Adult lifelong learning: Cross-country comparison with a focus on Germany

In the modern and highly digitalised world constant updating one’s qualifications seems inevitable. Thus the importance of lifelong education has been increasing. Despite this global trend, Germany falls behind countries such as Austria, Denmark or Switzerland with respect to the participation of adults in lifelong learning. The potential causes for this phenomenon relate to citizens’ interest in further training and the benefits of it.

Many studies show that participation in further training in Germany is significantly lower than in countries such as Austria, Denmark, and Switzerland. This finding is particularly striking given that all the above countries are characterised by a collective skills formation system, in which employers and unions play a major role in the governance and financing of skills acquisition, as shown by Marius R. Busemeyer and Christine Trampusch in their 2012 study. Therefore, those countries could be expected to exhibit similar participation rates of adults in lifelong learning. Hence, it is crucial to investigate the causes of Germany lagging behind and consider what can be done to overcome them.

The following article provides such an analysis using data from the Adult Education Survey (AES) from 2016, which provides the most recent AES data and contains information on the participation of adults (between 25 and 64 years) in lifelong learning in the last twelve months prior to the interview. The survey and the following analysis refer to both job-related and job-unrelated training, but differentiate between formal and non-formal learning (see the boxes “Definition: Formal and non-formal learning” and “Data and Methods”).

Comparatively low formal lifelong learning participation in Germany

The AES data shows that only 4 percent of 25-64-year-old adults in Germany participated in formal lifelong learning in 2016. In Austria (6 %), Switzerland (8 %) and Denmark (13 %) participation rates were significantly higher. While comparatively few Germans engaged in formal learning activities, those who did, generally completed their training and only less than 1 percent dropped out early. The situation was quite different in Denmark, where the participation rate was comparatively high, but so was the dropout rate (11 %). Moreover, about half of participants in Germany (52 %), Austria (57 %) and Switzerland (46 %) paid fully for the learning activity themselves, while this applied only to 22 percent of participants in Denmark. Here, a large share of activities was (co-)funded by a (prospective) employer or public institution. These discrepancies in training financing could be one of the reasons for relatively high formal learning participation in Denmark.

Formal learning activities can be taken up for various reasons. In the AES survey, respondents were asked to select all factors from a pool of job-related and personal reasons which applied to them. In Austria and Denmark adults participated in formal learning both for job-related reasons (93-96 % of all participants) and for personal reasons (96-98 % of all participants). Also, in Germany many participants mentioned at least one job-related purpose for their involvement in formal learning (84 %). However, the share of participants selecting personal-related reasons was considerably lower (55 %). Lower personal interest in formal learning could be partly responsible for the lower participation rate. Furthermore, in Germany a comparatively large number of participants (16 %) claimed that their training had not yet brought any benefits, for example, had not led to a promotion or to obtaining new tasks at work. This share was significantly lower in Austria (3 %), Denmark (11 %) and Switzerland (2 %). Lack of visible outcomes resulting from training participation in Germany may demotivate adults from undertaking further courses and may likewise partly explain the much lower participation rate.

Not all socio-economic groups participated in formal lifelong learning to the same extent. Specific participation rates for subgroups in each country are shown in Figure 1. Generally, adults who took part in formal learning most intensively were young (25 to 35 years), part-time employed and completed tertiary education (level 5-8 in ISCED 2011). Interestingly, Danish women participated in formal learning significantly more than men, which may be triggered by wide-reaching nationwide projects supporting an increase in skills among female employees.

One in two adults in Germany participated in non-formal lifelong learning

According to the AES data, half of all 25-64-year-old adults (50 %) in Germany participated in non-formal lifelong learning in the previous twelve months. Participation rates were higher in Austria (58 %) and Switzerland (68 %), but lower in Denmark (44 %). As with formal learning, job-related reasons were a major motivational factor behind non-formal learning participation. In Germany, 81 percent of non-formal learning activities were taken up mainly due to job-related reasons; this share was slightly lower in Austria (76 %) and Switzerland (72 %). At the same time, the Austrians and Swiss express greater personal interest in non-formal education, which is associated with higher participation rates in these countries compared to Germany.

