Communication from the Commission - Investing efficiently in education and training: an imperative for Europe
Date: 2003-01-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Employment Strategy, education policy, educational system, vocational training

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 10.01.2003
COM(2002) 779 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION

Investing efficiently in education and training:
an imperative for Europe

1.

SUMMARY

This  Communication  sets  out  the  Commission's  view  on  the  new  investment
paradigm in education and training in the enlarged EU within the framework of the
ambitious strategic goal set by the Lisbon European Council in March 2000. In view
of this goal, Ministers in charge of education adopted in February 2002 the Detailed
work programme on the  objectives  of education  and  training  systems,  including  its
objective 1.5: Making the most efficient use of resources 1.

The Communication tries to look at the issue of investment in education and training
from a broad  perspective, paying attention in particular to the research and lifelong
learning dimensions and to the European Employment Strategy. It starts by exploring
the relevance and contribution of education to core elements of the Lisbon strategy,
such  as  sustainable  growth,  competitiveness,  R&D  and  innovation,  the  creation  of
more  and  better  jobs,  social  inclusion  and  active  citizenship  and  regional  policies.
The  new  investment  paradigm  in  education  and  training  will  be  shaped  by  factors
such  as  the  new  requirements  of  the  knowledge  society,  globalisation,  EU
enlargement  and  unfavourable  demographic  trends.  In  view  of  these  factors,  the
challenge to be met will be even more considerable than envisaged in Lisbon. Many
regions  and  several  countries  of  the  current  and  the  future  EU  need  to  overcome
massive challenges for Europe to reach the Lisbon goals.

Concerning  the  overall  level  of  funding,  the  EU  suffers  from  under-investment  in
human  resources.  A  clear  upward  trend  in  public  funding  could  not  be  identified,
while  there  is  a  clear  deficit  in  private  funding  in  key  areas  for  the  knowledge
economy  such  as  higher  education,  adult  education  and  continuing  vocational
training. EU enlargement is likely to exacerbate rather than reduce these deficiencies.
In  view  of  this,  the  Communication  expresses  the  Commission's  concern  about  the
prospect  of  achieving  the  “substantial  annual  increase  in  per  capita  investment  in
human  resources”  called  for  at  Lisbon,  and  concludes  that  new  investment  will  be
necessary  in  education  and  training,  including  (depending  on  countries'  situation)
targeted public expenditure and  higher private spending which  complements public
funding.

Concerning the need to spend existing resources more efficiently the document looks
first at their efficient allocation. It sets out the investment priorities in education and
training resulting from the ‘Objectives process’, as well as from lifelong learning and
the European Employment Strategy. It then identifies a number of common signs of
inefficiencies in expenditure (high failure, dropout and graduate unemployment rates,
excessive duration of studies, low attainment levels) and their possible sources, with
a  view  to  inciting  Member  States  to  address  these  factors  and  to  measure  their
incremental  costs.  The  need  for  the  efficient  management  of  resources  (through
educational  decentralisation,  partnership  approaches  and  better  coordinated  action)
and the indispensable role of national and European benchmarks are also underlined.

1 Detailed work programme on the objectives of education and training systems in Europe, Council document
6365/02, 2002. Objective 1.5 reflects also the need for “adequate resourcing” identified in the Commission’s
Communication “Making a European area of lifelong learning a reality”, 2001.

3

                                                
Finally, the Communication points out that investment can only be fully effective if
anchored in a European context. Important, sometimes overdue reforms in key areas
such as curricular renovation, quality assurance and the recognition of qualifications,
are basic conditions for efficient investment. Such reforms cannot achieve their full
potential if they are designed for a purely national context and disregard the broader,
new  European  context.  Investors  -  whether  state,  region,  enterprise  or  individual  -
failing  to  recognise  the  European  dimension  for  investment  decisions  in  education
and  training  would  create  a  handicap  for  themselves  and  reduce  the  efficiency  of
their investments.

The  Conclusion  emphasises  that  the  high  expectations  of  education  and  training
systems  set  by  Heads  of  State  and  Government  in  Lisbon  are  fully  justified.
Achieving the agreed goals in education and training will be crucial for the success
of the overall Lisbon strategy. The Commission invites Member States to provide the
level of public investment called for by the European social model 2, to put in place
partnerships and incentives for more and sustained investment from enterprises and
individuals, to focus funding on areas where it is most likely to produce the highest
quality  of  outcomes,  and  to  undertake  reforms  concerning  curricula,  quality  and
recognition with a view to maximising their efficiency in the European context.

2.

INTRODUCTION

Education  and  training  are  crucial  to  achieving  the  strategic  goal  set  for  Member
States  at  the  Lisbon  European  Council  to  make  the  European  Union  the  most
competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy (and society) in the world. The
Heads of State and Government, meeting in a sequence of spring European Councils
in  Lisbon  (2000),  Stockholm  (2001)  and  Barcelona  (2002),  confirmed  the  role  and
importance  of  education  and  training  and  set  priorities  for  concerted  action  at
European level.

In order for this role to be fulfilled, not only must sufficient resources be invested in
Member States’ education and training systems, but these must be well targeted and
managed  in  the  most  efficient  way.  The  new  focus  at  European  level  on  education
and  training  policy  issues  gives  a  new  context  for  considering  questions  of
investment  efficiency.  The  present  Communication  is  based  on  economic  and
educational research as well as on direct contact with stakeholders in education and
training.  It  wants  to  offer  the  Commission's  view,  and  to  launch  a  debate  on  key
investment  issues  in  education  and  training  in  the  current  and  enlarged  EU,  within
the  framework  of  the  implementation  of  the  Objectives  process  and  the  Lifelong
learning  Communication  -  as  well  as  in  context  of  the  European  Employment
Strategy. More specifically, its main purposes are:

– 

To analyse the implications for education and training of the call issued by the
Lisbon  European  Council  for  a  substantial  annual  increase  in  per  capita
investment in human resources3.

2 Lisbon European Council, Presidency Conclusions, paragraph 24.
3 Lisbon European Council, Presidency Conclusions, paragraph 26.

4

                                                
– 

– 

– 

– 

To clarify the  new roles and responsibilities of Member States  and Applicant
Countries  in  ensuring  that  education  and  training  play  their  full  part  in  the
achievement of the strategic goal set at Lisbon.

To  outline  the  main  components  and  success  factors  of  a  new  paradigm  for
investment  in  education  and  training  in  the  current  and  in  the  enlarged
European Union.

To support Member States and Applicant Countries in their efforts to develop
lifelong  learning  strategies  and  structural  reforms  in  their  education  and
training systems and to encourage them to reassess the levels and priorities of
their investment in human resources.

To prepare the ground for the joint report of the Commission and the Council
to the spring 2004 European Council on progress achieved towards their shared
Objectives, in particular Objective 1.5.

3.

THE  ROLE  OF  EDUCATION  AND  TRAINING  IN  ACHIEVING  THE  LISBON  STRATEGIC
GOAL

3.1.

The call for a substantial increase in investment in human resources

In March 2000, the Lisbon European Council set the EU the ambitious strategic goal
to become  by 2010  “the  most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy
in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and
greater  social  cohesion”.  Acknowledging  that  the  Union  was  confronted  with  “a
quantum shift resulting from globalisation and the knowledge-driven economy”, the
European Council stressed that this would require not only a “radical transformation
of the European economy”, but also “a challenging programme for the modernisation
of social welfare and education systems”. It also called for  a “general  reflection on
the concrete objectives of education systems” and for “a substantial annual increase
in  per  capita  investment  in  human  resources”.  It  pointed  out  that  the  future  of  the
European  economy  (and  society)  will  depend  on  the  skills  of  its  citizens,  and  that
these  in  turn  needed  the  continuous  updating  which  is  characteristic  of  knowledge
societies. In the context  of the  European  Employment Strategy, the  Feira  European
Council of June 2000 called on Member States to develop and implement coherent
and comprehensive strategies for lifelong learning.

The  2001  Stockholm  European  Council  agreed  that  the  work  should  continue  to
develop  a  work  programme  organised  around  the  quality  and  effectiveness,  the
accessibility  and  the  openness  to  the  world  of  education  and  training  systems.  It
indicated that work should be carried out “in the framework of the open method of
coordination  and  in  a  worldwide  perspective”  and  that  the  Applicant  Countries
should be involved.

The  Barcelona  European  Council  of  March  2002  welcomed  the  Detailed  work
programme  on  the  objectives  of  education  and  training  systems,  including  its
enhanced ambition to make Europe “a world reference for the quality and relevance
of its education and training and the most-favoured destination of students, scholars

5

and  researchers  from  other  world  regions”  4.  As  outlined  above,  this  Work
programme  includes  a  specific  objective  on  “Making  the  best  use  of  resources”,
which  builds  on  the  Lisbon  Council’s  call  for  increased  investment  in  human
resources and on the need described in the Commission’s Communication on lifelong
learning for adequate resourcing of lifelong learning in the knowledge society 5. This
objective  focuses  on  “increasing  investment  in  human  resources  while  ensuring  an
equitable  and  effective  distribution  of  available  means”  and  refers  to  total
investment, i.e. by public authorities as well as by private enterprises and individuals.
Given the strong, synergetic links between education and research, it is important to
note  that  the  Barcelona  European  Council  also  set  a  twin  objective  for  research,
namely to increase the overall R&D expenditure to approach 3 % of GDP by  2010
and to augment the share of it funded by business to 2/3 6.

3.2.

Relevance of education/training to the Lisbon goal

When adopting the Work programme on objectives, the Council (Education) and the
Commission  underlined  that  making  the  European  Union  the  leading  knowledge-
based  economy  in  the  world  would  be  possible  only  if  education  and  training
functioned as factors of economic growth, research and innovation, competitiveness,
sustainable  employment  and  social  inclusion  and  active  citizenship.  Ministers  in
charge  of  education  and  training  acknowledged  their  responsibility  in  this  process
and  re-affirmed  their  determination  to  meet  the  challenge.  This  was  echoed  by  the
Barcelona European Council in 2002 7.

