age 25. This average difference, 7 percentage points, is statistically significant and is about triple the average difference among all adults (Figures A7.1 and A7.2).
In 11 of the 21 countries and economies with available data, the differences in participation rates between native-born adults and foreign-born adults who arrived by age 25 and foreign-born adults who arrived at age 26 or older are statistically significant. In the Flemish Community of Belgium, Italy and Spain, the differences between the two groups become statistically significant when accounting for employed adults. In all of the 11 countries and economies, employed foreign-born adults who arrived at age 26 or older participate less in formal and/or non-formal education than employed native-born adults and foreign-born adults who arrived by age 25. The gap in participation rates ranges from 10 percentage points in Denmark to over 20 percentage points in France, Germany, Israel and Slovenia. Also, in all of the 11 countries and economies, the gaps are larger when accounting for employed adults than for all adults regardless of labour-force status (Figures A7.1 and A7.2).
Figure A7.2. Participation of native- and foreign-born adults in formal and/or non-formal education among employed adults (2012 or 2015)
Note: The percentage in parentheses is the share of foreign-born adults who had arrived in the country at the age of 26 or older out of the total adult population. Blue zone denotes statistically significant percentage-point differences. Some data points are not displayed because there are too few observations to provide a reliable estimate. See Definitions and Methodology sections for more information.
1. Reference year is 2015, for all other countries and economies the reference year is 2012.
2. Age at arrival in the country is not taken into account for the disaggregation between native- and foreign-born adults. Thus, the two categories presented are native-born adults and foreign-born adults.
* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Source section.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage-point difference between the two groups.
Source: OECD (2018), Table A7.2. See Source section for more information and Annex 3 for notes (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-36-en).
One of the reasons that the gap is especially marked among employed adults might be that having a job does not significantly increase participation rates for foreign-born adults who arrived at age 26 or older, while it does increase participation rates for native-born adults and foreign-born adults who arrived by age 25. On average across OECD countries and economies, the participation rate is only 4 percentage points higher for employed foreign-born adults who arrived at age 26 or older (52%) than for all foreign-born adults who arrived in the country at age 26 or older (48%). However, the participation rate is 8 percentage points higher for employed native-born adults and foreign-born adults who arrived by age 25 (58%) than for all native-born adults and foreign-born adults who arrived by age 25 (50%), and the difference is statistically significant (Figures A7.1 and A7.2).
This suggests that, although having a job has a positive effect on participation in formal and/or non-formal education in general, foreign-born adults who arrived at age 26 or older may enjoy fewer advantages from employment in terms of access to formal and/or non-formal education. In France and Spain, the participation gap in formal and/or non-formal education between native-born adults and foreign-born adults who arrived by age 25 and foreign-born adults who arrived at age 26 or older is particularly larger among employed adults than among all adults (Figures A7.1 and A7.3). This may be related to the fact that those working in low-qualified jobs often have a lower participation rate in adult education and learning. In France and Spain, a high share of foreign-born adults who arrived at age 26 or older have low educational attainment and may end up in such jobs.
Participation in formal and/or non-formal education for native-born adults and foreign-born adults, by educational attainment
On average across OECD countries and economies that participated in the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC), 70% of tertiary-educated adults participated in formal and/or non-formal education during the 12 months preceding the survey. This share is well above the participation rates for those with below upper secondary education (26%) and those with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education (46%) (Table A7.3).
Foreign-born adults who arrived in the country at age 26 or older participate less than native-born adults and foreign-born adults who arrived in the country by age 25, even among those with equivalent educational attainment levels. On average across OECD countries and economies, 61% of tertiary-educated foreign-born adults who arrived at age 26 or older participated in formal and/or non-formal education, 10 percentage points lower than the participation rate of native-born adults and foreign-born adults with equivalent educational attainment who arrived by age 25 (Figure A7.3).
The differences in participation rates between native-born adults and foreign-born adults who arrived by age 25 and foreign-born adults who arrived at age 26 or older are statistically significant in 10 out of the 16 countries with data. Among those countries, the difference ranges from 7 percentage points in Australia and Ireland to 27 percentage points in Israel. The gap is also above 15 percentage points in Austria, France, Germany and Spain (Figure A7.3).
