Does adult education contribute to securing non-precarious employment? A cross-national comparison.

Work, employment and society 1 –21

© The Author(s) 2015Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0950017014561335

wes.sagepub.com

Does adult education contribute to securing non-precarious employment? A cross-national comparison

Daniela Vono de VilhenaPopulation Europe Secretariat, Germany

Yuliya KosyakovaEuropean University Institute, Italy

Elina Kilpi-JakonenUniversity of Turku, Finland

Patricia McMullinEuropean University Institute, Italy

AbstractThe objective of this article is to analyse the effect of acquiring a new formal qualification as an adult (measured as an upgrade or a side-step) on the likelihood of being in non-precarious employment. Three countries with similar longitudinal datasets are compared: Spain, the UK and Russia. The results indicate that adult education is beneficial in the three countries; with differences, however, depending on the definition of precarious employment used and the (previous) employment status of individuals. The findings suggest that the differences among countries are related to different labour market structures: adult education has a clearer beneficial impact on accessing and remaining in non-precarious employment in more flexible employment systems than in more rigid insider-outsider economies, where labour trajectories are strongly determined by what happens during the first years after school.

Keywordsadult education, precarious employment, Russia, Spain, UK

Corresponding author:Daniela Vono de Vilhena, Population Europe Secretariat, Markgrafenstr. 37, 10117 Berlin, Germany. Email: [email protected]

561335WES0010.1177/0950017014561335Work, employment and societyVono de Vilhena et al.research-article2015

Article

mailto:[email protected]

2 Work, employment and society

Introduction

Precarious employment is a core concern in modern societies and an increasing trend worldwide (Kalleberg, 2009) – to the extent that the global panorama has been referred to as The Precarious New World (Zimmermann, 2012). The term relates to the spread of workers in precarious positions, without employment or social security. Recent evidence suggests that this phenomenon is increasing among all occupational levels, including the traditionally protected, skilled and often highly unionized workforces of large firms (Holst, 2013; Kalleberg, 2012). The growing uncertainty about individuals’ employment prospects impacts not only on their careers but also on their welfare entitlements, health and social relations (Barbieri and Scherer, 2008; Castells, 1996; Giddens, 1998). Ultimately, these developments compound the growth of economic inequality within societies and are clearly reflected in mass social movements such as Occupy Wall Street in the USA or Indignados in Spain (Standing, 2011).

Is this a path of no return? Previous analyses have focused on the social structure to answer this question. As the growth of precariousness in recent decades is mostly related to changed economic and political forces, researchers’ interest has been devoted to exploring effective policies and structural changes in employment relations. In this con-text, less attention has been paid to the sphere of workers’ agency (Kalleberg, 2009). At the individual level, acquiring human capital should be an important means of escaping precariousness: employers are expected to offer secure and high quality jobs to their more productive employees (i.e. those with higher human capital) in order to both attract and keep them (Young, 2010). Accordingly, since new educational qualifications should lead to higher productivity – or at least function as signals of higher productivity – they should also be associated with positive labour market returns.

However, the evidence so far is mixed. A number of researchers have indeed found the expected association between education level and reduced precariousness. For instance, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2002) reports a 60 per cent higher rate of temporary employment for individuals who did not complete upper secondary education in comparison to their more educated counterparts. Previous research also demonstrates that mobility into permanent jobs is lower for less educated workers. Kalleberg (2011) finds that in the USA, individuals with less educa-tion are more vulnerable to precarious jobs than those with more education. In contrast, some evidence suggests that precarious employment may constitute a ‘trap’ for individu-als’ careers, questioning the positive role of education in the transition to ‘good’ employ-ment positions (Gash, 2008; Scherer, 2004). In Italy, the initial educational level does not seem to play an important role in exiting from precarious employment (Barbieri and Scherer, 2008), while in Germany and the UK, the likelihood of holding a fixed-term contract actually increases with the educational level (Kim and Kurz, 2001).

The examples above relate to individuals’ initial education and its effects on employ-ment outcomes. To date, very little is known about the effect of education acquired later in life, when any improvement in human capital implies adult learning. Adult learning has been recognized as being of increasing importance in the global and aging societies that we live in and in particular for the labour market integration of individuals who have become marginalized (European Commission, 2014; OECD, 2004). Indeed, evidence

Vono de Vilhena et al. 3

suggests that some of the groups overlooked by employers when it comes to on the job training have a higher likelihood of participating in other types of adult learning (McMullin and Kilpi-Jakonen, 2014). However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, no study has looked at the role of formal adult learning on trajectories towards non- precarious employment so far. In this article, the focus is on the role that completing formal education as an adult plays in the probability of securing non-precarious employ-ment in the first decade of the 21st century in three different modern economies: Spain (specifically Catalonia), Russia and the UK.

This article examines non-precarious employment using two different definitions: firstly in terms of job security and secondly as working full time and receiving wages above working poor levels. The next section reviews the relevant literature. Following this section, country-specific hypotheses are derived on the basis of national institutional settings. Afterwards the data, methods and results are presented. The article finishes with a discussion of the findings in relation to the initial hypotheses.

Adult learning and job mobility – a literature review

The theoretical explanations that link initial educational attainment with labour market outcomes can also be used to link new educational qualifications obtained as an adult with transitions from precarious to non-precarious employment.

Overall, most theoretical frameworks would predict that adult learning should increase an individual’s likelihood of accessing non-precarious employment, particularly when the adult learning obtained is an educational upgrade. Although different theories assume vastly different relationships between education and productivity, whether the human capital (Becker, 1975), signalling (Spence, 1973) or credentialism (Collins, 1979) per-spective is taken, it can be expected that educational upgrades lead to improved access to non-precarious employment.

However, empirical evidence on the effects of adult learning on the chances of secur-ing non-precarious employment is scarce. Research on the impact of adult learning on careers is mostly focused on changes in income from a linear perspective, meaning that it is not possible to identify the transition from working poor to a decent job. Generally, these analyses compare individuals graduating at younger ages with mature graduates, showing a disadvantaged pattern for the latter (e.g. Elman and O’Rand, 2004; Purcell et al., 2007). The comparison between upgraders and adults who did not upgrade after labour market entry or the analysis of the impact of upgrading on an individual’s life course tend to show either no effect on income (e.g. Jenkins et al., 2003) or a positive effect (e.g. Blanden et al., 2012; Hällsten, 2012). In terms of employment probabilities, positive returns to an upgrade as an adult have been found in Sweden, Spain, the UK and Russia (Hällsten, 2012; Jenkins et al., 2003; Kilpi-Jakonen et al., 2012).