The contribution of education and training to the achievement by 2010 of the Lisbon
strategic goal will be particularly important in the following areas:

–  Growth

The contribution of education and training to growth has been widely acknowledged
and  estimates  suggest  that  investment  in  education  and  training  produces  rates  of
return  to  individuals  (private  return)  and  to  society  (social  return)  comparable  to
investment in physical capital 8. The increasing share of services in the economy, the
pace  of  technological  change,  the  increasing  knowledge/information  share  of  the
value  of  production  as  well  as  the  scale  of  economic  and  social  restructuring
strengthen  the  case  for  such  investment.  A  recent  report  produced  for  the
Commission 9 concluded that investment in “human capital” contributes significantly
to  productivity  growth  and  is  an  attractive  investment  relative  to  alternative
spending, both at the microeconomic and at the social level. At the social level, there
is evidence that human capital investment is responsible for a significant proportion
of  aggregate  productivity  growth.  An  estimate  for  OECD  countries  is  that  an
additional year of average school attainment increases economic growth by around 5
% immediately and by a further 2.5 % in the long run 10. The OECD also found that

4 Detailed work programme on the objectives of education and training systems, op.cit.
5 Making a European area of lifelong learning a reality, Communication from the European Commission, 2001
6 Barcelona European Council, Presidency conclusions, paragraph 47
7 Barcelona European Council, Presidency conclusions, paragraphs 33 to 43
8 Returns to investment in education: a further update, Psacharopoulos and Patrinos, World Bank, 2002
9 De la Fuente and Ciccone, ‘Human capital in a global and knowledge-based economy’, Final report for DG

Employment and social affairs, European Commission, 2002.

10 De la Fuente and Ciccone, op.cit.

6

                                                
improvement in human capital was responsible for half a percentage point or more of
annual  growth  in  several  EU  countries  during  the  1990s  as  compared  with  the
previous decade 11.

–  Competitiveness and dynamism

Competitiveness  and  dynamism  are  two  aspects  where  the  EU  is  currently  lagging
behind  the  United  States.  Education  and  training  need  to  play  a  decisive  role  in
attracting and keeping talent in Europe. The productivity gap between the EU and the
USA  continues  to  get  wider.  Reversing  this  trend  calls  for  investment  not  only  in
research and development and ICT, but also in “human capital development”. There
is evidence that the  reasons for Europe’s under-performance in this area go beyond
certain  obvious mismatches  between skills acquisition  and needs.  It  is  more  deeply
rooted  in  the  insufficient  level  of  educational  attainment  among  the  working  age
population. It took the EU many years to increase the average duration of schooling
from 70 % of USA level in 1971 to 87 % in 1999 12. The outflow of highly educated
people  from  Europe  mainly  to  the  USA  continues,  in  particular  in  science  and
technology,  and  the  EU  will  invest  1.6  billion  Euro  to  combat  it  through  the  sixth
Framework  Programme  for  research  and  technology  development.  Education  also
contributes to entrepreneurship, both by creating awareness of self-employment as a
career option and by developing the right skills for it 13.

–  Knowledge-based economy and society

It has been widely  acknowledged that the scale and quality of human resources  are
major  determinants  of  both  the  creation  of  new  knowledge  and  its  dissemination.
Key factors are the supply of new scientists and engineers in sufficient number, the
reinforcement  of  research  at  university  level  and  the  constant  updating  of  the
scientific  workforce,  as  well  as  the  overall  educational  level  of  the  working  age
population and the intensity  of lifelong learning  activities14.  Education  also  plays  a
key role in fostering the advancement and dissemination of science and technology 15
in the transition to the knowledge society. The knowledge sector is dependent on the
ability  of  education,  in  particular  universities,  to  offer  high  quality  curricula  in
knowledge-intensive areas and to attract a sufficient number of qualified persons to
science  and  technology16.  Furthermore,  while  innovation  requires  research  and
development activities, it is also dependent on the ability of social partners to ensure
that  a  generally  well-educated  and  creative  labour  force  stimulates  it,  uses  it  and
underpins it.

–  More and better jobs

The  Lisbon  European  Council  called  for  “more  and  better  jobs”,  set  employment
targets  17  and  emphasised  the  role  of  social  partners  in  achieving  them.  Education
and  training  contribute  to  this  in  several  ways.  There  is  clear  evidence  that  school

11 Education at a glance, OECD, 2002
12 2002 European Competitiveness Report, European Commission Staff working document , 2002
13 Entrepreneurship in Europe, Green paper from the European Commission, 2002
14 2001 Innovation Scoreboard, European Commission, 2002
15 De la Fuente and Ciccone, op.cit.
16 Commission Action Plan on Skills and Mobility, COM(2002)72final - point 2
17 Lisbon European Council, Presidency conclusions, paragraphs 28 and 29

7

                                                
attainment  is a  primary determinant of individual  income  and  labour market status.
Recent research suggests that across Europe an additional year of schooling increases
wages at the individual level by  around 6.5 % and by as much  as  9 % in  countries
with  a  less  compressed  wage  structure.  In  the  positive  link  between  education  and
earnings,  upper  secondary  education  forms  a  break  point  beyond  which  additional
education  attracts  a  particularly  high  premium18.  Evidence  also  shows  that
unemployment rates diminish with higher educational levels, thus also reducing the
related  social  costs.  It  is  also  clear  that  the  employment  rate  increases  with
educational  levels  achieved19,  including  among  older  people,  which  is  particularly
important  given  the  low  employment  rate  for  that  age  group  in  the  EU  and  our
rapidly  ageing  population.  The  gender  gap  in  access  to  employment  and  career
development  is  persisting  and  increases  with  age;  gender  mainstreaming  has  the
potential to mobilise a considerable and increasingly highly educated workforce for
Europe.  Raising  the  quality  of  work  contributes  towards  increasing  employment,
productivity  and  social  cohesion.  Two  important  dimensions  of  job  quality  are
training (which is shown to have a positive impact in particular on productivity) and
mobility (which requires the removal of barriers within the European labour market;
cf. section 6.2.).

–  Social inclusion and active citizenship

With  an  increasing premium on  skills,  the  polarisation between  the knowledge  rich
and  the  knowledge  poor  puts  strains  on  economic  and  social  cohesion.  Access  to
employer funded training is often limited to those who are already well qualified and
some  groups  get  locked  into  the  lower  end  of  the  labour  market.  An  important
challenge  is  to  develop  education  and  training  throughout  life  in  such  a  way  that
change and restructuring in the economy have no adverse effects on social cohesion.
One  of  the  most  important  conclusions  of  recent  educational  research  is  that
investing in people is both a growth factor, particularly in the current context of rapid
technological change, and a key instrument for enhancing social inclusion 20. This is
confirmed  by  the  analysis  of  PISA  results,  which  show  that  some  of  the  countries
with  the  highest  average  achievements  also  had  the  lowest  levels  of  inequality
between individuals and schools 21: in other words improving quality does not imply
restricting opportunities, but rather the opposite. Another study indicates that a 1 %
increase in the proportion of the labour force with at least upper secondary education
increases the income share of the poorest two-fifths by 6 % and that of the poorest
three-fifths  by  as  much  as  15  %,  thus  contributing  to  greater  income  equality  22.
These  rates  also  reflect  the  fact  that  education  and  training  produces  social  and
economic benefits by developing the personal and civic competencies as well as the
vocational  ones.  Active  citizenship  education  has  the  potential  to  raise  the  level  of
social and political responsibility in civil society and in the workplace.

18 Education at a glance, OECD, 2002
19  Eurostat,  Labour  force  survey,  quoted  in  Action  Plan  on  Skills  and  Mobility,  Communication  from  the

Commission, COM (2002) 72
20 De la Fuente-Ciccone, op.cit.
21 PISA, OECD, 2002
22 Inequality and development, Bourguignon and Morrison, Delta, Paris, 1997

8

                                                
-

Regional policies

High quality education and training is also an important element of regional policies,
as an  instrument to  reduce  disparities  between  more  and  less  developed  regions  by
providing  the  human  resources  needed  for  economic  and  social  development.  The
regional  and  local  dimension  of  learning  has  been  singled  out  as  one  of  six  key
pillars for lifelong learning strategies in Europe and the movement of Learning Cities
and Regions shows how crucial they have become for local and regional employment
and  development.  Since  regional  disparities  are  bound  to  increase  in  the  period
following  enlargement,  this  role  could  become  even  more  important  in  the  few
coming years. The Commission Action plan on skills and mobility has already called
for  particular  attention  to  be  given  to  the  greater  investments  in  human  resources
needed in regions lagging behind23.

3.3.

