APPENDIX 19
Memorandum from Professor Mike Campbell
and Professor Ian Sanderson, Policy Research Institute, Leeds
Metropolitan University (JG 25)
The Jobs Gap and Structural Unemployment:
Re-balancing Local Labour Markets
SUMMARY
While the emphasis in employment policy has shifted
towards more "active" supply-side measures to improve
the "employability" of the long-term unemployed, some
concerns have arisen about the extent to which such measures can
be effective in localities experiencing a shortage of jobs or
a "jobs gap". However, the notion of a "jobs gap"
is difficult to operationalise given the complexity of the processes
of matching labour demand and supply in local labour markets.
The key problem for labour market policy is the existence of persistent
long-term "structural" unemployment. Our analysis shows
the substantial local variability in levels and rates of change
of long-term unemployment and demonstrates that these are not
correlated with changes in employment. Jobs growth appears to
provide jobs primarily for the short-term unemployed—those
who are least "detached" from the labour market and
best able to secure work with relatively little assistance. However,
it does not "trickle down" to the long term unemployed
and the inactive—those who are most "detached"
from the labour market.
We argue, therefore, that the primary focus
at the local level should be on developing effective targeted
local assistance to improve the "employability" of the
most disadvantaged groups. This is not to argue that labour demand
is not a significant issue for public policy; lack of jobs growth
is certainly likely to constrain efforts to reduce unemployment
and measures to stimulate labour demand must be part of a coherent
welfare-to-work policy. There is a need for a balanced approach
within the context of broader local economic strategy which integrates
action on both the demand and supply sides. Such a strategic approach
needs to be based upon an understanding of how the barriers facing
jobseekers operate in localities as part of a complex of factors
which erode "social capital" and therefore need to be
addressed through a "joined up", multi-agency strategy
which integrates actions across all relevant policy areas. Moreover,
there is a need for effective "vertical" integration
of policies and actions at EU, national, regional, local and neighbourhood
levels which can tie supply-side measures in with actions to stimulate
jobs growth. Finally, on the basis of recent evaluation research
we identify a number of key aspects of programme design and delivery
at the local level which promote effective action to "re-engage"
the long-term unemployed and other disadvantaged groups with the
labour market. Such an agenda offers the prospect of "re-balancing"
local labour markets and re-connecting those currently most excluded
from labour market opportunities.
1. INTRODUCTION
In the context of increasing concern about the
persistence of relatively high levels of long-term unemployment,
there has been a shift of emphasis in employment policy internationally
towards more "active" supply-side measures. The focus
of such measures is on improving the "employability"
of the long-term unemployed by increasing their skills, removing
obstacles due to personal and family circumstances, improving
job search and seeking to enhance the willingness to take up work
(Meager and Evans, 1998). Moreover, there has been a trend towards
decentralisation and an increased focus on action at the local
level in the context of policies which have transferred regulatory
powers and responsibilities to regional and local agencies and
private sector bodies whose activities are closer to local labour
markets (Martin, 1998; OECD, 1998, 1999). In the welfare to work
agenda, the Government has adopted this emphasis on local, supply-side
focused action in the New Deal, Employment Zone and ONE initiatives.
However, some concerns have arisen about this
local supply-side emphasis especially about the extent to which
local action can be effective if there is a "shortage of
jobs". For example, Turok and Edge (1999: 52), based upon
an analysis of employment change in 20 British conurbations and
cities between 1981 and 1996, have recently argued that: "Retraining
and upskilling are likely to have a limited impact on unemployment
in the context of generally deficient labour demand." This
raises two key questions which we address in this paper: In programmes
to reduce unemployment in localities, particularly long-term unemployment,
how important is action to boost jobs growth relative to measures
to build bridges between the unemployed and job opportunities?
How can action to tackle unemployment at the local level be made
more effective?