Besides reasons for involvement, the cost of training activities can be a decisive factor affecting participation. However, the share of non-formal learning activities fully paid for by the participants did not vary substantially between Germany, Austria and Switzerland (22 to 24 %). Only in Denmark was this proportion much lower (around 14 %), and yet it was the country with the lowest non-formal learning participation. Denmark appears, then, to be an exceptional case in the group of countries with collective skills formation systems. Its remarkably high participation rate in formal learning might be explained by wide-reaching policies establishing equivalently credited school-based training running parallel to firm-based training, as well as by reforms making university education more affordable. These policies have made many types of further trainings more accessible, but could also be the reason for the high dropout rates. The generous financial support for lifelong learning in Denmark can be attributed to the creation of a mandatory fund to which all employers have to contribute and from which firms taking up apprentices are reimbursed. Further, generous public subsidies as described by Marius R. Busemeyer and Kathleen Thelen in their 2015 study, contribute to the financial support for lifelong learning in Denmark.

With respect to training outcomes, a comparatively large number of Germans (13 %) reported that their training had not yet brought any benefits. Only in Denmark was this proportion higher (17 %) whereas in Austria (5 %) and Switzerland (4 %) it was lower. Therefore, the countries with the lowest non-formal learning participation are also those where training participants most often experienced no visible benefits of it. This supports the observation made in the section on formal learning, that lack of training outcomes may have a demotivating effect on further learning participation.

As with formal lifelong learning, not all socio-economic groups participated in non-formal learning to the same extent. Participation rates for specific subgroups in each country are shown in Figure 2. Participation rates differed with respect to age, education and labour market status. In Austria and Switzerland 25 to 35-year-olds participated most frequently in non-formal learning while this was true for 36 to 45-year-olds in Germany and Denmark. Adults with a tertiary education degree (level 5-8 in ISCED 2011) participated in non-formal learning significantly more than those without it. Also, employed adults took part in non-formal learning more often than unemployed or retired individuals.

In Germany, an established daily routine and family obligations were the most common barriers to participation in adult lifelong learning

Not all adults can attend as many training activities as they would like to and some cannot participate in lifelong learning at all. According to the AES, about 15 percent of adults in Germany would have liked to take up more training activities than they actually could. In Austria, Switzerland and Denmark this share was even higher (30 to 40 %).

Respondents to the AES were also asked which obstacles prevented them from participating in (more) lifelong learning activities. In Germany and Austria, schedule or daily routine (obligations in working and private life), and family responsibilities were the prime barriers. In Switzerland, costs alongside family responsibilities played the most crucial role. Costs were also a relevant factor in Denmark, as was schedule. It is particularly striking that costs were an important barrier in Denmark even though this country had the lowest share of adult learning participants who paid for the training themselves. This could suggest a low willingness of Danes to invest in further training, or high costs of learning activities in Denmark.

An interesting insight also relates to the fact that family responsibilities were indicated as an important participation barrier in almost every country, with the exception of Denmark. This exception is also pronounced when participation obstacles are considered separately for men and women. For all males, either schedule or costs were the main reason preventing them from (further) participation. Family responsibilities were the most important barrier for females; however, Danish women did not indicate them as a crucial factor. This might be explained by higher formal childcare enrolment in Denmark than in other countries (68 percent of children under the age of three are in formal childcare, as opposed to 16 percent in Germany and 31 percent in Switzerland according to data of the German Federal Office for Statistics from 2022).

Family responsibilities were also a main barrier to (further) adult learning for younger individuals (under the age of 46), people without tertiary education attainment (level 5-8 in ISCED 2011) and part-time employees. For older individuals (over the age of 46), individuals with a tertiary education and for full-time employees, schedule was the biggest obstacle.

Germans inform themselves less about learning possibilities than Austrians, Swiss and Danes

Another reason why adults do not participate in lifelong learning may be that they are not sufficiently informed about training possibilities. In Austria (38 %), Switzerland (35 %) and Denmark (46 %) more adults reported that they were searching for information on learning possibilities than in Germany (19 %). Higher search rates in Austria and Switzerland than in Germany translate to higher participation in formal and non-formal lifelong learning in these countries. However, such a relation is not confirmed when looking at non-formal training participation in Denmark, which is the lowest among all studied countries. This may imply that being better informed does not necessarily lead to higher lifelong learning participation.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Germany is characterised by the lowest overall participation rate in formal learning and the second lowest in non-formal learning amongst the studied countries. This lag might be caused by the fact that adults in Germany less often experience benefits of training than in comparison countries, which may discourage them from participation, or by lower personal interest in adult learning expressed by Germans compared to Austrians, Swiss and Danes. There might also be institutional reasons, related to the labour market (e.g. lower job turnover rates) or the education system (e.g. the higher degree of stratification), that could potentially explain the lower adult learning participation in Germany. Furthermore, the differences in the provision and the content of training across countries may influence adults’ participation in lifelong learning. Finally, another reason for the gap could be a longer or more generalized first training, which may prepare individuals in Germany better for varying labour market demands and reduce the (perceived) need for further education.