A new investment paradigm in education and training

Many  regions  and  indeed  countries  in  the  current  EU,  as  well  as  all  Applicant
Countries,  face  massive  challenges  to  overcome  for  Europe  to  reach  the  Lisbon
goals.  The  central  role  of  education  and  training  to  the  achievement  of  all  major
aspects of the Lisbon strategic goal, as set out above, implies significant changes to
the paradigm for investment. It is not only the variables of the investment model that
are  changing,  but  also  –  and  more  substantially  –  the  underlying  parameters
themselves. This can be seen in four areas:

–  New requirements of the knowledge society

Creating a successful knowledge-based economy and society in Europe demands the
universal  acquisition  of  new  basic  skills  and  attitudes,  much  broader  access  to
education  and  lifelong  learning  opportunities,  and  social  protection  measures
(including  anti-discrimination  and  gender-mainstreaming)  to  accompany  rapid  and
generalised change. The main implications of these new requirements were set out in
the Detailed  work  programme  on  the  objectives  of  education  and  training  systems.
Although  the  main  challenges  implied  by  the  Lisbon  strategic  goal  are  obviously
related  to  the  labour  market,  the  contribution  of  education  and  training  to  the
knowledge  economy  can  hardly  be  dissociated  from  its  contribution  to  society  in
general  and to the individual citizen: these two  dimensions  are  complementary  and
interdependent.  This  is  shown  in  the  high  social  returns  generated  by  educational
investment,  which  diminish  the  need  for  expenditure  in  other  areas  such  as
unemployment  benefits,  welfare  payments,  pensions,  social  insurance,  healthcare,
etc.24

–  Globalisation and worldwide competition

The Heads of State and Government set a new challenge in Barcelona in spring 2002,
with the announcement that the EU should become a world reference for the quality
and  the  relevance  of  its  education  and  training  and  should  be  the  most  attractive
world region  to  students,  scholars  and  researchers.  Globalisation  affects  education
and training systems and institutions in various ways, both directly (e.g. the growth

23 Commission Action Plan on Skills and Mobility, op.cit., point 11
24 cf. EU-funded project on Public funding and returns on education – PURE, 2002

9

                                                
in the funding of research and development activities and of universities in the USA
and  other  knowledge-based  powers  in  the  world  increases  the  need  for  more
investment  in  these  areas  in  Europe)  and  indirectly,  through  the  need  to  equip
citizens  with  the  skills  and  competencies  they  need  to  take  up  jobs,  and  more
crucially  to  keep  these  jobs  in  a  rapidly  changing  technological  and  economic
environment.  Thus,  globalisation  implies  not  only  increased  investment  levels  but
also  a  parallel  reform  process  to  increase  the  quality  and  relevance  of  school,
university and adult education and vocational training curricula and the coherence of
European  education  and  training  systems  and  to  enhance  their  visibility  and
recognition abroad. In the light of such impacts of globalisation, and the accelerating
pace of competition in education and training worldwide, the extent of the challenge
at  European  level  in  terms  of  investment  and  reform  is  almost  certainly  widely
underestimated. Developments such as the Bologna process in higher education and
the Bruges process in vocational training move in the right direction. But the pace of
change does not yet match the pace of globalisation, and we risk falling behind our
competitors if it is not increased.

–  Enlargement of the European Union

The enlargement of the EU also represents a major new challenge. By 2010 at least
twelve  Applicant  Countries  should  have  become  full  Member  States  (with  ten
countries  joining  in  May  2004  and  at  least  two  more  later  on).  There  are  big
discrepancies  between  the  future  Member  States  in  their  economic  and  educational
performance,  but  they  share  a  key  factor,  namely  their  relative  deficit  compared  to
current EU Member States in the development of a knowledge-based  economy and
society. The Lisbon strategic goal and its implications for education and training set
for  an  EU  of  15  will  have  to  be  met  by  2010  by  an  EU  of  at  least  27.  The  main
challenge  will  be  to  create  a  knowledge-based  economy  and  society  in  all  new
Member  States,  in  spite  of  regional  imbalances,  and  to  forestall  migration  flows
within  the  EU  which  would  have  serious  negative  consequences  for  education  and
training as well as research and development in the new Member States.

–  Demographics

The stabilisation of birth rates at a low level within the EU would appear to hold out
the  prospect  of  fewer  participants  in  all  levels  of  education  and  training  and
consequent expenditure savings. However, this would be a mistake. In spite of fewer
young children, total enrolments in education at European level did not decline, with
more people staying longer  in  the  upper  end  of  education  systems.  In  addition,  the
EU must keep up with fast changing technologies in spite of its ageing population,
with  significantly  fewer  young  people  than  in  the  USA  and  in  Asian  countries
(except Japan) leaving initial education  and  training  with  up-to-date skills.  Another
aspect  of  the  demographic  challenge  concerns  the  working  age  population,  since
growth results also from higher labour force participation and education and training
has  been  singled  out  as  a  key  factor  in  influencing  it25.  These  demographic
learning
constraints 
opportunities  for  those  who  have  left  the  formal  education  system,  increased
participation in the higher levels of education and training (also later in life), efforts

investment  within  Europe 

increased 

lifelong 

imply 

in 

25 Increasing labour force participation and promoting active ageing, Joint report Commission/Council to the

Barcelona European Council, March 2002

10

                                                
to allow and encourage workers to stay in employment longer and investment in the
integration of immigrants  and their children  and  families  (over  70  %  of  population
growth  is  expected  to  come  from  immigration).  Moreover,  the  EU  as  a  whole  will
face  over  the  coming  decade  the  challenge  of  replacing  a  high  proportion  of  its
teaching  workforce,  as  existing  staff  retires.  It  will  be  imperative  to  keep  the
profession  attractive  to  high  quality  newcomers.  Enlargement  will  not  ease,  but
rather  enhance  this  trend:  all  accession  countries  except  Cyprus  have  birth  rates
below  the  EU  level  and  in  all  but  three  the  natural  increase  of  the  population  is
negative 26.

3.4.

An even bigger challenge than envisaged in Lisbon

The logic of the previous  analysis  is that  the  challenge  in  education  and  training is
likely to be even bigger than envisaged in Lisbon. It could be summarised as:

Providing  an engine for the new  knowledge-based  European  economy  and  society;
overcoming  accumulated  delays  and  deficits  in  relation  to  key  competitors;
accommodating  a  severe  demographic  constraint;  and  overcoming  high  regional
issues that will be exacerbated by enlargement during the vital transition period.

Simply  maintaining  the  status  quo  or  changing  slowly  would  clearly  be  hugely
inadequate in the face of such a massive challenge. It is of formidable size for many
regions  and  several  countries  in  the  current  EU,  and  will  grow  even  further  with
enlargement.  It  calls  for  radical  reform  and  resolute  investment  decisions  in
education and training in the years up to 2010.

It  is  therefore  important  to  categorise  spending  on  education  and  training  as  real
investment with a lasting beneficial effect – indeed as providing a net saving when
viewed  in  the  larger  context  set  out  above  –  rather  than  merely  as  recurrent
consumption expenditure. This is amply justified by the impact of such investment as
economic  and  social  factors  of  growth  27.  The  paradigm  shift  needs  to  be  from
government  consumption 
the
“compelling  evidence  that  education  contributes  to  personal  development,  social
cohesion  and  productivity,  has  a  measured  and  major  impact  on  economic  growth
and  reduces  societal  costs  by  preventing  social  exclusion,  health  problems  and
crime” 28.

in  recognition  of 

to  knowledge 

investment, 

4.

THE CHALLENGE OF ACHIEVING A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN TOTAL INVESTMENT

Overall,  the  analysis  of  the  current  situation  and  recent  trends  reveals  that  the  EU
suffers from a global under-investment in the development of human resources. This
applies  to  education  and  training  in  general  and  to  some  areas  of  particular
importance  in  the  knowledge  era  in  particular.  Public  authorities  have  a  key
responsibility  in  addressing  these  funding  deficits  in  order  to  deliver  a  substantial
increase in total investment. However, they cannot succeed without the support of a
wide range of partners. Realising a genuine and sustained increase in investment in

26 Eurostat, Population change in 2001.
27 The new economy: beyond the hype, OECD,2001
28  DG-group  meeting,  Copenhagen,  June  2002;  follow  up  paper  by  Hans  Borstlap,  Ministry  of  Education,

Culture and Science of the Netherlands

11

                                                
human  resources  requires  action  from  all  relevant  actors,  i.e.  from  individuals,
enterprises, social partners and public authorities.

4.1.

No clear upward trend in public expenditure on education and training

On average EU Member States spend just over 5% of their GDP on publicly funded
education  and  training,  with  very  substantial  differences  between  Member  States.
This figure is the same as in the USA and is higher than in Japan (3.5%). However it
has  not  increased  in  recent  years.  On  the  contrary,  there  has  even  been  a  slight
decline, from 5.2% of GDP in 1995 and 1996 to 5.1 % in 2000, with a low of 5,0 %
in 1998 and 1999, resulting from very substantial reductions in some countries. Yet,
over the same period, the share of total public expenditure devoted to education and
training  has  slightly  increased  (from  10  %  to  11  %),  partly  as  a  consequence  of
falling levels of total public expenditure in the EU, but also as a signal of a relative
shift  of  priorities  towards  education  in  several  countries.  A  similar  observation
applies  concerning  per  capita  public  expenditure:  the  number  of  new  entrants  to
primary education has stabilised in recent years after a prolonged period of decline,
but this decline has been offset by students staying longer in education, which means
that  the  per  capita  expenditure  remained  about  stable  overall,  but  increased  with
respect to primary and secondary school-age people. At the other end of the lifelong
learning  spectrum,  new  investment  needs  are  created  by  the  promotion  of  active
ageing in the EU as  a contribution to higher  employment rates  and longer  working
lives.  Europeans  in  the  age  group  55  to  64  have  large  skill  gaps  and  educational
deficits.

Investment does not yield the same returns at all levels of the education and training
systems.  Rates  of  return  to  both  individuals  (private  return)  and  society  (social
return)  vary  according  to  country  and  gender.  Different  rates  of  return  may  reflect
labour  market  deficiencies  (unemployment  among  the  low-skilled  and  migrants,
rigidities  in  wage  bargaining,  low  female  employment  levels,  etc.)  and  different
levels of investment (higher investment  causes marginal  returns  to diminish  and  so
drives  average  returns  down).  Current  estimates  for  the  EU  indicate  that  such
investment returns tend to be lowest in Nordic countries and highest in the UK and
Ireland, and that returns to women are significantly higher than to men. Comparing
estimated  rates  of  return  at  various  stages  of  the  education  system  indicates  that
upper  secondary  education  is  becoming  the  basic  level  of  education  for  the
knowledge society. There is compelling evidence that the duration (and so the cost)
of  periods  of  unemployment  falls  substantially  once  average  attainment  increases
from below upper secondary to upper secondary education  29. In the EU at present,
25%  of  25-29  year  olds  and  52  %  of  55-64  year  olds  have  not  attained  upper
secondary  level.  Investment  is  needed  to  ensure  that  in  future  everybody  attains  at
least this level.

4.2.