Institutional settings are expected to play a key role on returns to adult learning: new qualifications may not necessarily provide access to non-precarious jobs in all institu-tional settings (Kalleberg, 2012; Van de Werfhorst, 2011). For the context analysed in this article, the main influencing factor at the country level is argued to be the labour market structure, with some impact from the educational system. Insider-outsider theory (Lindbeck and Snower, 1986) is particularly useful for understanding the labour market


structures that influence individuals’ opportunities of moving to non-precarious employ-ment. The theory’s starting point is the importance of turnover costs in market economies and how difficult it is to dismiss employees and to hire and train new workers. When turnover costs are high and employers are restricted in their freedom to dismiss workers with indefinite contracts, lower downward mobility for insiders and less hiring and firing is found (Lindbeck and Snower, 2002). This means that labour market outsiders (in par-ticular those without indefinite contracts) have lower chances to move into non-precari-ous employment, whether inside the same company or to another company. In addition, churn dynamics prevail among outsiders: it is difficult for those who start working in precarious jobs to move towards non-precarious ones and the tendency is for these work-ers to hold a string of such jobs over time (Cutuli and Guetto, 2012; MacInnes, 2009). In these situations, the value of adult learning is also expected to be lower because its chances for improving individuals’ labour market situations are more restricted.

It has been shown that national educational systems influence the way that initial education relates to occupational attainment in different societies (e.g. Müller and Shavit, 1998). Evidence demonstrates that in highly stratified and standardized educational sys-tems, credentials have a strong signalling effect, which in turn reduces the probability of job mobility. In weakly stratified and standardized systems in turn, the possibility of job mobility is much higher. However, relatively little is known with regard to how educa-tional systems affect the link between adult learning and occupational attainment. Since the analysis in the present article is concerned with job mobility within the labour market rather than the initial school-to-work transition, employment systems are likely to exert a stronger effect than do the respective educational systems.

National institutional settings and hypotheses

In this section, the main institutional constraints that may constitute obstacles for the positive impact of adult learning on career progress in Spain, the UK and Russia are described.

In Spain, the labour market is characterized by high turnover costs, meaning that an insider-outsider model of job relations prevails. Labour mobility from one segment to the other is rather low and mechanisms of career progression differ substantially for insiders and outsiders. Among insiders, investments in human capital and seniority are often mentioned as being among the strongest elements influencing upward mobility of employees. In turn for outsiders, churn dynamics prevail (MacInnes, 2009).

The signalling power of certificates is generally rather weak in the country; there is a lack of emphasis on specific skills and the standardization and stratification of the edu-cational system are characterized as low (Bernardi, 2012; Breen, 2005). Because qualifi-cations do not provide clear information about skills, employers tend to value ascriptive characteristics when recruiting or promoting employees. Therefore, an educational upgrade later in life is not expected to give a strong signal to employers in terms of pro-ductivity or skills, though they may provide a signal of motivation. Previous findings on the impact of adult learning on career progress in Spain show that mature graduates barely benefit from their educational upgrade in terms of employment or class mobility, despite being relatively positively selected (Vono de Vilhena and Miret Gamundi, 2014).


Overall, following a conservative hypothesis derived from insider-outsider theory:

H1) Adult learning is not expected to increase the likelihood of accessing non-precar-ious employment. Nonetheless,H2) A positive effect of adult learning for those already in non-precarious employ-ment as a preventive mechanism of downward mobility can be expected.

In the UK, labour market mobility is much higher and turnover costs are lower than in Spain. Specifically, restrictions on dismissal are relatively weak, although discharging long-serving employees is relatively costly. Another distinguishing feature is that tempo-rary contracts are mostly used as a probation device for permanent positions (Booth, 2002). Therefore, labour market characteristics do not constitute barriers for adult learn-ing to improve the chances of obtaining non-precarious employment. Previous research indicates that adult learning can improve employment probabilities as well as earnings and prestige mobility in the UK (Blanden et al., 2012; Jenkins et al., 2003; McMullin and Kilpi-Jakonen, 2014).

Nevertheless, it should also be recognized that, as in Spain, the link between cer-tificates and employment outcomes is relatively weak in the UK due to the complex-ity of the educational system and its decentralization and low standardization. In particular, after many consecutive educational reforms, the distinction between post-compulsory courses offered in schools and further education colleges is increasingly blurred (Eurydice, 2003). Therefore, it may also be the case that additional certifi-cates obtained later in life may not have a strong productivity signalling effect on employers.

Russia has similar institutional structures to the UK, although with its own particulari-ties. The level of employment protection in the country is relatively high in formal terms but standards are not heavily enforced (Gimpelson et al., 2010). Other important features of the Russian labour market are its volatility and the weak collective bargaining power of workers and trade unions, suggesting low turnover costs. These factors combined imply high labour mobility and should thus allow for positive effects from adult learning, similar to that observed in the UK. Supporting this hypothesis, previous research finds that some types of adult learning increase employment chances and improve career paths in Russia (Kosyakova, 2014).

The Russian educational system is characterized by a high level of standardization (Russian Ministry of Education, 2012), which theoretically should provide strong signals from certification to employers. However, this is not the case, due to the process of edu-cational expansion and credential inflation (Larionova and Meshkova, 2007), low public expenditures on education and the valorization of specific aspects of credentials such as the prestige of institutions, which mean that the link between the educational system and the labour market is very weak in Russia (Bühler and Konietzka, 2011; Gerber, 2003). Therefore, the expectation is that the chances of getting a non-precarious employment position may increase with adult learning, not necessarily because of the value of the certificate itself but due to its motivation signalling effect.

Considering the similarities between the UK and Russia, the hypothesis for both countries is the same:


H3) Adult learning is expected to increase the likelihood of accessing non-precarious employment.H4) This effect is expected for all individuals, independently of whether they are in non-precarious positions or not.

Data and methods

Rodgers (1989) has defined precarious employment in terms of its different dimen-sions: temporal (degree of certainty over the continuity of employment), organiza-tional (for example in terms of working conditions, working time, shifts and work intensity), economic (sufficient pay and salary progression) and social (protection against unfair dismissal or discrimination; and social protection). In this article, two broad indicators for non-precarious employment based on Rodgers’ typology are defined, specifically based on

1) temporal and social aspects and2) organizational and economic aspects.

The definition of non-precarious job in terms of organizational and economic aspects is the same for the three countries: non-precarious jobs are those that are both full time and with wages above working poor level. In concordance with the OECD definition, full-time workers are all those whose average working week is 30 hours or more.1 Being working poor was measured as earning less than two thirds of the national median net wage of full-time employed individuals (defined separately for each wave). To capture regional differences in Russia and the UK, where wages are strongly variable, the median for each region was considered separately. In Catalonia, no regional differences were considered.

The measurement of the dependent variable in terms of temporal and social aspects was not identical in all countries because the available information differs from survey to survey. For Russia, non-precarious jobs were defined as those with social benefits (both regular paid vacation and paid sick leave) and a written contract. For Spain, non-precarious jobs are those where the person has an indefinite contract or works in the public sector. Public employment refers specifically to statutory permanent posts (fun-cionarios de carrera), which were considered one of the most secure and stable contracts before the 2012 reforms in Spain. For the UK, non-precarious jobs are those where the individual has an indefinite contract (excluding zero-hour contracts).