Figure A7.3. Participation of native- and foreign-born adults in formal and/or non-formal education among tertiary-educated adults (2012 or 2015)
Note: The percentage in parentheses is the share of foreign-born adults who had arrived in the country at the age of 26 or older out of the total adult population. Blue zone denotes statistically significant percentage-point differences. Some data points are not displayed because there are too few observations to provide a reliable estimate. See Definitions and Methodology sections for more information.
1. Reference year is 2015, for all other countries and economies the reference year is 2012.
2. Age at arrival in the country is not taken into account for the disaggregation between native- and foreign-born adults. Thus, the two categories presented are native-born adults and foreign-born adults.
* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Source section.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage-point difference between the two groups.
Source: OECD (2018), Table A7.3. See Source section for more information and Annex 3 for notes (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-36-en).
On average across OECD countries and economies, the participation rate for tertiary-educated foreign-born adults who arrived at age 26 or older is 13 percentage points higher than for the entire population of foreign-born adults who arrived at age 26 or older. However, for native-born adults and foreign-born adults who arrived in the country by age 25, the difference is larger (21 percentage points), showing a stronger impact of tertiary education on participation for native-born adults and foreign-born adults who arrived by age 25 than for foreign-born adults who arrived at age 26 or older. The participation gap between the two groups is at least 10 percentage points larger than the differences among all adults in France and Spain (Figures A7.1 and A7.3).
Box A7.1. Active labour market programmes in OECD countries
Active labour market programmes (ALMPs) aim to support the efficient functioning of the labour market by increasing the employability and motivation of jobseekers and expanding their earnings opportunities (OECD, 2015[5]; OECD, 2017[6]). ALMPs include labour market services (such as placement and related services and benefit administration) and labour market programmes (such as training, employment incentives, direct job creation or start‑up incentives) (OECD, 2017[6]).
Evidence shows that training programmes have long-term impact on employment and earnings for their participants. However, it is important that training programmes correspond with labour market needs, and they should, therefore, also reflect employers' needs, to maximise their impact (OECD, 2015[5]).
Countries' investment in training as part of ALMPs
The OECD Database on Labour Market Programmes provides data on participation and expenditure patterns of different labour market programmes, one of which is training programmes. Figure A7.a shows that the highest expenditure on training programmes as a percentage of GDP is found in Austria, Denmark and Finland, where the share is above 0.40% of GDP. In contrast, in Australia, Hungary, Japan, Mexico, Poland, the Slovak Republic and the United Kingdom, public expenditure on training programmes as part of ALMPs is the lowest, at less than 0.02% of GDP.
Figure A7.a. Public expenditure on training programmes within active labour market programmes as a percentage of GDP (2015)
1. The changes from 2014 to 2015 are largely driven by the substantial increase in GDP in 2015. For more information on this increase see www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/newsevents/documents/pr_GDPexplanatorynote.pdf. In 2016 Ireland produced a modified GNI (GNI*) that was recommended by the Economic Statistics Review Group and is designed to exclude globalisation effects that are disproportionately impacting the measurement size of the Irish economy.
2. Reference year is 2014.
3. Reference year is 2011.
Countries are ranked in descending order of public expenditure on training programmes as part of active labour market programmes as a percentage of GDP.
Source: OECD (2018), Labour Market Programmes; Public expenditure and participant stocks on LMP, https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=LMPEXP#.
Some countries have high expenditure in other ALMP categories. For example, Sweden spends 0.60% of GDP on employment incentives, and Hungary spends 0.74% of GDP on direct job creation. However, on average, training represents 25% of public expenditure on all ALMPs across OECD countries, and there is a high correlation between public expenditure on training programmes and total public expenditure on ALMPs.