A clear deficit in private funding in key areas for the knowledge economy

There  are major discrepancies between  the  EU  and  the  USA  in the level of private
funding of education and training. Private expenditure on educational institutions has
been increased very little in the EU since 1995 (from about 0.55 to about 0.66 % of
GDP). In Japan the figure is more than double (about 1.2% of GDP) and in the USA

29 Training and Learning for Competence, CEDEFOP, 2001 (tables pp. 334 and 246)

12

                                                
it is as much as three times higher (1.6%). Expenditure by enterprises on continuing
vocational training has increased in the period 1993-1999 (from about 1.6 % to about
2.3  %  of  total  labour  costs,  i.e.  from  about  0.8%  to  1.1  %  of  GDP)  and  may  have
increased somewhat more  since,  but  it  remains  insufficient  to  ensure  the  "adequate
resourcing" called for in the Communication on lifelong learning.

The EU invests significantly less in total in higher education than the US. In spite of
a massive increase in participation  and  the consequent substantial  growth  of  public
expenditure  on  higher  education,  the  current  level  of  total  (public  and  private)
investment  at  tertiary  level  remains  much  lower  in  Europe  than  in  the  USA.  The
USA spends more than twice as much as the EU per student in tertiary education 30.
In terms of GDP, the EU average is only 1.1 % compared to 2.3 % in the USA. The
funding  gap  is  thus  even  greater  for  higher  education  than  for  research  and
development,  where  the  figures  are  1.9%  of  GDP  in  the  EU  and  2.7%  in  the  USA
and the difference is also mainly explained by lower R&D spending from European
companies. Given the dual role of universities in education and research, the funding
deficit  arguably  hits  them  hardest  and  makes  it  more  difficult  for  European
universities  to  promote  their  attractiveness  to  students  and  researchers  from  the
whole world and to reverse the outflow of talent. It is very important to realise that
the  largest  share  of  this  deficit  stems  from  the  low  level  of  private  investment  in
higher education and research and development in the EU compared with the USA.
At the same time, private returns on investment in tertiary education remain high in
most  EU  countries,  because  the  demand  for  highly  qualified  manpower  has  grown
even  faster  than  participation  in  higher  education.  This  demand  however  varies
enormously  between  countries,  and  such  discrepancies  could  well  constitute  an
incentive for greater mobility of graduates within the enlarged EU, including in the
form of unwanted brain drain from certain less favoured regions or countries.

Faced  with  relatively  low  private  investment  levels  and  high  private  returns  on
university education, the main responsibility of authorities is not only to continue to
provide  higher  education  institutions  and  students  with  a  sufficient  level  of  public
funding,  but  also  to  find  ways  to  add  to  it  by  increasing  and  diversifying  private
investment  in  higher  education.  The  new  EU-level  target  to  raise  the  level  of
investment on research and development to 3 % of GDP by 2010 31 is likely to have a
positive  impact  on  universities  as  one  of  the  main  beneficiaries  of  such  additional
spending.  At  the  same  time  there  is  an  increasing  need  to  ensure  that  additional
resources produce higher quality and relevance, lower failure and dropout rates, and
enhanced social equity in access to higher education and its benefits.

The other area where there is a clear need for more private investment is continuing
vocational  education  and  training  and  adult  education.  Lifelong  learning  is  still  far
from being a reality  for  all and  there  are signs of  a widening  gap in  the  take-up of
learning  opportunities  between  those  with  low  skills  and  the  higher  educated  and
between  younger  and  older  age  groups.  Measures  to  broaden  access  and  increase
participation levels therefore need to be vigorously pursued, with particular attention
paid to those adults least prepared or inclined, or with the least opportunity to learn.
Emphasis  should  also  be  given  to  addressing  market  failure  and  ensuring  that  the

30 USD 19,200 in US, USD 8,600 in EU (weighted average), in PPPs. Education at a glance, OECD, 2002
31 More Research for Europe – Towards 3 % of GDP, Communication  from the European Commission, DG

RTD, 2002

13

                                                
right  incentives  are  in  place  to  encourage  disadvantaged  groups  to  take  up  training
opportunities32.  In  spite  of  the  growth  of  private  enterprise  spending  on  vocational
training mentioned  above  (from  1.6% to 2.3%  of  labour  costs  from  1993  to  1999),
the current level of funding does not match the challenge facing Europe in this area.
There  are  still  great  differences  from  one  country  to  another  (e.g.  the  above
percentage varies in the range 3:1). Only 40% of European employees participate in
continuing  vocational  training  courses  (23%  in  SMEs)  and  only  62%  of  all
employers provide any type of training to their staff (56% of SMEs)  33. This raises
important  questions  concerning  the  dialogue  between  public  authorities  and  social
partners.

A particularly important issue concerns the fiscal treatment of lifelong learning and
other  incentives  to  invest  in  learning  (including  the  recognition  of  prior  learning)
According to OECD, there was a convergence of views in the late 1990s that public
authorities  alone  could  not  provide  the  resources  needed  for  lifelong  learning,  that
employees  and  employers  should  finance  at  least  part  of  it  in  view  of  the
considerable  private  returns  it  generates,  and  that  financial  incentives  were
insufficient to lift the very low levels of participation of poorly qualified persons 34.

4.3.

The likely impact of enlargement on EU investment performance

While some Applicant Countries (the Baltic countries and Slovenia) spend more than
the  EU  average,  the  majority  of  them,  including  all  the  large  ones,  are  below  EU
average in terms of public expenditure on education and training as a percentage of
GDP  35. This is  of course  even  more visible in  terms  of  expenditure  per  student  or
employee36.  In  several  countries  this  represents  however  a  comparable  or  higher
proportion of total public expenditure as in the EU  (varying from less than  10% to
over 15%). Except in two, the level of private funding is very low in the Applicant
Countries, especially with regard to in-company training. Enrolment rates tend to be
high (often higher than in the EU) up to upper secondary level, but they decline very
sharply  at higher education level. Participation  in  higher  education  (in  particular  in
areas  relevant  to  the  knowledge  economy),  in  continuing  vocational  education  and
training  (in  terms  of  beneficiaries,  volume  of  courses  and  proportion  of  training
companies) and active labour market measures lies in most cases below EU average -
even though they may be higher in some  Applicant  Countries than in some current
Member States. The decrease in public investment in adult education has been very
sharp in several countries over the last decade. The current funding deficit in higher
education  and  continuing  vocational  education  and  training  in  the  EU  will  become
even greater after enlargement. Considering the whole education and training system,
there is in several Applicant Countries a need for more public investment, which is a
particular challenge in some of them, in view of their budgetary constraints and the
already high proportion of public expenditure dedicated to formal education. In spite
of  some  strong  achievements,  international  surveys  like  IALS  and  PISA  also  show
qualitative gaps, with Applicant Countries tending to score towards the bottom of the

32 Employment in Europe 2002, European Commission, DG Employment and Social Affairs, 2002
33 CVTS 1 and CVTS 2, Eurostat
34 New mechanisms to finance lifelong learning, OECD, 2002
35 Preparation by candidate countries for involvement in the EU lifelong learning policy: achievements, gaps

and challenges, Interim report (Synthesis of monographs exercise), European Training Foundation, 2002

36 CVTS2, Eurostat 2002

14

                                                
groups  37.  This  indicates  that,  notwithstanding  past  efforts  and  the  priority  already
given to human resource development (by the countries themselves as well as by EU
through  the  ETF  and  PHARE),  education  and  training  systems  in  most  Applicant
Countries will need very considerable new investment in the form of funding as well
as  qualitative  and  structural  reforms  to  catch  up  with  the  requirements  of  the
knowledge-based economy and society 38.

4.4.

Targeted increases in public expenditure and higher private contributions

The  above  analysis  of  the  current  situation  and  recent  trends  raises  legitimate
uncertainties concerning the achievement of the “substantial increase” in investments
in  human  resources  called  for  in  Lisbon.  This  is  even  more  the  case  when  one
considers  that  the  goal  set  in  Lisbon  by  the  EU  of  15  will  need  to  be  achieved  by
2010 by an enlarged EU of at least 27.

Given the increased pressure on public resources created by low growth since 2001,
a  deteriorating  economic  outlook  and  severe  budgetary  constraints,  the  current
investment  levels  already  represent  a  real  effort.  Despite  this,  the  arguments  for
holding to the Lisbon objective of a “substantial increase” in investment in education
and training remain as compelling as ever, in particular since this investment is itself
a determinant of future growth.

Significantly higher investment, especially in some Member States and regions, will
be  necessary  in  education  and  training  -  in  coordination  with  those  needed  in
research and development - to transform the EU into the most advanced knowledge-
based  economy  and  society.  This  conclusion  is  however  not  an  appeal  for  all
Member States to invest more public money across the board: this would be unlikely
to  produce  high  results  while  it  would  put  additional  strain  on  public  resources,
productivity and competitiveness.

The increase needs to come from a combination of targeted public investments and
higher private contributions. The biggest funding deficit in European education and
training is the comparatively low contribution from private sources (companies and
individuals)  in  addition  to  (not  as  a  substitute  for)  the  public  funding  which
guarantees the continuity of the European social model in education and training.

Public authorities in Member States and Applicant Countries have the responsibility
to deliver the "substantial increase" in total investment. Targeted increases in public
investment  are  needed  in  some  countries,  e.g.  to  ensure  that  all  have  access  to
learning  opportunities  throughout  life,  that  everyone  reaches  upper  secondary
education  and  that  regions  lagging  behind  receive  adequate  support.  Such  targeted
increases in public investment may be achieved within overall budgetary constraints,
where  appropriate,  by  re-directing  funds  from  areas  of  lower  returns  towards
investment in the development of human resources39. Setting benchmarks to monitor
progress will be indispensable40.