Longitudinal panel datasets were used for all three countries. These three datasets are highly comparable to each other and use a similar survey methodology. For Russia, the Russian Longitudinal Monitoring Survey (RLMS-HSE)2 was used. The analysis was restricted to the years 2000–2010 for the analyses of non-precarious jobs in terms of the organizational and economic aspects and to the years 2002–10 for the analyses of non-precarious jobs in terms of the temporal and social aspects due to the availabil-ity of relevant information. The Panel Survey on Inequalities in Catalonia (PaD)3 was used for Spain, with data from the years 2002–9. The PaD is not representative for the whole of Spain, but only for Catalonia. However, this is the best available data for


longitudinal research on educational and employment trajectories in Spain and the relevant institutions in Catalonia are similar to those in the rest of the country. Finally, the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS)4 was analysed for the UK. The analysis was restricted to the years 1999–2008, also in accordance with the availability of rel-evant information.5

Formal adult learning was defined as an educational qualification that is obtained at an age at least three years older than the median graduation age for the specific level of education. Respondents’ observations in the waves that led up to graduation within the ‘normal age range’ and those who reported being full-time students for an age-appropriate qualification were excluded from the samples, as were those who were defined as being too young to be (potential) adult learners. The upper age for the obser-vational window is 49 years old due to the decrease in both adult learning and (non-)precarious employment for higher age groups. However, choosing a higher age cut-off would not affect the main results. Self-employed individuals were also excluded from the samples.

Two types of adult learning were examined, as they may lead to different results (Li et al., 2000): educational upgrades (in all three countries) and educational side-steps (in Russia and the UK). Adult upgraders are individuals who obtained an additional qualifi-cation higher than their initial qualification, while adult side-steppers include individuals who obtained an additional qualification at the same level or lower compared to the ini-tial qualification.

The data contain multiple observations per individual and the binary dependent vari-able was analysed with random effects linear probability models in order to make the results more comparable across models and countries. A fixed effects linear specification was also used, restricting the sample to those who experienced a change (dropping those with stable career paths) during the observation period (as would happen in a fixed effects logistic regression). The random effects estimator is unbiased if unobserved het-erogeneity is randomly distributed and is not correlated with the model parameters. This estimator is often preferred over the fixed effect estimator in sociological literature, as it allows the estimation of time-invariant parameters and is more efficient (Brüderl, 2010). However, it is likely that time-invariant unobserved heterogeneity impacts upon both employment status and participation in formal adult learning. In contrast, the fixed effects specifications account for the time-invariant unobserved heterogeneity, while allowing for time-variant within-individual differences. A Hausman test was also con-ducted to assess the suitability of the two models, with the fixed effects specification being preferred in all cases.

The dependent variable in all models was the probability of having a non-precarious job at time t. To study the long-term effect of formal adult learning on the transition to non-precarious employment, obtaining formal adult learning was measured in t-1 or ear-lier during the observation period (H1 and H3).6 Interactions between formal adult learn-ing in t-1 (or earlier) and employment status in t-1 were also included to test specific hypotheses (H2 and H4). Educational level was measured as the level before obtaining the first observed adult education. Place of residence, age and age squared, gender, chil-dren under three years old in the household, marital status and wave were included as control variables (in t).


Results

Descriptive results

Table 1 gives a brief overview about the proportion of individuals who obtained formal adult learning during the observation period. The participation rates in the UK were much higher than those in Spain and Russia. In the UK, approximately 17 per cent of the individuals in the sample gained an upgrade and 13 per cent were side-steppers. In Catalonia, approximately 7 per cent gained an upgrade and in Russia 5–6 per cent gained an upgrade and a similar proportion were side-steppers. It should be noted that the pro-portion who upgraded in Catalonia could be expected to be slightly higher if the survey period were as long as in the other two countries.

Within the final sample, precarious employment in terms of social aspects was found to be most prevalent in Catalonia (23% of all yearly observations, but 15% in Russia and 3% in the UK). In the case of precarious jobs in terms of organizational and economic aspects, the highest rate of precarious employment was found in Russia (33% compared with 25% in Spain and 25% in the UK). These country differences remained stable even when the proportion in precarious employment among only the employed was considered.

Table 2 depicts the dynamics of employment status in the three countries in terms of transition rates into and out of non-precarious jobs. Overall, there was great stability in all three countries when it came to staying in non-precarious jobs and more heterogeneity when it came to transitions into non-precarious jobs, particularly when defined in terms of temporal and social aspects. In line with expectations, there were proportionately fewer individuals entering these types of jobs in Catalonia (e.g. the yearly transition rate from precarious to non-precarious jobs is 16%) and the most in the UK (58%), with

Table 1. Proportion of adult learners in Catalonia, the UK and Russia.

Non-precarious jobs defined in terms of temporal and social aspects (a)

Non-precarious jobs defined in terms of organizational and economic aspects (b)

Analytical sample

Adult upgrader

Adult side-stepper

Analytical sample

Adult upgrader

Adult side-stepper

Catalonia As % 100% 6.49% – 100% 7.31% –Individuals 2325 151 – 2297 168 –The UK As % 100% 17.72% 13.35% 100% 17.67% 13.32%Individuals 10,342 1833 1381 10,304 1821 1373Russia As % 100% 5.12% 4.95% 100% 5.78% 6.03%Individuals 9173 470 454 9838 569 593

Source: Own calculation based on RLMS-HSE (a: 2002–10, b: 2000–2010) for Russia, BHPS (1999–2008) for the UK and PaD (2002–9) for Catalonia.Note: Adult learning is defined as obtaining adult learning at any time during the observation period.


Russia in between (29%). The same country pattern held for transitions from unemploy-ment and outside the labour force to non-precarious jobs.

With regard to non-precarious jobs in terms of organizational and economic aspects, the country differences were less clear-cut, with movements into non-precarious jobs being least frequent in the UK (e.g. the yearly transition rate from precarious to non-precarious jobs is 16%) and tending to be most frequent in Russia (31%), although the difference between Catalonia (24%) and Russia was not as big as for the first definition. In fact, when it came to movements from unemployment to non-precarious jobs, the proportion was slightly higher in Catalonia (23%) than in Russia (19%).

Labour market impact of adult learning

For each of the three countries and the two definitions of non-precarious employment, three models are presented. The first model shows the main effect of adult learning (this model includes all the control variables). In the second model, an interaction between

Table 2. Dynamics of employment status in Catalonia, the UK and Russia (row percentages).