Activating training programmes when unemployment is high
While there is no consensus on the fact that ALMPs have a large positive impact during economic downturns, some studies have shown positive correlations with re-employment. Nordlund showed that in Sweden training programmes had a positive impact, regardless of the state of the economy (Nordlund, 2011[7]). However, during slower economic periods, training programmes were beneficial because of their bridging effect in delaying the return to the labour market at times when finding a job was more difficult. For Germany, Lechner, Miquel and Wunsch (2011[8]) showed a long-term positive impact for participants who registered in training programmes in the 1990s when the unemployment rate was high. However, these findings cannot be generalised. Wunsch and Lechner (2008[9]) found that a similar set of programmes in the 2000s failed to improve the participants’ chances of finding regular employment. They conclude that aspects such as the quality of the programmes, the participants or the assignment process, and certain characteristics of the labour market play an important role. A meta-study analysing the findings from 137 evaluations of several types of ALMPs found that a higher unemployment rate in the labour market at the time of participation in a programme was associated with a significantly higher probability of a positive estimated impact (Kluve, 2010[10]).
Figure A7.b presents the average evolution of public expenditure on ALMPs and, more specifically, on training programmes between 2004 and 2015. Public expenditure on all ALMPs went from 0.46% of GDP in 2008 to 0.60% in 2010. In parallel, public expenditure on training programmes went from 0.12% of GDP in 2008 to 0.17% in 2010. This shows that public expenditure on ALMPs and on training programmes followed similar trends, as they each increased by 30% between 2008 and 2010 as an effect of rising unemployment rates.
On average across OECD countries, spending on training programmes always represented about 25% of all spending on ALMPs, regardless of the economic situation. On average, the public expenditure on training programmes shows alignment with total spending on ALMPs, but evolution within countries presents variations in terms of resource allocation, with some important shifts between 2008 and 2009. For example, in Canada, Estonia, Latvia, Portugal and Slovenia, the share of training programmes in the budgets of ALMPs rose by at least 10 percentage points, mainly due to a rise in expenditure on institutional training. In Poland, the share decreased by 15 percentage points over the same period, due to a cut in special support for apprenticeships (OECD, 2017[6]).
Figure A7.b. Trends in public expenditure on training programmes within active labour market programmes and on all active labour market programmes as a percentage of GDP (2004-2015)
Note: The percentage in parentheses represents the weighted average of the unemployment rate for 25-64 year-olds.
Source: OECD (2018), Labour Market Programmes; Public expenditure and participant stocks on LMP, https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=LMPEXP#.
The participation in formal and/or non-formal education decreases with lower educational attainment. This holds true for both groups among countries and economies with data on participation of native-born and foreign-born adults in formal and/or non-formal education by educational attainment. In all of the seven countries where the differences are statistically significant, foreign-born adults who arrived at age 26 or older with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education participated less in formal and/or non-formal education than native-born adults and foreign-born adults who arrived by age 25. The gaps are above 20 percentage points and the largest in Germany, Israel and Italy (Table A7.3).
At below upper secondary level, only a few countries have estimates on the participation of foreign-born adults who arrived at age 26 or older. But among countries with data, both native-born adults and foreign-born adults who arrived by age 25 and foreign-born adults who arrived at age 26 or older tend to have lower participation rates than those with higher educational attainment. While foreign-born adults who arrived at age 26 or older participated more in formal and/or non-formal education than native-born adults and foreign-born adults who arrived by age 25 in some countries, the differences are not statistically significant in all countries with data (Table A7.3).
As noted above, the difference in participation rates is the largest among tertiary-educated adults in most of the countries surveyed. This gap can be related to the difficulties that highly educated foreign-born adults who arrived at age 26 or older may face to benefit from their skills if they do not master the language of the host country and have a poor understanding of local labour-market dynamics. This situation may result in lower employment rates and employment in lower-paid jobs, both of which hamper opportunities for foreign-born adults to access employer-sponsored training. According to the OECD/EU report, Indicators of Immigrants Integration 2015: Settling In (OECD/EU, 2015[4]), immigrants, especially those who migrated recently, have markedly lower levels of literacy in the host-country language than people born in the host country, regardless of their level of education. A tertiary education degree is no guarantee of proficiency, particularly in host countries where the language is not widely used beyond national borders (OECD, 2015[5]). As foreign-born adults have different language and educational backgrounds it is important to provide tailor-made measures to ensure successful integration. Providing formal and/or non-formal education programmes solely to address the language barrier might be insufficient, if the skills of foreign-born adults are not fully exploited on the labour market. Combining language classes with professional integration programmes could better respond to the needs of the labour market and result in quicker and more successful transitions to employment (OECD, 2017[3]).