37 Preparation by candidate countries for involvement in the EU lifelong learning policy, op.cit
38 Prof. Erich Gundlach (Kiel Institute of World Economics), quoted by De la Fuente – Ciccone, op.cit.
39 Public Finances in EMU 2002, European Economy n° 3/2002
40European benchmarks for education and training: follow-up to the Lisbon European Council, Communication

from the European Commission, COM(2002) 629 final

15

                                                
The  Structural  Funds,  as  the  financial  arm  of  the  European  Employment  Strategy,
with  €60  billion  available  in  current  programmes  (2000-2006)  from  the  European
Social Fund alone, have also an important role to play in supporting the improvement
of  policies  and  systems  and  the  special  effort  needed  to  address  the  problems  of
regions  lagging  behind.  The  forthcoming  mid-term  review  of  Structural  Funds
programmes  provides  an  opportunity  to  assess  the  nature  and  direction  of
Community investments.

Governments will also need to mobilise support from a wide range of actors and to
provide  positive  incentives  for  more  and  sustained  investment  from  enterprises
(including  SMEs)  and  individuals  and  for  public-private  partnerships  in  the  field.
Enterprises could e.g. be invited to fund or co-fund equipment, schools, scholarships,
activities for curricular change, chairs or departments at universities, research units,
training courses to attract students and apprentices in areas facing a lack of qualified
workers, etc.

Such  measures  would  avert  the  worst-case  scenario,  where  insufficient  public
funding 
in  endemic
underfunding,  reduced  quality  and  socially  restricted  availability  of  education  and
training opportunities.

increased  private  funding,  resulting 

is  not  offset  by 

5.

SPENDING EXISTING RESOURCES MORE EFFICIENTLY

This section relates to Objective 1.5 “Making the most efficient use of resources” in
the Work programme on objectives, as well as to “adequate resourcing” in the terms
of  the  Communication  on  lifelong  learning.  It  identifies  some  priority  areas  for
ensuring  long-term  system  efficiency  in  view  of  their  importance  for  achieving  the
EU-wide Lisbon strategic goal.

This exercise is also highly relevant to lifelong learning policies and to the European
Employment  Strategy.  The  Lifelong  Learning  Communication  emphasised  that
resources  must  be  re-channelled  across  the  whole  spectrum  of  formal,  non-formal
and  informal  learning  at  all  ages,  and  all  decisions  aimed  at  maximising  the
efficiency  of  investment  in  education  and  training  should  be  screened  against  this
background.

Priorities identified in this way may also be of relevance for ensuring the maximum
efficiency  of  European  Investment  Bank  and  Structural  Funds  investments,  both  in
current and in future Member States.

5.1.

The implications of the "Objectives process" in terms of investment

The  Detailed work  programme on the objectives  of  education  and  training  systems
calls for investments in certain areas that have been identified as shared priorities of
the  Member  States.  It  takes  on  board  priorities  from  the  Lifelong  learning  and
European employment strategies. It also includes the priorities that were outlined by
the Lisbon European Council itself, in particular the halving of the number of young
people  not achieving upper  secondary  education,  the  transformation  of  schools  and
training  centres  into  multipurpose  centres,  the  renovation  of  curricula,  the
development  of  IT  skills,  e-learning,  foreign  languages  and  mobility.  The  Work
programme thus provides a good background for the efficient allocation of resources

16

in view of the situation, needs and policy choices in each country. An analysis of the
Objectives  programme  shows  that  it  calls  for  investments  in  the  following  main
areas:

–  Investment in the training and retention of education staff

This concerns mainly: a) young and in-career teachers and trainers in initial and adult
education,  in  particular  concerning  open  and  flexible  teaching  methods  and  e-
learning,  the  use  of  ICT,  the  renovation  of  curricula  in  initial  education  and
continuing  education  courses  and  the  availability  multimedia;  b)  heads  and
administrative  staff  at  all  level  to  underpin  the  decentralisation  of  curricular  and
management issues; and c) staff providing customised guidance and counselling. The
ageing profile of teachers, trainers and support staff across the EU creates particular
investment  needs,  in  the  form  of  training  and  measures  to  attract  new  personnel  to
the teaching and training professions  41. Similarly, higher education needs to remain
attractive to young researchers and mature talent, in particular by building up bridges
and mobility between universities, research laboratories and industry.

–  Investment in new basic skills

The new basic skills include digital literacy, learning  to  learn,  social  competencies,
entrepreneurial  skills  and  language  learning  and  should  be  accessible  to  all  age
groups. Needs for higher levels of basic skills adapted to the new labour market and
the knowledge society concern  young people  and adults,  employed or  unemployed,
and are particularly acute for certain categories (e.g. low-skilled and older workers or
inactive  women  who  want  to  return  to  work)  and  in  certain  regions  or  whole
countries. The potential of ICT and new e-learning methods to improve the learning
process,  reach  more  people  and  reduce  costs  needs  to  be  further  researched  and
exploited.

–  Investment in providing access to lifelong learning to all

Public  expenditure  in  this  area  has  generally  risen  and  there  is  evidence  of
increasingly  shared  responsibility  for  financing,  including  a  rise  in  businesses’
expenditure  on  continuing  training.  Since  1997,  Member  States  have  developed
efforts  in  the  direction  of  coherent  lifelong  learning  strategies  and  increased
investment  in  quality  and  access  within  the  context  of  the  European  Employment
Strategy. The  Communication  on  lifelong learning calls for adequate  resources  and
for their redistribution across the learning spectrum. Key conditions for success are
the  development  of  further  fiscal  and  other  incentives  to  learning,  and  the
involvement of the social partners in these strategies.

– 

Investment in ICT

Investment is needed in hardware, software, maintenance and training, as well as in
the development of e-learning activities and teaching material, in line with the new e-
learning  programme  42.  Substantial  investments  have  been  made  in  all  countries  in
the past few years, equipping schools with ICT, providing nearly 100 % of them with
an  Internet  connection,  creating  web-based  information  and  educational  resources,

41 Eurydice Reports on Teachers, particularly Report 1 on initial training and Report 3 on conditions of service
42 e-Learning: designing tomorrow's education, European Commission, 2000

17

                                                
etc.  Nonetheless,  ICT  is  likely  to  remain  a  significant  cost  item  until  the  pace  of
technological  change  slows  and  it  becomes  a  universal  commodity  such  as
stationery,  which  may  be  the  case  by  2010.  The  potential  of  networking  between
public  education  and  training  institutions  and  of  public-private  partnerships  as  a
source  of  complementary  funding  in  this  area  does  not  seem  to  have  been  fully
exploited up to now43.

–  Investment in social inclusion and active citizenship

Measures aimed at fostering social inclusion concern key aspects such as pre-primary
education,  active  citizenship  education,  gender  mainstreaming,  the  prevention  of
failure  and  dropout,  second  chance  schools  for  adult  learners,  etc.  They  go  well
beyond  employment-related  issues  and  are  strongly  emphasised  in  both  the
Communication  on  Lifelong  Learning  and  the  Detailed  work  programme  on  the
objectives of education and training systems. These longer-term measures are maybe
the  most  fundamental  ones.  They  require  deep-reaching  curricular  and  structural
reforms  to  enhance  the  quality  and  relevance  of  learning  opportunities  available  to
all,  as  well  as  targeted  increases  in  public  investments  to  underpin  these  reforms  -
including  in  the  form  of  support  to  relevant  civil  society  organisations  which  have
played, and will need to play a crucial role in this area throughout the enlarged EU.
Such  investments  are  a  natural  priority  in  all  countries  in  need  of  more  efforts  to
ensure that the development  of  education  and  training  systems  is  for  the  benefit  of
all.

–  Investment in guidance and counselling

Investment  in  guidance  and  counselling  services  should  be  seen  as  providing  early
prevention  strategies  capable  of  significantly  reducing  mismatches  between
education  and  training  and  the  needs  of  the  labour  market44,  increasing  completion
rates in secondary and higher education and facilitating the transition to work as well
as the return to studies  45. Reinforcement of these services is also needed in view of
the  necessity  to  increase  the  number  of  young  people,  especially  young  women,
choosing further study and careers in mathematics, science and technology 46.

5.2.

Tackling areas of inefficiency

In  addition  to  priority  areas  for  investment  identified  in  the  Objectives  work
programme, actual investment decisions need to be taken in the light of the situation
in  each  country.  One  way  of  increasing  the  return  on  investment  at  Member  State
level 
in  spending.  The
corresponding resources can be saved and re-invested more meaningfully elsewhere.
The  following  paragraphs  set  out  a  list  of  common  signals  and  possible  sources  of
such inefficiencies.

identify  and  eliminate  current 

inefficiencies 

to 

is 

43 Commission Action Plan on Skills and Mobility, op.cit., point 8
44 Commission Action Plan on Skills and Mobility, op.cit., point 1
45 Why Guidance matters, OECD working paper Rationale, 2002
46 Detailed work programme on the objectives of education and training systems, op.cit., Objective 1.4.

18

                                                
-

Higher than average failure and dropout rates

In the EU, still about 30 % of pupils leave school without achieving upper secondary
level and non-completion rates are also high in higher education in several countries.
Where failure/dropout is higher than elsewhere, it may result from the imposition on
learners (or on their parents) of too early a choice between future learning pathways.
This  situation  can  be  created  either  by  inflexible  systems  or  by  socio-economic
conditions.  Premature  or  ill-informed  decisions  can  lead  to  higher  failure  rates,
dropout,  or  other  manifestations  of  demotivation.  In  this  context,  one  should  point
out  the  indirect  costs  of  allowing  vocational  education  and  training  options  to  be
perceived as second best, in secondary as well as in higher education. This tends to
distort  orientation  choices  away  from  studies  more  suited  to  certain  students  and
towards those that are regarded as more prestigious or better fitting male  or  female
stereotypes.  Better  guidance  leading  to  higher  completion  rates  would  save  social
expenditure  resulting  from  failure  and  dropouts  and  could  free  these  resources  for
more  productive investment  in areas such  as special needs education or the  regular
updating of courses curricula47.