The paper is structured as follows. In section
2 we discuss the concept of the "jobs gap" arguing that,
in policy terms, the key issue is not necessarily shortage of
jobs per se but the capacity of those who are seeking employment
to gain access to available jobs. In section 3 we discuss the
extent of variability at the local level in rates of unemployment
and inactivity while in section 4 we go on to analyse the relationship
between jobs growth and changes in unemployment and inactivity.
In section 5 we discuss findings of recent research on the effectiveness
of local action to address unemployment and set out an approach
to policy which integrates action at different levels to address
both labour demand and labour supply issues in the context of
a broader framework to promote economic and social regeneration
and "social inclusion". Section 6 presents brief conclusions.
2. WHAT IS
A "JOBS
GAP"?
The notion of a "jobs gap" implies
that the supply of labour in a locality exceeds the demand for
labour, ie there are insufficient jobs available for all those
who want to work. On one level, the local unemployment rate, which
represents the "imbalance" between the available supply
of labour and existing demand, can be an indicator of a "jobs
gap". As we shall see below this "imbalance" can
be measured in different ways. However, for a number of reasons,
the existence of unemployment defined in these terms does not
necessarily imply a lack of jobs. First, there may be jobs available
but these may be "unsuitable" for the unemployed in
terms of the skills and experience they require. Second, the unemployed
may not consider the jobs available to be "opportunities"
because of the wages and working conditions associated with them.
Third, the jobs may be in the "wrong" places, with weak
or expensive transport connections between the locations of the
jobs and the locations of the unemployed. Fourth, employers may
prefer to employ workers other than the unemployed to fill the
jobs available; for example, they may prefer new labour market
entrants (school, college and university leavers, women returners),
commuters from other localities or inward migrants. Therefore,
jobseekers can face difficulties obtaining work even when the
overall demand for labour in a locality is numerically sufficient
to employ all those without a job, and, of course, unemployed
people can obtain jobs even when there is a (large) "jobs
gap" because they may be able to fill jobs that become available
through labour turnover, "replacing" those who previously
filled them.
Furthermore, unemployment, per se, is not the
central "problem". In a market economy, the continuous
creation and destruction of jobs inevitably means that some people
will face spells between jobs. These spells, if short, are not
a serious public policy problem. Indeed, 50 per cent of those
who join the unemployment register leave it within three months.
However, long-term "structural" unemployment is a serious
problem, both for the people themselves and for the economy; it
is the existence of persistent long-term unemployment which is
of greatest concern in policy terms. The above qualifications
to the notion of the "jobs gap" apply with greater force
in relation to long-term unemployment.
Indeed unemployment is, in fact, a rather "porous"
concept, since people have different degrees of attachment to
the labour market and these vary over the business cycle and,
therefore, with the availability of job opportunities. Furthermore,
the benefits system affects both the measurement of unemployment,
(short and long term) and people's actual labour market status.
This is particularly important in two ways. First, there are people
who want a job but who are not in receipt of job seekers allowance
(JSA). These people do not enter the administrative count which
is the source of the bulk of local labour market unemployment
data. On the other hand, some of those in receipt of JSA may be
considered to be less actively searching for jobs than they might.
Second, the boundary between being long-term unemployed and being
inactive is not clear cut. Those in receipt of JSA are recorded
as unemployed, while those in receipt of other income support,
such as disability benefits, will not be recorded as unemployed.
Because of these arguments and the way in which
the term "jobs gap" has come to be associated with the
notion of "shortage of job", we prefer the term "labour
market imbalance" to denote the mis-match between labour
supply and demand at the local level.
3. VARIABILITY
AND CHANGE
IN UNEMPLOYMENT,
LONG TERM
UNEMPLOYMENT AND
INACTIVITY
In this section we examine the variability at
the local level in absolute rates and in rates of change over
time of claimant unemployment and long-term unemployment (12 months
plus) and in inactivity. The substantial degree of such variability
is an indicator of the significance of specific local conditions
in particular labour markets which require detailed attention
and targeted action to address these problems.