Non-precarious jobs defined in terms of temporal and social aspects (a)

Non-precarious jobs defined in terms of organizational and economic aspects(b)

Non-precarious job in t Non-precarious job in t

No Yes N No Yes N

Catalonia

Empl

oym

ent

sta

tus

in t-

1 Non-precarious job 7.29 92.71 4595 10.10 89.90 4584Precarious job 83.80 16.20 1753 76.23 23.77 1489Unemployed 86.70 13.30 421 71.92 28.08 438Not in labour force 94.53 5.47 805 91.77 8.23 826Total 38.68 61.32 7574 36.40 63.60 7337

The UK

Empl

oym

ent

sta

tus

in t-

1 Non-precarious job 5.13 94.87 38,626 8.18 91.82 27,486Precarious job 41.76 58.24 1626 83.57 16.43 12,492Unemployed 61.46 38.54 1230 79.18 20.82 1220Not in labour force 89.04 10.96 8,822 96.68 3.32 8807Total 22.40 77.60 50,304 44.33 55.67 50,005

Russia

Empl

oym

ent

sta

tus

in t-

1 Non-precarious job 12.16 87.84 22,221 25.92 74.08 17,919Precarious job 71.28 28.72 5508 68.81 31.19 13,515Unemployed 74.32 25.68 2227 80.54 19.46 2878Not in labour force 87.09 12.91 5793 91.93 8.07 6916Total 37.38 62.72 35,749 54.87 45.13 41,228

Source: Own calculation based on RLMS-HSE (a: 2002–10, b: 2000–2010) for Russia, BHPS (1999–2008) for the UK and PaD (2002–9) for Catalonia.


adult learning and previous employment status is added. Finally in a third model, fixed effects results are presented in order to analyse the role of adult learning only among (and ‘within’) individuals with unstable careers.

Considering non-precarious employment in terms of temporal and social aspects in Catalonia (Table 3), no overall effect of upgrading on being employed in a non-precarious job was seen either in the model for the whole sample (Model 1.1) or when restricting the analysis for individuals with changes in their careers (Model 1.3). The results for interaction effects between adult learning and employment sta-tus did not show any significant differences, meaning that adult learning did not have a significant impact for any of the groups (Model 1.2).

Regarding the results for organizational and economic aspects, the overall effect of upgrading was again not significant (Model 2.1). However, some variation in the adult learning effect for different groups of participants could be seen (Model 2.2). First, there was a small positive effect for those in precarious jobs, although it was only marginally significant. Second, upgraders who were unemployed had a higher likelihood of entering non-precarious employment than unemployed persons who had not upgraded. The addi-tional analysis of effects within individuals who changed employment statuses during the observation period revealed a significant and rather large (23 percentage points) posi-tive effect for adult learning, indicating that upward educational mobility can help indi-viduals access full-time and decently paid positions (Model 2.3).

In sum, the results for Catalonia indicate that adult learning was beneficial for partici-pants in more marginal labour market positions. In contrast, those in non-precarious jobs did not benefit from adult learning and results even suggest some tendency for a negative impact of an upgrade on the chances to stay in non-precarious jobs (the coefficients were negative, although not significant).

Moving on to the UK and considering non-precarious employment in terms of tempo-ral and social aspects (Table 4), a positive significant effect of upgrading and no signifi-cant effect of side-stepping was found (Model 3.1). The interactions between upgrading and employment status indicated that an educational upgrade may have had a small posi-tive effect for those already in non-precarious jobs (Model 3.2). A larger positive effect of this type of adult learning was found for individuals in more precarious labour market positions. An upgrade appeared particularly beneficial for individuals outside the labour force. The unemployed also benefited from a side-step. These results tended to be con-firmed with the fixed effects model (Model 3.3): both upgrading and side-stepping increased the chances of entering into non-precarious employment, with the estimated effect being approximately 5 percentage points.

Regarding the second definition of non-precarious employment, obtaining adult learning generally indicated the same trend: upgrading tended to increase the chances of moving to non-precarious employment positions, while side-stepping tended not to (Model 4.1). Interactions with current employment status showed that an upgrade tended to be beneficial for all groups, with the largest benefit for those outside the labour market (Model 4.2). Side-stepping also seemed to be beneficial, except for those employed in precarious jobs. The fixed effects results also suggested that among those experiencing unstable employment paths, both upgrading and side-stepping increased the chances of transitioning into non-precarious jobs (Model 4.3), with the estimated effects being in the region of 7 percentage points.

Vono de Vilhena et al. 11T

able

3.

Adu

lt le

arni

ng a

nd a

cces

s to

non

-pre

cari

ous

jobs

in C

atal

onia

.

Non

-pre

cari

ous

jobs

def

ined

in t

erm

s of

te

mpo

ral a

nd s

ocia

l asp

ects

Non

-pre

cari

ous

jobs

def

ined

in t

erm

s of

or

gani

zatio

nal a

nd e

cono

mic

asp

ects

Fo

rmal

adu

lt le

arni

ng

Form

al a

dult

lear

ning

and

cu

rren

t em

pl.

stat

us

Form

al a

dult

lear

ning

, fix

ed

effe

cts

Form

al a

dult

lear

ning

Form

al a

dult

lear

ning

and

cu

rren

t em

pl.

stat

us

Form

al a

dult

lear

ning

, fix

ed e

ffect

s

M

odel

1.1

Mod

el 1

.2M

odel

1.3

Mod

el 2

.1M

odel

2.2

Mod

el 2

.3

Adul

t lea

rnin

g (r

ef. n

o ad

ult l

earn

ing)

A

dult

upgr

ader

–0.0

15–0

.019

–0.0

170.

024

–0.0

140.

227*

**Em

ploy

men

t sta

tus

(ref

. non

-pre

cario

us e

mpl

oym

ent)

Pr

ecar

ious

em

ploy

men

t–0

.613

***

–0.6

14**

*–0

.214

***

–0.4

32**

*–0

.436

***

–0.0

16U

nem

ploy

ed–0

.639

***

–0.6

38**

*–0

.232

***

–0.4

04**

*–0

.411

***

0.08

2*N

ot in

labo

ur fo

rce

–0.7

35**

*–0

.736

***

–0.3

38**

*–0

.587

***

–0.5

90**

*–0

.141

**In

tera

ctio

ns: e

mpl

oym

ent s

tatu

s*ad

ult u

pgra

ders

In

a p

reca

riou

s jo

b *

adul

t up

grad

ers

0.01

30.

094*

U

nem

ploy

ed *

adu

lt up

grad

ers

–0.1

180.

471*

**

Not

in la

bour

forc

e *

adul

t up

grad

ers

0.06

80.

146

H

ighe

st e

duca

tiona

l qua

lifica

tion

befo

re a

dult

lear

ning

(ref

. uni

vers

ity d

egre

e)U

pper

sec

onda

ry d

egre

e–0

.002

–0.0

02–0

.073

***

–0.0

73**

*

Voc

atio

nal d

egre

e–0

.015

–0.0

15–0

.099

***

–0.0

99**

*

Com

puls

ory

or le

ss–0

.070

***

–0.0

70**

*–0

.171

***

–0.1

70**

*

Obs

erva

tions

7574

7574

1636

7337

7337

2010

Indi

vidu

als

2325

2325

345

2297

2297

428

Hau

sman

tes

t fo

r fix

ed e

ffect

sχ2

= 9

98.1

8, p

= 0

.000

χ2 =

112

5.83

, p =

0.0

00

Sour

ce: O

wn

calc

ulat

ion

base

d on

PaD

(20

02–9

).N

otes

: ***

p<

0.01

, **

p<0.