–  Comparatively high graduate unemployment

While  general  economic  factors  have  an  important  role  to  play  in  graduate
unemployment,  it  may  also  be  comparatively  high  in  some  countries  as  a  result  of
curricula  that  are  too  rigid  or  only  partly  relevant  to  employers'  needs.  Addressing
this issue may call for a reallocation of funding to other sectors of the education or
training  system,  or  for  linking  increased  investment  to  improvements  in  relevance
and  flexibility.  There  may  also  be  more  hidden,  longer-term  effects  entailing
significant  inefficiency  costs,  e.g.  when  education  and  training  systems  overtly  or
implicitly transmit  values such  as risk  aversion  rather  than  an  entrepreneurial  spirit
48.

– 

Lower achievement levels

While  there  is  a  general  positive  correlation  between  investment  level  and
achievement, this is not the case in all  countries.  In  some cases  achievement  levels
(as  measured  by  instruments  like  PISA  or  IALS)  are  lower  than  in  other  countries
with a comparable or even lower level of expenditure. Several factors could account
for such a situation, including poor quality of courses, poor teaching, the inability to
tackle  the  problems  of  disadvantaged  groups  or  regions  or  inefficient  allocation  of
resources.

–  Excessively long degree or other qualification courses

The time actually spent by students studying for a particular higher education degree
in  different  Member  States  may  vary  by  as  much  as  100%.  The  total  cost  of  a
graduate varies enormously within the EU and can account for a large proportion of
apparent differences  in funding  in  some  countries or institutions. The relevance  for
efficient  spending  of  monitoring  the  duration  of  courses  is  underlined  by  recent
attention given across Europe to the validation of informal and non-formal learning,

47 Commission Action Plan on Skills and Mobility, op.cit., point 3
48 Entrepreneurship in Europe, Green paper from the European Commission, 2002

19

                                                
which has become recognised as an effective investment. It lowers the threshold for
entrance into  lifelong  learning  and  increases  the  return  to  the  person,  the  employer
and  society.  It  means  less  time  is  needed  to  complete  a  qualification  or  to  attain  a
certificate, suppliers are required to provide more tailored but also shorter and more
targeted modules, the individual has to finance him/herself for a shorter time, he/she
misses work less, and there is the added motivation of knowing that what individuals
have already achieved will help them progress more quickly.

–  Educational dead-ends.

Dead-ends  occur  where  there  is  a  lack  of  flexibility  and  permeability  within  and
between  the  various  constituent  parts  of  education  and  training  systems  –  and
sometimes  between  education/training  and  work:  people  are  prevented  from
swapping tracks if they find they are on the wrong one or when they want to resume
study/training at a higher level or a later in life. This is usually the result of a lack of
assessment  of  prior  and  informal  learning  acquired  by  applicants  to  education  and
training courses, in particular when they change tracks, and in continuing vocational
education and training and adult education.

There  are  of  course  other  areas  where  there  is  concern  about  the  efficiency  of
spending. This is the case for e.g. the Active Labour Market Policies to re-train the
unemployed  and  inactive  wanting  to  work;  evaluations  suggest  that  combining
training with other measures such as  work  experience and taking into  account both
the characteristics of the individual and labour market conditions are crucial factors
of success.

Overall,  investing  more  pays  off  only  when  it  is  linked  to  higher  quality,  more
relevance to the learners needs, increased social, economic and democratic efficiency
and/or improved access. Investing more in inadequate or over-long curricula without
first  reforming  them  would  perpetuate  inefficiencies  rather  than  resolving  them.
Efficient  investment  should  serve  to  boost  and  reward  quality  and  innovation  in
teaching/learning.  This  requires  careful  monitoring  of  inputs  and  outputs  at
European,  national  as  well  as  institutional  level,  with  an  eye  to  equality  of  access
across  socio-economic  and  age  groups  taking  their  different  learning  needs  into
account.

5.3.

Efficient management of resources

There  is  a  positive  link  between  educational  decentralisation  (i.e.  not  just  the
deconcentration  of  central  administration,  but  the  possibility  to  change  and  adapt
curricula,  methods  and  management)  and  attainment  which  became  increasingly
clear in the light of TIMSS / PISA results. The importance of local management of
resources  was  emphasised  by  Member  States  themselves  in  their  response  to  the
Commission's Memorandum on lifelong learning.

Efficient decentralisation however calls for new investment in a) the training of local
authorities  and  school  administrators  and  teachers  in  the  management  and  efficient
use  of resources; b)  the  establishment  of  a  quality  assurance  system  permeating  all
levels,  i.e.  the  dissemination  of  a  culture  of  quality  awareness  throughout  the
educational  and  training  system,  based  on  confidence  in,  and  autonomy  of  local
actors  working  according  to  a  common  core  of  quality  standards;  these  should  in
particular  ensure  that  more  accountability  at  school/local  level  does  not  jeopardise

20

equity,  gender  mainstreaming  or  student  participation;  and  c)  a  transparent
qualification framework  encompassing  general  and  vocational  qualifications,  suited
to national needs but also compatible with similar frameworks at the European level
(cf. Section 6 below).

Another  important  aspect  is  the  involvement  of  all  relevant  actors  through  a
partnership approach.  In particular,  governments and social  partners  should explore
the possibility of developing various types of public-private partnerships in order to
mobilise additional human and financial resources  49. Partnership working has been
identified  as  a  critical  factor  for  motivation,  openness,  relevance  and  quality  of
education  in  a  lifelong  learning  perspective  50.  Partnerships  involving  private
financial  contributors  may  also  have  the  potential  to  encourage  more  responsible
behaviour  of  students,  families  and  educational  staff,  and  may  thus  enhance  the
efficiency  of  overall  spending.  This  should  however  under  no  circumstances  be
allowed to restrict access for learners from less favoured backgrounds.

Maximising efficiency also requires coordinated action between ministries. Lowering
the  barriers  at  national  and  European  level  between  the  ministries  in  charge  of
education,  employment,  economy,  research,  youth,  environment,  health,  etc.  could
avoid  the  duplication  or  dispersion  of  effort  and  funding  and  could  thus  boost  the
results of reforms. A particularly telling example of this can be found in the area of
customised  counselling/guidance  provided  to  learners  and  to  employed  and
unemployed  youth  and  adults,  some  of  them  in  difficult  situations.  Despite  the
common  pattern  of  tasks,  these  key  activities  tend  to  fall  under  the  purview  of
different  ministries  depending  on  the  target  group  involved  and/or  the  activity
envisaged  (study,  first  job,  labour  market  training,  etc.).  Such  fragmentation  often
creates  major  difficulties  for  users  and  reduces  the  overall  effectiveness  and
efficiency  of  the  services  provided.  Investing  efficiently  for  the  knowledge  society
also requires a coordinated approach between the authorities in charge of  education
and training and those in charge of research and innovation, in view of the ambitious
twin Barcelona objective to increase R&D expenditure and the share of it funded by
business.  Coordination  efforts  in  these  directions  are  also  in  progress  at  European
level,  in  particular  through  the  integrated  approach  to  the  implementation  of  the
Work programme on objectives and other relevant European policy developments.

The setting of national and European benchmarks is also an indispensable means for
each  country  to  situate  its  own  achievements  in  comparison  with  others’.  It  is  also
crucial to measure progress towards the overall Lisbon strategic goal and the detailed
Objectives agreed for European education and training systems 51.

6.

EFFICIENT INVESTMENTS NEED TO BE ANCHORED IN THE EUROPEAN CONTEXT

The  need  for  reforms  in  education  and  training  depends  in  each  country  on  its
particular  structures,  levels  of  attainment,  strengths  and  weaknesses  and  policy
orientations.  Such  reforms  are  the  responsibility  of  Member  States  and  Applicant
Countries, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. Accordingly, the purpose

49 Financing of Education, Eurydice, 2002
50  Making  a  European  area  of  lifelong  learning  a  reality,  Communication  from  the  European  Commission,

op.cit.

51 European benchmarks in education and training: follow-up to the Lisbon European Council, op.cit.

21

                                                
of this section is not to review possible national reforms, but to point out that these
reforms, while decided and conducted at national level, need to take serious account
of  their  increasingly  important  European  dimension,  which  has  become  a  critical
factor for their efficiency.

The importance of investing in the European dimension of education and training has
been stressed in the Communication on lifelong learning and in the Action plan on
skills  and  mobility  and  is  emphasised  in  the  Objectives  work  programme  (in
particular in Objective 3.5). The provision of a clear and stable frame of objectives at
European level is also a necessary condition for success of the investment strategies
in the Applicant Countries. It avoids the danger of moving targets, which can easily
undermine  even  generous  investment  policies.  The  fact  that  all  Member  States
(current and new) introduce convergent change/reforms towards goals shared by all
may in itself serve as a powerful factor of motivation and integration. This underlines
the importance of including Applicant Countries in both the European Employment
Strategy  and the implementation of  the Objectives work programme  -  as  agreed  by
education Ministers in Bratislava in June 2002.

6.1.

National reforms in the context of the European knowledge area

In a more integrated Europe, investments in education and training have acquired a
much  stronger  European  dimension.  Investment  and  reform  in  these  areas  geared
only towards national and regional needs and disregarding their European dimension
would not be as effective as they could be in the context of the European knowledge
area.  Criteria  for  assessing  the  quality  and  relevance  of  study/training  programmes
and  institutions  need  to  be  compatible  at  European  level  and  to  pave  the  way  to
making  Europe  a  world  reference  in  these  areas.  In  other  words,  investment  and
reforms need to be undertaken in such a way as to achieve as much convergence as
necessary  (while  keeping  as  much  diversity  as  possible),  in  line  with  the  message
sent  by  Education  Ministers  in  their  policy  statement  at  the  beginning  of  the
Objectives  work programme  52. Acting in  this coordinated way has  the  potential  to
release considerable European added value, in higher education, adult education and
continuing  vocational  education  and  training  as  well  as  in  other  policy  areas,  e.g.
employment  or  regional  development.  Such  reforms  are  also  crucial  for  economic
growth and employment policies and for the efficiency of EIB and Structural Funds
investments, i.e. for the overall achievement of the Lisbon goals.