Definitions
Adults refer to 25-64 year-olds.
Adult education and learning: Formal education is planned education provided in the system of schools, colleges, universities and other formal educational institutions that normally constitutes a continuous “ladder” of full-time education for children and young people. The providers may be public or private. Non-formal education is sustained educational activity that does not correspond exactly to the definition of formal education. Non-formal education may take place both within and outside educational institutions and cater to individuals of all ages. Depending on country contexts, it may cover education programmes in adult literacy, basic education for out-of-school children, life skills, work skills and general culture. The Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) uses a list of possible non-formal education activities (including open or distance-learning courses, private lessons, organised sessions for on-the-job training, and workshops or seminars) to prompt respondents to list all of their learning activities during the previous 12 months. Some of these learning activities might be of short duration.
Levels of education: Below upper secondary corresponds to ISCED-97 levels 0, 1, 2 and 3C short programmes; upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary corresponds to ISCED-97 levels 3A, 3B, 3C long programmes, and level 4; and tertiary corresponds to ISCED-97 levels 5A, 5B and 6.
Methodology
The observations based on a numerator with fewer than 5 observations or on a denominator with fewer than 30 observations times the number of categories have been replaced by "c" in the tables. For Chile, the Czech Republic, Greece, Japan, Korea, Lithuania, Poland, the Russian Federation, the Slovak Republic and Turkey, too few observations are available to provide reliable estimates on the variable "Foreign-born adults who arrived in the country at age 26 or older". The participation in formal and/or non-formal education for native-born adults and foreign-born adults who arrived by age 25 is maintained in the figures for cross-country comparison purposes.
For Australia, Japan and Poland, data on age at arrival in the country is not taken into account for the disaggregation between native-born adults and foreign-born adults. Thus, the two groups should be understood as native-born adults and foreign-born adults, regardless of the age at arrival in the country.
The selection of languages available in the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) varied, even in countries where a significant proportion of foreign-born adults come from similar backgrounds. For example, Turkish foreign-born adults make up a considerable share among foreign-born adults in both Austria and Germany, but the background questionnaire was provided in Turkish only in Austria, not in Germany.
Respondents in some countries were offered interpretation support beyond the official translations of the background questionnaire. In Sweden, for example, if the respondent was not sufficiently proficient in Swedish, the interviewer offered to have an interpreter present during the interview for the background questionnaire.
Depending on the country, foreign-born adults who did not master the language of the host country were excluded from the survey.
With the exception of the data in Box A7.1, all data in this indicator are taken from the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC). As the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) was not specifically designed to analyse migrant populations, the sample size can be small for foreign-born adults who arrived in the country at age 26 or older. Due to the small number of observations, the data need to be interpreted with care, and the interpretation should take into account the standard errors and statistically significant differences.
Please see Annex 3 for country-specific notes (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-36-en).
Lithuania was not an OECD member at the time of preparation of this publication. Accordingly, Lithuania does not appear in the list of OECD members and is not included in the zone aggregates.
Source
All data are based on the OECD Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (the Survey of Adult Skills [PIAAC]), except for Box A7.1.
Note regarding data from Israel
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and are under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.
Note regarding data from the Russian Federation in the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC)
The sample for the Russian Federation does not include the population of the Moscow municipal area. The data published, therefore, do not represent the entire resident population aged 16-65 in the Russian Federation but rather the population of the Russian Federation excluding the population residing in the Moscow municipal area. More detailed information regarding the data from the Russian Federation as well as that of other countries can be found in the Technical Report of the Survey of Adult Skills, Second Edition (OECD, 2016[11]).