05, *

p<

0.1.

Mod

els

1.3

and

2.3

are

rest

rict

ed t

o in

divi

dual

s w

ho m

oved

into

or

out

of a

non

-pre

cari

ous

job

duri

ng t

he o

bser

vatio

n pe

riod

.


Tab

le 4

. A

dult

lear

ning

and

acc

ess

to n

on-p

reca

riou

s jo

b in

the

UK

.

Non

-pre

cari

ous

jobs

def

ined

in t

erm

s of

tem

pora

l and

soc

ial a

spec

tsN

on-p

reca

riou

s jo

bs d

efin

ed in

ter

ms

of

orga

niza

tiona

l and

eco

nom

ic a

spec

ts

Fo

rmal

ad

ult

lear

ning

Form

al a

dult

lear

ning

an

d cu

rren

t em

pl. s

tatu

s

Form

al

adul

t le

arni

ng,

fixed

effe

cts

Form

al

adul

t le

arni

ng

Form

al a

dult

lear

ning

and

cu

rren

t em

pl.

stat

us

Form

al

adul

t le

arni

ng,

fixed

effe

cts

M

odel

3.1

Mod

el 3

.2M

odel

3.3

Mod

el 4

.1M

odel

4.2

Mod

el 4

.3

Adul

t lea

rnin

g (r

ef. n

o ad

ult l

earn

ing)

A

dult

upgr

ader

0.02

2***

0.00

9*0.

061*

**0.

029*

**0.

022*

**0.

073*

**A

dult

side

-ste

pper

0.00

50.

002

0.04

4*0.

007

0.01

6**

0.07

6***

Empl

oym

ent s

tatu

s (r

ef. n

on-p

reca

rious

em

ploy

men

t)

Prec

ario

us e

mpl

oym

ent

–0.2

64**

*–0

.271

***

–0.0

26–0

.566

***

–0.5

66**

*–0

.184

***

Une

mpl

oyed

–0.4

49**

*–0

.463

***

–0.1

16**

*–0

.586

***

–0.5

91**

*–0

.201

***

Not

in la

bour

forc

e–0

.719

***

–0.7

28**

*–0

.370

***

–0.7

11**

*–0

.714

***

–0.3

74**

*In

tera

ctio

ns: e

mpl

oym

ent s

tatu

s*ad

ult u

pgra

ders

In

a p

reca

riou

s jo

b *

adul

t up

grad

ers

0.06

0***

0.01

6

Une

mpl

oyed

* a

dult

upgr

ader

s0.

056*

0.00

1

Not

in la

bour

forc

e *

adul

t up

grad

ers

0.08

5***

0.02

9**

(Con

tinue

d)


Non

-pre

cari

ous

jobs

def

ined

in t

erm

s of

tem

pora

l and

soc

ial a

spec

tsN

on-p

reca

riou

s jo

bs d

efin

ed in

ter

ms

of

orga

niza

tiona

l and

eco

nom

ic a

spec

ts

Fo

rmal

ad

ult

lear

ning

Form

al a

dult

lear

ning

an

d cu

rren

t em

pl. s

tatu

s

Form

al

adul

t le

arni

ng,

fixed

effe

cts

Form

al

adul

t le

arni

ng

Form

al a

dult

lear

ning

and

cu

rren

t em

pl.

stat

us

Form

al

adul

t le

arni

ng,

fixed

effe

cts

M

odel

3.1

Mod

el 3

.2M

odel

3.3

Mod

el 4

.1M

odel

4.2

Mod

el 4

.3

Inte

ract

ions

: em

ploy

men

t sta

tus*

adul

t sid

e-st

eppe

rs

In a

pre

cari

ous

job

* ad

ult

side

-ste

pper

s–0

.014

–0.0

31**

*

Une

mpl

oyed

* a

dult

side

-ste

pper

s0.

072*

**0.

037

N

ot in

labo

ur fo

rce

* ad

ult

side

-ste

pper

s0.

017

–0.0

05

Hig

hest

edu

catio

nal q

ualif

icatio

n be

fore

adu

lt le

arni

ng (r

ef. u

nive

rsity

deg

ree)

Ter

tiary

qua

lific

atio

n be

low

deg

ree

leve

l0.

006

0.00

6–0

.034

***

–0.0

34**

*

Upp

er s

econ

dary

qua

lific

atio

n–0

.005

–0.0

04–0

.047

***

–0.0

47**

*

Belo

w u

pper

sec

onda

ry–0

.037

***

–0.0

36**

*–0

.090

***

–0.0

90**

*

Obs

erva

tions

50,3

0450

,304

12,8

7250

,005

50,0

0514

,392

Indi

vidu

als

10,3

4210

,342

2107

10,3

0410

,304

2350

Hau

sman

tes

t fo

r fix

ed e

ffect

sχ2

= 1

179.

94, p

= 0

.000

χ2 =

199

1.56

, p =

0.0

00

Sour

ce: O

wn

calc

ulat

ion

base

d on

BH

PS (

1999

–200

8).

Not

es: *

** p

<0.

01, *

* p<

0.05

, * p

<0.

1.M

odel

s 3.

3 an

d 4.

3 ar

e re

stri

cted

to

indi

vidu

als

who

mov

ed in

to o

r ou

t of

a n

on-p

reca

riou

s jo

b du

ring

the

obs

erva

tion

peri

od.

Tab

le 4

. (C

ontin

ued)


To sum-up the results for the UK, it seems that both educational upgrades and educa-tional side-steps can increase individuals’ chances of moving into non-precarious employment, though the results were slightly stronger for educational upgrades. Moreover, adult learning tended to help labour market participants in marginal situations to improve their career perspectives slightly more than those who had already accessed non-precarious employment.

Turning to the Russian context and considering non-precarious employment in terms of temporal and social aspects (Table 5), the first results showed similar patterns to the UK: upgrading seemed to be beneficial but side-stepping did not (Model 5.1). With regard to the interactions between upgrading and employment status, no significantly differentiated results were found, meaning that all labour market participants benefited equally from upgrading as an adult (Model 5.2). The interactions between side-stepping and employment status were not significant either. On the other hand, the fixed effects specification did not give statistically significant results for either type of adult learning (Model 5.3), though it should be noted that the coefficients were relatively similar in size to those in the random effects model (3–5 percentage points for upgrading). The upgrad-ing coefficient’s lack of significance (and somewhat smaller size) suggested that at least part of the effect of adult learning was due to selectivity.

Finally, the results for precarious jobs in terms of organizational and economic aspects suggested that both an upgrade and a side-step may have increased the chances to move into this type of non-precarious employment in Russia (Model 6.1). For upgraders, there were no significant differences according to employment status (Model 6.2). In contrast, for side-steppers it seemed that the new educational qualification only benefited those in precarious jobs, increasing their chances to move to a non-precarious job. The results of the fixed effects specification indicated that the effects for upgraders were not due to selectivity and that upgrading paid off for individuals with unstable careers (Model 6.3), with the effect from upgrading estimated at about 10 percentage points. The positive effect of side-stepping lost significance in the fixed effects models, but again the size of the coefficient did not change much (and actually in both cases it increased slightly to 5 percentage points).