6.2.

Investing  in  curricular  renovation,  quality  assurance  and  recognition  of
qualifications in the context of the European knowledge area

The most fundamental need for reform in education and training with respect to the
emergence  of  the  knowledge  society  concerns  curricular  renovation  in  general
education, vocational education and training, higher education and adult education -
in other words throughout the whole spectrum of lifelong learning. Such renovation
needs  to  reflect  the  priority  given  to  basic  skills;  the  diversification  of  learning
pathways and methods to suit various types of learners; the effective  use  of  ICT in
teaching  and  learning;  the  promotion  of  sustainable  employability  for  men  and
women; the integration of a European dimension into all courses, including through
the  effective  learning  of  foreign  languages  and  the  possibility  for  students  and

52 Detailed work programme on the objectives of education and training systems, op.cit. (introduction)

22

                                                
trainees to undertake a significant part of their learning in another country; as well as
more  flexibility  in  the  articulation  of  courses  and  greater  permeability  between
education/training tracks. Such multifaceted curricular renovation is at the core of the
Work programme on objectives (cf. Section 5.1). It is also a basic requirement in the
Bologna  process  in  higher  education  and  in  the  newly  adopted  resolution  on
enhanced  cooperation  in  vocational  education  and  training  (the  Copenhagen
declaration)  53;  in  both  cases,  contacts  between  the  world  of  education  and  work
(professional bodies, employers, research units, etc.) may contribute to shaping better
curricula  and to creating  incentives for  more  private  contributions  to  education and
training.  While  the  issue  of  curricular  renovation  concerns  all  countries,  it  has
particular importance and urgency in a number of Applicant Countries, where there
is  a  risk  that  funding  may  go  to  unproductive  parts  of  the  education  and  training
systems if curricular reforms are further postponed.

Related  to  curricular  reform  is  quality  assurance.  Not  all  investments  in  quality
assurance will pay off. This will be the case only where priority is given to curricular
reform  linked  to  the  needs  of  the  economy  and  of  society,  and  where  the  need  for
quality  assurance  mechanisms  to  be  trusted  beyond  national  boarders  is  fully
recognised.  “Quality”  in  a  European  perspective  cannot  be  decreed  by  law  or
authorities. It exists only where it is seen as such by others (users, employers, other
institutions,  other  countries).  Hence,  the  first  imperative  for  quality  assurance
systems  developed  at  national  level  should  be  to  build  up  their  relevance  and
credibility (e.g. through the inclusion of stakeholders and non-nationals in the quality
assurance bodies) and their compatibility with those used elsewhere in Europe. These
aspects  are  fundamental  to  the  future  development  of  higher  education  (as
emphasised in the Bologna process) as well as of vocational education and training
(as  underlined  in  the  follow-up  to  the  Quality  Forum  and  in  the  Copenhagen
Declaration). In both areas, a common core of quality criteria is needed at European
level  to  ensure  their  transparency,  comparability  and  compatibility.  Work  towards
this goal has started but it needs to be reinforced and accelerated.

The  achievement  of  greater  efficiency  of  educational  investment  in  the  European
context and the completion of a European labour market call for a step change in the
recognition  of  qualifications  and  competencies  acquired  anywhere  in  the  EU.  The
Barcelona European Council of March 2002 welcomed the Commission Action Plan
to  remove  the  barriers  within  European  labour  markets  by  2005,  including  those
resulting from failure to recognise formal qualifications and non-formal learning. In
spite of  significant  policy measures in this  area  (e.g. the Directives on  professional
recognition,  the  Commission  Action  Plan  on  Skills  and  Mobility  or  the  Mobility
Action  Plan  adopted  by  the  Nice  European  Council)  and  various  instruments  that
were  introduced  to  support  these  policies  (European  curriculum  vitae,  EuroPass,
ECTS credits, NARICs, Diploma Supplement), progress has been much slower than
expected.  The  cumbersome  and  tardy  recognition  processes  in  place  in  many
countries  or  at  many  institutions  remains  the  single  biggest  obstacle  to  a  fluid  and
effective European labour market and to  Europe-wide employment perspectives for
holders  of  qualifications54.  No  European  knowledge  area,  and  no  European  labour

53 Council Resolution on the promotion of enhanced cooperation in vocational education and training (VET),
Document 14343-2002 and "Copenhagen Declaration" of the European Ministers in charge of VET and the
European Commission of 30 November 2002.

54 Commission Action Plan on Skills and Mobility, op.cit., points 10, 15, 19 and 20

23

                                                
market can  exist without a transparent, user-friendly  and  predictable  system  for  the
recognition  of  degrees  and  qualifications  across  internal  borders  in  the  current  and
enlarged EU.

Ensuring  the  efficiency  of  investment  in  education  and  training  -  and  making
progress  towards  the  Lisbon  strategic  goal  -  requires  in  the  above  areas  resolute
decisions  based  on  clear  priorities.  At  a  time  of  accelerating  integration  of  labour
markets  and  economies,  education  and  training  cannot  and  must  not  be  allowed  to
fall  behind.  Moreover,  there  is  growing  awareness  among  European  students  and
trainees of a need and a right to study for qualifications that can effectively be used
all over the EU. Institutions and national accreditation bodies will increasingly need
to find ways of delivering such qualifications, and those that do not will run the risk
of  penalising  their  own  citizens  by  restricting  their  opportunities  in  the  European
knowledge economy and society.

6.3.

Enhancing the value of European education in the world

Making Europe a worldwide reference for the quality and relevance of its education
programmes  and  institutions  implies  specific  action  and  investment.  It  is  a  highly
ambitious  target  for  the  current  EU,  and  even  more  so  for  the  enlarged  Union.
Initiatives such as Erasmus-World and the introduction of common visa policies for
non-EU students and trainees, combined with similar action in the area of research,
have  the  potential  to  enhance  the  image  of  Europe  worldwide  as  a  destination  for
students, scholars and researchers. However, lasting success in this area will depend
on  curricular  renovation, 
the  establishment  of  an  understandable,  coherent
qualifications  framework,  and  the  promotion  of  European  institutions  and  degrees
throughout  the  world  55.  Of  course,  European  degrees  are  unlikely  to  be  better
recognised in the wider world, and the world is unlikely to see Europe as a reference,
as long as Europeans themselves do not cross-recognise their own degrees.

7.

CONCLUSION: THERE IS AN URGENT NEED FOR DETERMINED ACTION

The political targets set by Heads of State and Government imply that expectations
of education and training are extremely high. They are fully justified in view of the
essential  role  of  education  and  training  in  the  achievement  of  the  Lisbon  strategic
goal, as the European Council has explicitly acknowledged.

The  Lisbon  goals  and  the  ensuing  objectives  agreed  for  education  and  training
remain  more  valid  then  ever.  They  were  set  by  Member  States  themselves  for
themselves.  This  Communication  does  not  intend  to  provide  indications  of  what
should  be  done  in  any  particular  country,  and  issues  raised  in  it  are  clearly  more
important in some countries than in others. The core responsibility to deliver on the
agreed goals lies with the education and training authorities in the current and future
Member States. It is clear that if regions and countries fail to invest more, and more
efficiently in their people they see their economic and social performance - and those
of Europe as a whole - fall behind. In view of this, the Commission emphasises the
importance  of  sticking  to  the  agreed  targets  and  of  pursuing  an  investment  policy

55 The globalisation of Education and Training: Recommendations for a Coherent Response of the EU, report

by Academic Cooperation Association (ACA) for the European Commission, DG EAC, September 2000

24

                                                
where sufficient funds are directed to those areas where they will contribute most to
achieving the goals set at national and European level.

These goals will be more difficult to achieve than was originally thought, as a result
of  raised  European  ambitions,  stronger  competition  resulting  from  increased
investments in knowledge systems in other world regions and the challenges related
to  demographics  and  enlargement.  In  view  of  these  challenges  and  of  the  current
signals of a slow start to action, the Commission is concerned that the goal of more
and  better  investments  in  education  and  training  might  not  be  achieved  by  2010;
given the core contribution of education and training to other policy areas, this could
well jeopardise the EU’s overall goal set in Lisbon.

In  order  to  avoid  this,  the  Commission  invites  Member  States  and  Applicant
Countries, depending on their specific situation:

– 

– 

– 

– 

To review public investment - overall and to important sectors of the education
and  training  system  –  increasing  it  in  a  targeted  way  where  necessary,
including  by  re-directing  existing  investments  to  the  development  of  human
resources  throughout  the  life  cycle.  This  is  essential  in  the  enlarged  EU  to
ensure  the  quality,  equity,  social  cohesion  and  regional  balance  (in  terms  of
growth  and  employment)  called  for  in  the  Lisbon  conclusions,  the  Work
programme  on  Objectives  (and  lifelong  learning),  the  European  employment
and social inclusion strategies and the “European social model”.

To put in place policies and incentives to encourage more private investment in
education  and  training  as  a  complement  to,  not  as  a  substitute  for  adequate
public expenditure. This should be coordinated with similar efforts in R&D, in
view of the twin Barcelona objective to increase overall R&D expenditure and
to  have  2/3  of  it  funded  by  business.  Achieving  this  requires  a  partnership
approach  and  action  from  all  relevant  actors:  individuals,  enterprises,  social
partners  and  public  authorities.  The  state  has  the  responsibility  to  avoid
situations  of  underfunding  which  could  jeopardise  not  only  the  quality  and
attractiveness  of  its  own  education  and  training  systems,  but  also  the
achievement of the EU’s internal goals and its international competitiveness.