First, as regards variability across English
local authority districts (LADs), the claimant unemployment rate
varies from less than 2 per cent in 24 LADs (in 1997) to more
than 10 per cent in 32 other LADs. Localities with the highest
rates include Lewisham (and several other London boroughs), Knowsley,
South Tyneside, Liverpool, Redcar, Wirral and Rotherham, whilst
those with the lowest include Surrey Heath, Winchester, Fylde,
Rutland and Guildford.
Long-term unemployment, is even more variable
and highly concentrated. 37 per cent of the long-term unemployed
are concentrated in just 10 per cent of all LADs, with particularly
large numbers in Birmingham, Glasgow, Liverpool, Sheffield, Manchester,
Leeds and a number of London boroughs. In 24 LADs the proportion
of the unemployed who are long-term exceeds 50 per cent. These
include various London boroughs, Liverpool, Southend, Birmingham,
Knowsley and Sheffield (Campbell, Sanderson and Walton, 1999).
Inactivity rates vary from a low of less than
15 per cent in 15 LADs, including Sutton, Thamesdown, Newbury
and North Hertfordshire, to over 30 per cent in a further 15 districts,
including Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Salford and Middlesborough.
Second, turning to changes over time, whilst
claimant unemployment fell nationally by 23 per cent over the
period 1991-97, there was substantial local variation—from
a reduction of more than 70 per cent (in Vale Royal) to an increase
of 25 per cent (in Waveney). Localities experiencing the largest
reductions include: Tavistock, North Dorset, Mid Sussex, Horsham,
Newbury and South Oxfordshire. Localities experiencing the largest
increases in unemployment include Southend, Dover and Brighton.
Long-term unemployment increased by 22 per cent
nationally between 1991 and 1997, but change at the local level
ranged from an increase of 80 per cent to a reduction of 250 per
cent. Localities experiencing particularly large increases in
long-term unemployment include: Milton Keynes, Watford, Barrow,
Dover, Waltham Forest, Exeter and Portsmouth. Localities experiencing
large reductions in long-term unemployment include: Burnley, Knowsley,
Blackburn, Hull, Wolverhampton and Manchester.
Looking at inactivity, there was an increase
nationally of 4.5 per cent between 1991 and 1997; change at the
local level varied from an increase of nearly 80 per cent (in
Crewe and Nantwich) to a reduction of nearly 40 per cent (in Kingston
on Thames). Localities experiencing the largest increases included:
Waltham Forest, Newcastle upon Tyne, Plymouth, Norwich and Cambridge,
whereas areas experiencing the biggest reductions included: Oxford,
Slough, Portsmouth and Hartlepool.
Therefore, there are very considerable differences
in the scale of "labour market imbalance" across localities
in England; but are they associated with a shortage of jobs?
4. IS JOBS
GROWTH THE
ANSWER TO
UNEMPLOYMENT?
We approach this question by examining the extent
to which unemployment, long-term unemployment and inactivity are
associated with job generation and employment opportunity. The
outcome of such an analysis has significant implications for policy:
How significant are measures to boost the availability of jobs
in efforts to reduce unemployment? Do new jobs "trickle down"
to the unemployed? In short, is the answer to the problem "more
jobs"?
First of all, how significant are local variations
in jobs growth in England? Over the period 1991-97 whilst the
total number of jobs grew by 2 per cent it varied in different
localities in England from a growth of 65 per cent in Caradon
to a decline of 25 per cent in Barrow. 115 LADs experienced a
jobs growth of up to 10 per cent; about 80 experienced a growth
of between 10 per cent and 20 per cent and more than 50 experienced
a growth of more than 20 per cent. On the other hand, nearly 100
experienced a decline in jobs of up to 10 per cent whilst 23 experienced
job losses of over 10 per cent. These are very substantial variations
and a cause of considerable concern in themselves. We saw in the
previous section how much levels and rates of change in unemployment
vary at the local level. The question which arises, then, is how
much do these local variations in employment and unemployment
change "match up"? It might be expected that variations
in jobs growth would feed through to a substantial impact on unemployment
with "job rich" areas experiencing reduced unemployment
and "job poor" areas experiencing growing unemployment.