Bringing together the findings for Russia, the results revealed that adult learning may be a good tool for improving an individual’s labour market position, with upgrading generally being beneficial and side-stepping beneficial for some groups in specific situations.

Discussion

By using longitudinal data for Russia, Catalonia and the UK, this article has explored the effect of completing formal education later in life – measured both as an upgrade and as a side-step – on access to non-precarious employment. By comparing three countries with different institutional settings, the extent to which institutional contexts may shape the impact of adult learning has also been considered, thus contributing further to the existing literature.

Coming back to the initial hypotheses, it was expected that in Spain, adult learning would not increase the likelihood of accessing non-precarious employment (H1).


Tab

le 5

. A

dult

lear

ning

and

acc

ess

to n

on-p

reca

riou

s jo

b in

Rus

sia.

Non

-pre

cari

ous

jobs

def

ined

in t

erm

s of

te

mpo

ral a

nd s

ocia

l asp

ects

(a)

Non

-pre

cari

ous

jobs

def

ined

in t

erm

s of

or

gani

zatio

nal a

nd e

cono

mic

asp

ects

(b)

Fo

rmal

adu

lt le

arni

ng

Form

al a

dult

lear

ning

and

cu

rren

t em

pl.

Stat

us

Form

al a

dult

lear

ning

, Fi

xed

effe

ct

Form

al

adul

t le

arni

ng

Form

al a

dult

lear

ning

an

d cu

rren

t em

pl. s

tatu

s

Form

al

adul

t le

arni

ng,

Fixe

d ef

fect

M

odel

5.1

Mod

el 5

.2M

odel

5.3

Mod

el 6

.1M

odel

6.2

Mod

el 6

.3

Adul

t lea

rnin

g (r

ef. n

o ad

ult l

earn

ing)

A

dult

upgr

ader

0.04

6***

0.04

7***

0.03

10.

049*

**0.

048*

**0.

101*

**A

dult

side

-ste

pper

0.01

90.

026*

0.05

20.

033*

**0.

020

0.05

0Em

ploy

men

t sta

tus

(ref

. non

-pre

cario

us e

mpl

oym

ent)

Pr

ecar

ious

em

ploy

men

t–0

.453

***

–0.4

52**

*–0

.018

–0.2

95**

*–0

.297

***

0.04

6***

Une

mpl

oyed

–0.4

92**

*–0

.491

***

–0.0

92**

*–0

.422

***

–0.4

19**

*–0

.003

Not

in la

bour

forc

e–0

.607

***

–0.6

07**

*–0

.155

***

–0.5

00**

*–0

.503

***

–0.0

54**

*In

tera

ctio

ns: e

mpl

oym

ent s

tatu

s*ad

ult u

pgra

ders

In

a p

reca

riou

s jo

b *

adul

t up

grad

ers

0.02

1–0

.005

U

nem

ploy

ed *

adu

lt up

grad

ers

–0.0

13–0

.035

N

ot in

labo

ur fo

rce

* ad

ult

upgr

ader

s–0

.022

0.02

6

Inte

ract

ions

: em

ploy

men

t sta

tus*

adul

t sid

e-st

eppe

rs

In a

pre

cari

ous

job

* ad

ult

side

-ste

pper

s–0

.046

0.04

8**

U

nem

ploy

ed *

adu

lt si

de-s

tepp

ers

–0.0

37–0

.050

N

ot in

labo

ur fo

rce

* ad

ult

side

-ste

pper

s0.

016

0.01

7

(Con

tinue

d)


Non

-pre

cari

ous

jobs

def

ined

in t

erm

s of

te

mpo

ral a

nd s

ocia

l asp

ects

(a)

Non

-pre

cari

ous

jobs

def

ined

in t

erm

s of

or

gani

zatio

nal a

nd e

cono

mic

asp

ects

(b)

Fo

rmal

adu

lt le

arni

ng

Form

al a

dult

lear

ning

and

cu

rren

t em

pl.

Stat

us

Form

al a

dult

lear

ning

, Fi

xed

effe

ct

Form

al

adul

t le

arni

ng

Form

al a

dult

lear

ning

an

d cu

rren

t em

pl. s

tatu

s

Form

al

adul

t le

arni

ng,

Fixe

d ef

fect

M

odel

5.1

Mod

el 5

.2M

odel

5.3

Mod

el 6

.1M

odel

6.2

Mod

el 6

.3

Hig

hest

edu

catio

nal q

ualif

icatio

n be

fore

adu

lt le

arni

ng (r

ef. u

nive

rsity

deg

ree

or h

ighe

r)T

ertia

ry q

ualif

icat

ion

belo

w d

egre

e le

vel

–0.0

53**

*–0

.053

***

–0.0

73**

*–0

.071

***

U

pper

sec

onda

ry q

ualif

icat

ion

–0.0

95**

*–0

.095

***

–0.1

24**

*–0

.122

***

Be

low

upp

er s

econ

dary

–0.1

46**

*–0

.146

***

–0.1

76**

*–0

.181

***

Obs

erva

tions

35,7

4935

,749

13,0

3642

,228

42,2

2822

,350

Indi

vidu

als

9173

9173

2476

9838

9838

3831

Hau

sman

tes

t fo

r fix

ed e

ffect

sχ2

= 2

208.

03, p

= 0

.000

χ2 =

356

2.98

, p =

0.0

00

Sour

ce: O

wn

calc

ulat

ion

base

d on

RLM

S-H

SE (

a: 2

002–

10, b

: 200

0–20

10).

Not

es: *

** p

<0.

01, *

* p<

0.05

, * p

<0.

1.M

odel

s 5.

3 an

d 6.

3 ar

e re

stri

cted

to

indi

vidu

als

who

mov

ed in

to o

r ou

t of

a n

on-p

reca

riou

s jo

b du

ring

the

obs

erva

tion

peri

od.

Ter

tiary

qua

lific

atio

n be

low

deg

ree

leve

l ref

ers

to t

he le

vel a

ttai

ned

upon

com

plet

ion

of s

econ

dary

voc

atio

nal e

duca

tion

(ISC

ED 5

B)

Tab

le 5

. (C

ontin

ued)


Nonetheless, an effect for those already in non-precarious employment as a preventive mechanism of downward mobility was expected (H2). Overall, the findings supported the first hypothesis in terms of no impact of adult learning on securing an indefinite con-tract. Nevertheless, with regard to mobility into a full-time job with wages above the working poor level (organizational and economic aspects), upgrading appeared to be beneficial for individuals with unstable careers and in particular for movements from unemployment to non-precarious employment. The size of this beneficial effect was sur-prisingly large (though estimated with a great deal of uncertainty) and the finding in general showed that even in a country with high turnover costs, adult learning can have a beneficial impact on certain outcomes. In contrast to the second hypothesis, the find-ings suggested that educational upgrading did not prevent downward mobility for indi-viduals already in non-precarious jobs. In this regard, the marginal status of adult learning in Spanish society reinforces the general conclusion for the country that labour trajecto-ries are strongly determined by what happens during the first years after school.