References
[2] Borkowsky, A. (2013), “Monitoring adult learning policies: A theoretical framework and indicators”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 88, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k4c0vxjlkzt-en.
[10] Kluve, J. (2010), “The effectiveness of European active labor market programs”, Labour Economics, Vol. 17/6, pp. 904-918, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.LABECO.2010.02.004.
[8] Lechner, M., R. Miquel and C. Wunsch (2011), “Long-run effects of public sector sponsored training in West Germany”, Journal of the European Economic Association, Vol. 9/4, pp. 742-784, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1542-4774.2011.01029.x.
[7] Nordlund, M. (2011), “What works best when? The role of active labour market policy programmes in different business cycles”, International Journal of Social Welfare, Vol. 20/1, pp. 43-54, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2397.2009.00683.x.
[3] OECD (2017), International Migration Outlook 2017, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/migr_outlook-2017-en.
[6] OECD (2017), Labour Market Programmes Database - Public expenditure and participant stocks on LMP, https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=LMPEXP (accessed on 28 November 2017).
[11] OECD (2016), Technical Report of the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC), 2nd Edition, OECD, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/skills/piaac/PIAAC_Technical_Report_2nd_Edition_Full_Report.pdf.
[5] OECD (2015), OECD Employment Outlook 2015, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/empl_outlook-2015-en.
[1] OECD (2013), OECD Skills Outlook 2013 : First results from the Survey of Adult Skills, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264204256-en.
[4] OECD/EU (2015), Indicators of Immigrant Integration 2015: Settling In, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264234024-en.
[9] Wunsch, C. and M. Lechner (2008), “What did all the money do? On the general ineffectiveness of recent West German labour market programmes”, Kyklos, Vol. 61/1, pp. 134-174, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6435.2008.00396.x.
Indicator A7 Tables
Table A7.1. Participation of native- and foreign-born adults in formal and/or non-formal education by gender and their population distribution (2012 or 2015)
Table A7.2. Participation of native- and foreign-born adults in formal and/or non-formal education, by labour-force status (2012 or 2015)
Table A7.3. Participation of native- and foreign-born adults in formal and/or non-formal education, by educational attainment (2012 or 2015)
Any updates on data can be found on line at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-data-en. Data can also be found at http://stats.oecd.org/, Education at a Glance Database.
Table A7.1. Participation of native- and foreign-born adults in formal and/or non-formal education by gender and their population distribution (2012 or 2015)
Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC), 25-64 year-olds
1. Age at arrival in the country is not taken into account for the disaggregation between native- and foreign-born adults. Thus, the two categories presented are native-born adults and foreign-born adults.
2. Reference year is 2015, for all other countries and economies the reference year is 2012.
* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Source section.
Source: OECD (2018). See Source section for more information and Annex 3 for notes (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-36-en).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
Table A7.2. Participation of native- and foreign-born adults in formal and/or non-formal education, by labour-force status (2012 or 2015)
Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC), 25-64 year-olds
Note: Additional columns showing data for participation of unemployed and inactive adults are available for consultation on line (see StatLink below).
1. Age at arrival in the country is not taken into account for the disaggregation between native- and foreign-born adults. Thus, the two categories presented are native-born adults and foreign-born adults.
2. Reference year is 2015, for all other countries and economies the reference year is 2012.
* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Source section.
Source: OECD (2018). See Source section for more information and Annex 3 for notes (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-36-en).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
Table A7.3. Participation of native- and foreign-born adults in formal and/or non-formal education, by educational attainment (2012 or 2015)
Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC), 25-64 year-olds
Note: Additional columns showing data for participation of adults with below upper secondary education and for adults with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education are available for consultation on line (see StatLink below). Data from the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) are based on ISCED-97. See Definitions section for more information.
1. Age at arrival in the country is not taken into account for the disaggregation between native- and foreign-born adults. Thus, the two categories presented are native-born adults and foreign-born adults.
2. Reference year is 2015, for all other countries and economies the reference year is 2012.
* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Source section.
Source: OECD (2018). See Source section for more information and Annex 3 for notes (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-36-en).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.