To  target  investment  on  the  long  term  efficiency  of  systems,  i.e.  to  focus
funding  on  areas  where  it  is  most  likely  to  produce  more  quality,  relevance,
efficiency and access possibilities. This requires a review of the allocation and
management of current spending. Current inefficiencies in spending need to be
identified  and  their  cost  should  be  estimated.  The  setting  of  national  and
European benchmarks is an indispensable means for each country to situate its
own  achievements  in  comparison  to  others’  and  is  also  crucial  to  measure
progress towards the overall Lisbon strategic goal and the detailed Objectives
agreed for European education and training systems.

To  create  the  conditions  for  maximum  efficiency  of  investments,  by
undertaking 
the  kind  of  curricular  renovation,  quality  assurance  and
qualification recognition called for by the new European context in the field of
education  and  training  as  well  as  employment.  Reforms  and  investments  that
are  designed  and  implemented  in  a  purely  national  context,  disregarding
broader  European issues, will not  achieve  their  full  potential.  Institutions  and
systems failing to recognise that learners need and demand qualifications that

25

can be used throughout Europe would handicap their own citizens and reduce
the efficiency of their own investments.

As has been  shown in this  document, “making the most efficient use  of  resources”
(Objective 1.5.) will be crucial for allowing education and training to meet their own
objectives  and  to  play  their  full  role  in  the  European  Employment  and  Social
Inclusion  strategies  and  in  the  achievement  of  the  overall  Lisbon  goal.  The
Commission  looks  forward  to  discussing  these  issue  with  Member  States  and
Applicant  Countries  and  invites  them  to  look  at  their  policies  for  investment  and
change  in  education  and  training  as  core  determinants  of  their  own  future  in  the
enlarged EU and of the future of Europe in the world.

26

Table 1: Public expenditure on education and training
Public expenditure on education and training as a percentage of GDP

ANNEX

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

EU

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

A

P

FIN

S

UK

USA

JAP

5.2i

5.0i

7.7

4.7

2.9

4.7

5.2i

5.0i

8.1

4.8

3.1

4.7

5.1i

4.9i

7.9

4.7

3.4

4.5

5.0i

5.2

8.2

4.7

3.5

4.5

5.0i

5.5I

8.0I

4.7

3.7

4.5

6.0i

5.9i

6.0i

5.9i

5.9i

5.5

4.9

4.3

5.0

6.5

5.4

6.9

7.5

5.0i

4.9

3.5

5.3

4.9

4.0

5.0

6.4

5.5

7.0

7.6

4.8i

:

:

5.2

4.6

4.1

4.8

6.3

5.6

6.5

7.9

4.7i

5.2

3.5

4.9

4.6

(:)

4.9

6.3

5.6

6.2

8.0

4.6i

5.0

3.5

4.6

4.5

(:)

4.8

6.3

5.7

6.2

7.7

4.6i

4.9

3.5

5.1i

(:)

(:)

(:)

3.5e

4.5e

5.8e

4.5e

4.6e

(:)

4.9e

(:)

(:)

6.0e

8.4e

4.9e

:

:

(:)

(:)

(:)

(:)

3.5e

4.4e

5.7e

(:)

4.5e

(:)

4.9e

(:)

(:)

(:)

8.3e

(:)

:

:

Data for 1999 for selected Candidate Countries

BG

CZ

EE

CY

LV

LT

HU MT

PL

RO

SK

3.8

4.4

7.4

5.7

6.3

6.5

4.7

4.7

5.2

3.4

4.3

Source: Eurostat, data for USA and Japan: OECD
e = data for 2000 and 2001 are estimates
i = see footnotes
(:) = Data not available, Candidate countries: only countries for which data are available are shown
B: only Flemish Community for 1995-1997
B, DK: change in coverage in 1999
FR: educational expenditure figures do not include OD's (Overseas Departments).
K: estimates, based on data for UK financial years, which run from 1 April to 31 March

27

Table 2: Private expenditure on education and training

Private expenditure on educational
institutions
as a % of GDP

Enterprise expenditure on continuing
vocational training
as a % of labour costs

1995

1999

1993

1999

EU

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

A

P

FIN

S

UK

USA

JAP

0.6

:

0.3i

1.3

:

1.0

0.4

0.5

0.1

:

:

0.3i

0.0i

:

0.1

0.2

1.7

1.2

0.7

0.3i

0.3i

1.2

0.3i

0.9

0.4

0.4

0.4

:

0.4

0.3i

0.1i

0.1

0.2

0.7

1.6

1.1

EU

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

A

P

FIN

S

UK

USA

JAP

1.6

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

1.0

2.0

1.5

0.8

1.3

1.8

:

0.7

:

:

2.7

:

:

2.3

1.6

3.0

1.5

0.9

1.5

2.4

2.4

1.7

1.9

2.8

1.3

1.2

2.4

2.8

3.6

:

:

Data on enterprise expenditure on continuing vocational training for selected candidate countries (i),
% of labour costs, 1999

BG

CZ

EE

LV

LT

HU

PL

RO

1.0

1.9

1.8

1.1

0.8

1.2

0.8

0.5

SI

1.3

Source: Private expenditure on educational institutions: OECD (Education at a Glance 2002)
Enterprise expenditure on continuing vocational training: Eurostat
 i = see footnote
A, B, EL, P: Public subsidies to households included in private expenditure
Candidate Countries: only countries for which data are available are shown in the table

28

Table 3: Total expenditure per pupil/student by level of education, 1999

in 1000 US Dollar converted using Purchasing Power Standards (PPS)

Primary level

Secondary level

Tertiary level

(ISCED 1)

(ISCED 2-4)

(ISCED 5-6)

EU

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

A

P

FIN

S

UK

USA

JAP

4.1

4.0

6.7

3.8

2.2

3.6

4.1

3.0

5.4

:

4.2

6.6

3.5

4.1

5.7

3.6

6.6

5.2

6.2

6.4

7.6

6.6

2.9

4.9

7.2

4.4

6.5

:

5.7

8.5

5.2

5.9

5.9

5.6

8.2

6.0

8.5

9.7

10.7

10.4

4.3

5.7

7.9

9.7

7.6

:

12.3

12.1

4.8

8.1

14.2

9.6

19.2

10.3

Source: OECD

Netherlands: Public and government-dependent private institutions only
Greece, Italy: Public institutions only
USA: Public and independent private institutions only
Austria: Enrolment data for 1998/99

Data for selected Candidate Countries:
Czech Republic 1.8/3.4/5.7
Hungary 2.2/2.4/5.9
Poland 1.9/1.6/3.9
Slovak Republic na/2.2/5.3

29

Table 4: Expenditure on tertiary education from public and private sources
as a % of GDP

1995

total

1.1

:

1.6

1.1

0.7

1.0

1.1

1.3

0.8

:

1.2

1.5

0.9

1.9

1.6

1.2

:

1.0i

EU

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

A

P

FIN

S

UK

USA

JAP

1999

total

public

private

1.1

1.3

1.6

1.1

1.0

1.1

1.1

1.4

0.8

:

1.3

1.5

1.1

1.8

1.7

1.1

2.3i

1.0i

1.0

:

1.5

1.0

1.0

0.9

.0

1.1

0.7

:

1.0

1.4

1.0

1.8

1.5

0.8

1.1i

0.5i

0.2

:

< 0.1

0.1

< 0.1

0.3

0.1

0.3

0.1

:

0.3

< 0.1

0.1

< 0.1

0.2

0.3

1.2i

0.6i

Source: OECD

i = see footnotes
Because of rounding public and private not always add up to total
USA, Japan: Post secondary non-tertiary included in tertiary education

Data for selected Candidate Countries, Total, 1999:

Czech Republic 0,9
Hungary 1,1
Poland 1,0
Slovak Republic 1,1

30

Table  5:  Lifelong  Learning-Adult  participation 
Population aged 25 to 64 years

in  education  and 

training

Per cent having followed any kind of
education or training in the 4 weeks
preceding the survey

Participation rate in continuing
education and training during one year
(%)

1996

1999

2000

2001

Survey
year

Job related
continuing
education and
training

All continuing
education and
training

EU

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

L

5.7e

2.9

18.0

5.7

0.9

4.4

2.7

4.8

4.4

2.9

8.2

6.9

19.8

5.5

1.2

5.1

2.6

:

5.5

5.3

8.5e

6.8

20.8

5.2

1.1

5.1

2.8

:

5.5

4.8

8.4e

7.3

17.8

5.2

1.4

4.9

2.7

:

5.1

5.3

95/96

98/99

2000

95/96

98/99

NL

12.5

13.6

15.6

16.3

94/95

A

P

FIN

S

UK

USA

7.9

3.4

16.3

26.5

:

:

9.1

3.2

17.6

25.8

19.2

:

8.3

3.3

19.6

21.6

21.1

:

8.2

3.3

19.3

17.5

21.7

:

98/99

2000

94/95

95/96

2001

:

14

49

29

:

:

:

16

16

:

24

:

:

43

:

40

40

:

22

56

42

:

:

:

22

22

:

36

:

13

55

54

45

51

Source: Per cent having followed training in the 4 weeks preceding the survey: Eurostat:Participation rate in
continuing education and training during one year: OECD
(:) = Data not available
b = break in series
e = estimate

31

Table 6: Change in the number of young people in the European Union,
1975-2000

(Mio)

0-9 age group

10-19 age group

20-29 age group

0-29 age group

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

projection

2005

2010

54.2

48.5

44.7

43.6

42.9

41.4

40.1

39.2

55.6

58.0

54.9

49.1

46.0

44.9

43.9

42.4

50.5

52.2

55.8

58.4

56.6

51.0

46.7

45.3

160.4

158.8

155.4

151.1

145.4

137.2

130.7

126.9

Source: Eurostat, EU projection based on Eurostat data for 14 EU countries

Table  7:  Change  in  the  number  of  pupils  and  students  in  the  European  Union,
1996-2000

(Mio)

All pupils and
students

Primary and
secondary level

Tertiary level

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

83.5

83.4

83.7

85.1

85.1

Source: Eurostat
Break in time series in 1999

11.9

12.3

12.3

12.5

12.6

71.6

71.1

71.4

72.6

72.5

32