For Russia and the UK, the hypothesis was that adult learning increases the probabil-ity of accessing non-precarious employment (H3). It was also expected that the effect would be found among all individuals, independently of whether they were in precarious positions or not (H4). Supporting evidence for the first of these hypotheses was visible in both countries, though more so for upgrading than side-stepping. However, the second hypothesis tended to be more supported in Russia than in the UK, since in the latter the groups that benefitted from adult learning the most were those in marginal employment positions. Moreover, the fixed effects results from Russia suggested that some of the positive effects were partly driven by positive selection, whereas the same was not the case in the UK.

It seems plausible that educational qualifications played a larger role for labour mar-ket transitions in Russia than in the UK or Spain. The effects of initial educational level in the models tended to be larger in Russia than in the other two countries. Despite the problems in the educational system that were discussed above, education (including adult learning) did provide some signals in the labour market. The actual sizes of the effects were rather similar in Russia and the UK, with estimates around 5–10 percentage points, which can be considered a substantial increase in an individual’s chances of entering non-precarious employment.

The results also indicated that the effect of upgrading tended to be larger than that of side-stepping and/or only upgrading contributed to securing non-precarious employ-ment. The reason underlying this finding may be related to human capital: while vertical progress is usually associated with a higher level of specialization and expertise – imply-ing a clear signal of upgrading in human capital – a side-step does not necessarily imply a change in individuals’ abilities or in the perceptions of employers.

The general story of this study’s findings is that adult learning can substantially benefit the individuals who acquire it, thus highlighting the agency of individuals who do not (yet) have stable and adequately remunerated jobs. However, it cannot necessarily be considered as a large-scale solution for getting rid of precarious jobs. In Spain, the functioning of the insider-outsider division of the labour market is so strong that educational upgrades only rarely improve individuals’ chances of obtaining or keeping non-precarious employment. This goes in line with previous research highlighting the rigidity of labour market divisions


in the country (MacInnes, 2009). On the other hand, the more flexible labour markets in the UK and in Russia allow for more benefits to be drawn from adult learning. Overall, new qualifications – though more clearly when they are upgrades – help individuals in Russia and the UK to access and remain in non-precarious employment.

Acknowledgements

We thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments. A previous version of this article was presented at the 2013 Spring Meeting of the RC28 in Trento and at the ECSR Conference 2013, in Tilburg.

Funding

This research was funded by an Advanced Grant of the European Research Council (ERC) granted to Hans-Peter Blossfeld (ERC-2010-AdG, SH2, Project-ID 269568).

Notes

1. Part-time jobs have been extensively used as an indicator of ‘atypical’ or ‘non-standard’ employment, as in most countries part-time workers tend to be concentrated in lower positions in the occupational hierarchy and characterized by inferior employment conditions in com-parison to full-time workers (Gallie and Zhou, 2011). Moreover, additional analyses with the Spanish data, where involuntary and voluntary part-time jobs could be differentiated, indicated that excluding voluntary part-time workers would not change the main results.

2. The Russian Longitudinal Monitoring Survey (RLMS-HSE) is conducted by the National Research University Higher School of Economics and ZAO ‘Demoscope’ together with the Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the Institute of Sociology RAS.

3. The Catalonian Inequality Panel (Panel de Desigualtats de Catalunya, PaD) is conducted by the Jaume Bofill Foundation in Barcelona, Spain.

4. The British Household Panel Survey (BHPS) is run by the Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Essex.

5. To check for potential bias arising from differential attrition based on employment status, analyses predicting dropping out from each of the surveys were conducted, using the same control variables as in the other models of the article. In none of the three surveys was employ-ment status found to be a significant predictor of dropout (details available from the authors on request).

6. This way of coding adult learning conceals potential time dependencies that may exist in the effect of adult learning on non-precarious employment. Previous research with differ-ent dependent variables has sometimes found relatively immediate effects of adult learning (Kosyakova, 2014; McMullin and Kilpi-Jakonen, 2014), whereas in other cases the impact has come with a lag of two or three years (Blanden et al., 2012; Vono de Vilhena and Miret Gamundi, 2014).

References

Barbieri P and Scherer S (2008) Labour market flexibilization and its consequences in Italy. European Sociological Review 25(6): 677–92.

Becker G (1975) Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to Education. New York, NY: Columbia University Press for NBER.


Bernardi F (2012) Social Origins and Inequality in Educational Returns in the Labour Market in Spain. EUI Working Paper SPS 2012/05, European University Institute, Florence, Italy.

Blanden J, Buscha F, Sturgis P and Urwin P (2012) Measuring the earning returns to lifelong learn-ing in the UK. Economics of Education Review 31(4): 501–14.

Booth A (2002) Temporary jobs: stepping stones or dead ends? The Economic Journal 112(480): 189–213.

Breen R (2005) Explaining cross-national variation in youth unemployment: market and institu-tional factors. European Sociological Review 21(2): 125–34.

Brüderl J (2010) Kausalanalyse mit Paneldaten. In: Wolf C and Best H (eds) Handbuch der sozial-wissenschaftlichen Datenanalyse. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 963–94.

Bühler C and Konietzka D (2011) Institutional change and the transition from school to work in Russia. In: Kogan I, Noelke C and Gebel M (eds) Making the Transition: Education and Labor Market Entry in Central and Eastern Europe. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 296–319.

Castells M (1996) The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell.Collins R (1979) The Credential Society: An Historical Sociology of Education and Stratification.

New York, NY: Academic Press.Cutuli G and Guetto R (2012) Fixed-term contracts, economic conjuncture, and training oppor-

tunities: a comparative analysis across European labour markets. European Sociological Review 29(3): 616–29.

Elman C and O’Rand AM (2004) The race is to the swift: socioeconomic origins, adult education and wage attainment. American Journal of Sociology 110(1): 123–60.

European Commission (2014) EU Policy in the Field of Adult Learning. Available (consulted 10 October 2014) at: http://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/adult-learning/index_en.htm

Eurydice (2003) Structures of Education, Vocational Training and Adult Education Systems in Europe. Brussels: Eurydice.

Gallie D and Zhou Y (2011) The changing job skills of female part-time workers in Britain 1992–2006. Human Resource Management Journal 21(1): 28–44.

Gash V (2008) Bridge or trap? Temporary workers’ transitions to unemployment and to the stand-ard employment contract. European Sociological Review 24(5): 651–68.

Gerber TP (2003) Loosening links? School-to-work transitions and institutional change in Russia since 1970. Social Forces 82(1): 241–76.

Giddens A (1998) The Third Way. Cambridge: Polity Press.Gimpelson V, Kapeliushnikov R and Lukiyanova A (2010) Employment protection legislation in

Russia: regional enforcement and labor market outcomes. Comparative Economic Studies 52(4): 611–36.