In order to test this, we have examined the
relationship between changes in full-time employment in LADs from
1991 to 1997 on the one hand, and changes in claimant unemployment
and long-term unemployment, and inactivity on the other. The statistical
correlations from this analysis are summarised in Annex 1. Certain
qualifications to this analysis need to be made. First, statistical
correlation does not, of course, imply a causative relationship
but it is useful in indicating where further investigation might
be warranted. Second, while LADs are not necessarily good approximations
to labour market areas, the analysis has validity because the
majority of potential job opportunities for unemployed people
will lie within their local authority area. Third, we focus on
full-time (not part-time) employment as this is the most valid
indicator of jobs growth in relation to claimant unemployed (data
for the broader ILO definition of unemployment is limited for
analysis at the local level).
Unemployment
Figure 1 shows the relationship between jobs
growth (as measured by the per cent change in full-time employment
between 1991-97), and unemployment (as measured by the per cent
change in claimant unemployed), across all 366 LADs in England.
There is a clear, positive relationship: the Pearson correlation
coefficient is—.339 and is statistically significant at
the 0.01 per cent level. This indicates that jobs growth is associated
with falling claimant unemployment; job generation appears to
make a difference. However, it can be seen that a relatively narrow
range of employment growth conditions appears to be associated
with widely different changes in unemployment as there is a large
vertical spread of observations around zero employment growth.
Long Term Unemployment
Turning to the relationship between jobs growth
and long-term unemployment (Figure 2), we can see that increasing
full-time employment is actually associated with rising long-term
unemployment (the relationship is significant at the 0.01 per
cent level. To unpick this relationship further, we can divide
Figure 2 into four quadrants by drawing a vertical line through
zero jobs growth and a horizontal line through zero change in
long-term unemployment.
We can see that the largest number of areas
indeed experienced a combination of jobs growth and increases
in the numbers of long-term unemployed, (the top right quadrant).
Examples include areas as diverse as Winchester, Watford, Solihull,
Dudley, Wandsworth, Cambridge and Southampton. A much smaller
number of areas, experienced the "expected" relationship
between declining employment and increasing long-term unemployment
(top left quadrant). Examples here include Dover, Newham, Bath,
Waveney, Carlisle and Plymouth. Somewhat fewer areas experienced
the other "expected" relationship between jobs growth
and falling long-term unemployment (bottom right quadrant). Examples
include, Tamworth, Salford, Chester, Preston and Sunderland. Finally,
some localities (in the bottom left quadrant) experienced both
job loss and reduced long-term unemployment. Examples here, include
Liverpool, Manchester, Blackpool and Middlesbrough.
We can conclude that job creation doesn't appear
to be a powerful force in reducing long-term unemployment (except
in certain specific areas) and even job loss does not appear to
necessarily find its way through to rising long-term unemployment.
Inactivity
Figure 3 examines the relationship between jobs
growth and economic inactivity. The relationship here is not statistically
significant; jobs growth does not appear to make significant inroads
into reducing local levels of economic inactivity.
This analysis points up two significant results.
First, jobs growth does not appear to be associated with reduced
claimant unemployment but not with reduced long-term unemployment
or inactivity. This suggests that it provides jobs primarily for
the short-term unemployed—those who are least "detached"
from the labour market and best able to secure work with relatively
little assistance. Second, therefore, jobs growth does not "trickle
down" to the long-term unemployed and the inactive—those
who are most "detached" from the labour market. This
indicates the need for targeted local assistance to improve the
"employability" of the most disadvantaged groups irrespective
of the "buoyancy" of the local labour market.