Although the causal link between the above-mentioned reasons and lifelong learning participation as well as the consequences of the cross-country differences for workforce skills and productivity should be thoroughly investigated before drawing any conclusions, the cross-country analysis presented in this article suggests some cautious policy recommendations. First of all, policymakers may try to inform and raise adults’ interest in further training. This might be achieved by broad information campaigns on learning possibilities and by promoting lifelong learning as a fulfilling choice in the personal sphere. Secondly, counselling on continued education may be expanded and learning activities might be more closely oriented towards the needs of participants in order to maximise the benefits of training. Finally, to enable adults to take advantage of training possibilities, policymakers may consider implementing policies that would reduce the existing barriers to participation. Here, expanding formal childcare could be one possible solution. The significant differences in lifelong learning participation between socio-economic groups tend to be universal rather than country-specific. To reduce within-country inequalities in participation rates, policymakers may consider implementing targeted instruments for groups with especially low participation rates.

Definition: Formal and non-formal learning

We use definitions of formal and non-formal learning from Eurostat’s Classification of Learning Activities (Eurostat, 2016) which is based on the International Standard Classification of Education 2011 (ISCED). According to these, formal learning involves institutionalised and structured programmes credited by official authorities. They lead to recognised degrees or certificates and last at least one semester. Non-formal learning programmes are also structured and institutionalised and may lead to recognised diplomas; however, they are not officially recognised and tend to be of a rather short duration.

Data and methods

The Adult Education Survey (AES) is a harmonized, cross-sectional EU’s study on the participation of adults in learning activities. So far, four waves have been conducted (2007, 2011, 2016, 2022) in almost all EU countries and some other European states. The 2022 data is not yet accessible; therefore, the analyses are based on the 2016 data.

Sample sizes from the 2016 survey for studied countries are as follows: Austria – 5.620 observations, Denmark – 3.432 observations, Germany – 6.229 observations and Switzerland – 8.279 observations. Sampling schemes are individually chosen by countries; however, they have to comply with the strict EU’s requirements. Therefore, the resulting datasets are representative for the population of interest (individuals aged 25 to 64). In each national sample women constitute around 50 percent and participants are on average 45 years old. The share of employed individuals ranges from 72 percent (Austria) to 84 percent (Switzerland) while the share of tertiary education graduates (level 5-8 in ISCED 2011) ranges from 16 percent (Austria) to 39 percent (Switzerland).

All the analyses consider the respondent’s weighting factor included in the dataset. Comparisons between countries and socio-economic groups are performed using a mean-comparison test.

In brief

• Compared to Austria, Denmark and Switzerland, adults in Germany have the lowest overall participation rate in formal learning and the second lowest in non-formal learning
• Individual subgroups – differentiated by gender, age, education and labour market status – participate in continuing education at different rates; however, these differences are rather universal than country-specific
• Obligations in personal and working life as well as family responsibilities are the primary barriers to participation in lifelong learning in Germany

Literature

Busemeyer, Marius R.; Thelen, Kathleen (2015): Non-standard employment and systems of skill formation in European countries in Non-Standard Employment in Post-Industrial Labour Markets: An Occupational Perspective, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

Busemeyer, Marius R.; Trampusch, Christine (2012): The political economy of collective skill formation, New York: Oxford University Press.

European Social Fund (ESF) (31.01.2013): More women in adult education.

Bundesamt für Statistik (17.2.2022): Kinder unter 3 Jahren nach Anzahl Stunden formeller Betreuung.

Eurostat (2016): Classification of learning activities (CLA) manual, Luxemburg: European Union.

picture: Gorodenkoff/stock.adobe.com

DOI: 10.48720/IAB.FOO.20240221.01