Hällsten M (2012) Is it ever too late to study? The economic return on late tertiary degrees in Sweden. Economics of Education Review 31(1): 179–94.

Holst H (2013) ‘Commodifying institutions’: vertical disintegration and institutional change in German labour relations. Work, Employment and Society 28(1): 3–20.

Jenkins A, Vignoles A, Wolf A and Galindo-Rueda F (2003) The determinants and labour market effects of lifelong learning. Applied Economics 35(16): 1711–21.

Kalleberg AL (2009) Precarious work, insecure workers: employment relations in transition. American Sociological Review 74(1): 1–22.

Kalleberg AL (2011) Good Jobs, Bad Jobs: The Rise of Polarized and Precarious Employment Systems in the United States, 1970 to 2000s. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Kalleberg AL (2012) Job quality and precarious work: clarifications, controversies, and chal-lenges. Work and Occupations 39(4): 427–48.

http://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/adult-learning/index_en.htm


Kilpi-Jakonen E, Vono de Vilhena D, Kosyakova Y, Stenberg A and Blossfeld HP (2012) The impact of formal adult education on the likelihood of being employed: a comparative over-view. Studies of Transition States and Societies 4(1): 48–68.

Kim A and Kurz K (2001) Precarious Employment, Education and Gender: A Comparison of Germany and the United Kingdom. Working Paper 39, Mannheimer Zentrum für Europäische Sozialforschung, Mannheim, Germany.

Kosyakova Y (2014) Job-related adult learning in the Russian Federation: more educational oppor-tunities without an equalization effect. In: Blossfeld HP, Kilpi-Jakonen E, Vono de Vilhena D and Buchholz S (eds) Adult Learning in Modern Societies: Patterns and Consequences of Participation from a Life-Course Perspective. Cheltenham and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 140–61.

Larionova M and Meshkova T (2007) Analiticheskii doklad po vysshemu obrazovaniiu v Rossiiskoi Federatsii [Analytical Report on Higher Education in the Russian Federation]. Moscow: GU-VShE.

Li JH, König M, Buchmann M and Sacchi S (2000) The influence of further education on occupa-tional mobility in Switzerland. European Sociological Review 16(1): 43–65.

Lindbeck A and Snower D (1986) Wage setting, unemployment, and insider-outsider relations. American Economic Review 76(2): 235–9.

Lindbeck A and Snower D (2002) The Insider-Outsider Theory: A Survey. July 2002. IZA Discussion Paper 534, Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit / Institute for the Study of Labour, Bonn, Germany.

MacInnes J (2009) Spain: continuity and change in precarious employment. In: Vosko L et al. (eds) Gender and the Contours of Precarious Employment. Aldershot: Routledge, 159–76.

McMullin P and Kilpi-Jakonen E (2014) Cumulative (dis)advantage? Patterns of participation and outcomes of adult learning in Great Britain. In: Blossfeld HP et al. (eds) Adult Learning in Modern Societies: Patterns and Consequences of Participation from a Life-Course Perspective. Cheltenham and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 119–39.

Müller W and Shavit Y (1998) The institutional embeddedness of the stratification process: a comparative study of qualifications and occupations in thirteen countries. In: Shavit Y and Müller W (eds) From School to Work: A Comparative Study of Educational Qualifications and Occupational Destinations. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1–48.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2002) Taking the Measure of Temporary Employment. In: Employment Outlook. Paris: OECD, 127–85.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2004) Completing the Foundation for Lifelong Learning: An OECD Survey for Upper Secondary Schools. Paris: OECD.

Purcell K, Wilton N and Elias P (2007) Hard lessons for lifelong learners? Age and experience in the graduate labour market. Higher Education Quarterly 61(1): 57–82.

Rodgers G (1989) Precarious employment in Western Europe: the state of the debate. In: Rodgers G and Rogers L (eds) Precarious Jobs in Labour Market Regulation: The Growth of a Typical Employment in Western Europe. Geneva: International Institute for Labour Studies, 1–15.

Russian Ministry of Education (2012) Website of the National Information Centre on Academic Recognition and Mobility. Available (consulted 1 September 2014) at: http://www.russi-anenic.ru/english/rus/index.html

Scherer S (2004) Stepping-stones or traps? The consequences of labour market entry positions on future careers in West Germany, Great Britain and Italy. Work, Employment and Society 18(2): 369–94.

Spence A (1973) Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics 87(3): 355–74.Standing G (2011) The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

http://www.russianenic.ru/english/rus/index.html

http://www.russianenic.ru/english/rus/index.html


Van de Werfhorst H (2011) Skills, positional good or social closure? The role of education across structural-institutional labour market settings. Journal of Education and Work 24(5): 521–48.

Vono de Vilhena D and Miret Gamundi P (2014) Participation in adult learning in Spain and its impacts on individuals’ labor market trajectories. In: Blossfeld HP et al. (eds) Adult Learning in Modern Societies: Patterns and Consequences of Participation from a Life-Course Perspective. Cheltenham and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 305–26.

Young M (2010) Gender differences in precarious work settings. Industrial Relations 65(1): 74–97.

Zimmermann K (2012) The Precarious New World of ‘Informal’ Jobs. Harvard Business Review Blogs Network, 8 November, Boston, MA. Available (consulted 1 September 2014) at: http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/11/a_precarious_new_world_of_info.html

Daniela Vono de Vilhena holds a PhD in Demography and is currently scientific coordinator at Population Europe Secretariat/Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research. The research for this article was undertaken while she was a postdoctoral researcher at the Comparative Life Course and Inequality Research Centre, European University Institute (Italy). She has also been a postdoc-toral researcher at the University of Bamberg (Germany) and a research fellow at the Centre for Demographic Studies, Autonomous University of Barcelona, where she completed her PhD.

Yuliya Kosyakova is a researcher in the eduLIFE project at the Comparative Life Course and Inequality Research Centre and a PhD candidate at the Department for Political and Social Sciences, European University Institute. She graduated with a master’s degree in European eco-nomics studies from the University of Bamberg, Germany, in 2011.

Elina Kilpi-Jakonen, DPhil, is a senior research fellow in the Department of Social Research, University of Turku (Finland). The research for this article was undertaken while she was a post-doctoral researcher at the Comparative Life Course and Inequality Research Centre, European University Institute (Italy), where she continues to be an external member. She has also been a postdoctoral researcher at the universities of Bamberg (Germany) and Oxford (UK).

Patricia McMullin is a researcher in the eduLIFE project at the Comparative Life Course and Inequality Research Centre and a PhD candidate at the Department for Political and Social Sciences, European University Institute. She graduated from University College Dublin (UCD) in 2004 with a master’s degree in sociology.

Date submitted July 2013Date accepted October 2014

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/11/a_precarious_new_world_of_info.html

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/11/a_precarious_new_world_of_info.html

Does adult education contribute to securing non-precarious employment? A cross-national comparison.

Documents

Transcript of Does adult education contribute to securing non-precarious employment? A cross-national comparison.