5. RE-BALANCING
THE LABOUR
MARKET: TOWARDS
MORE EFFECTIVE
LOCAL ACTION
We have shown that growth in jobs (labour demand)
in a locality appears not to have a significant effect on long-term
unemployment nor to make significant inroads into those classified
as "inactive" but who may be potential jobseekers. The
key policy problem is "structural long-term unemployment"
which erodes "employment". This is due to obstacles
to the process of local matching of labour supply to demand which
require targeted policy action to "re-connect" people
with available jobs. This is not to argue that labour demand is
not a significant issue for public policy; lack of jobs growth
is certainly likely to constrain efforts to reduce unemployment
and measures to stimulate labour demand must be part of a coherent
welfare-to-work policy. There is a need for a balanced approach
within the context of broader local economic strategy which integrates
action on both the demand and supply sides. However, we argue
that the emphasis at the local level needs to be placed on ensuring
effective action to help actual or potential jobseekers who face
barriers or obstacles to re-engagement in the labour market. Our
analysis in section 4 above provides grounds for arguing that
supply-side action can make a difference even where labour demand
is relatively static.
Evidence on the Effectiveness of Local Action
In our view, then, a key policy priority must
be on ensuring the effectiveness of such local action. So what
lessons can we learn from the available research evidence in this
respect? A considerable amount of evaluation research has been
undertaken on local schemes which are designed to get unemployed
people back into work (Campbell, et al, 1998) but the emphasis
in this research has tended to be on two aspects of performance.
First, the effects and achievements of schemes have been analysed
primarily in terms of outputs and short run gross outcomes, for
example, qualifications obtained by scheme participants and jobs
obtained immediately or shortly after receiving a programme of
assistance. Second, the processes involved in the operation of
schemes have been analysed in order to identify "success
factors" in terms of operating structures and systems.
This evaluation research has resulted in a large
amount of "good practice" literature but has largely
failed to provide definitive evidence of the effectiveness of
local action in getting people into work who would otherwise have
remained unemployed (Meagre and Evans, 1998). That is, the research
has not adequately addressed the issue of dead-weight—what
value can local schemes add in terms of improving the job prospects
of unemployed people over and above what they would be given "normal",
mainstream provision. Other issues requiring more attention include
the quality and "sustainability" of employment obtained
and the value of "non-employment" outcomes such as an
increase in "employability" (or "distance travelled"
as it is sometimes referred to). Finally, insufficient attention
has been given to macro-level effects, including problems of substitution
and displacement and broader economic multiplier effects.
Identifying these effects at the local level
poses difficult "technical" challenges to evaluation
research and requires a more systematic approach to building evaluation
into local initiatives so that, for example, more longitudinal
research can be undertaken. However, such research is expensive
and the often tenuous funding basis of local schemes means that
they usually have difficulty in prioritising such research. Nevertheless,
there is a need for "smarter" evaluation research to
tell us how effective different models of local action are, to
provide a sounder basis for identifying "success factors"
which can contribute to improved effectiveness.
Our recent research for the Joseph Rowntree
Foundation (Campbell, et al, 1998; Sanderson, et al, 1999) summarises
results from other research and provides new evidence indicating
that the shortcomings of local schemes are due mainly to the following:
— insufficient targeting on those with
the worst prospects of obtaining work and a tendency towards "cream-skimming";
— failure to provide tailored packages
of support which address the full range of problems, obstacles
and needs of such individuals in an "holistic", co-ordinated
way;
— failure to achieve integrated working
with other local agencies and to engage effectively with local
employers to ensure that packages of support are oriented closely
to meeting employers' needs;
— failure to marry a "client-focused"
with an "employer-focused" approach in an action-planning
framework underpinned by effective management.
Addressing the Barriers
As a result of these factors, schemes fail to
"get to grips" with the processes operating in local
labour markets to exclude unemployment people from work. The value
of local action is precisely this potential to address these obstacles
and barriers, providing a basis firstly for understanding their
nature and extent, secondly for securing involvement of all stakeholders
and, thirdly, for harnessing action across the full range of local
agencies required. This has been emphasised in recent work by
the OECD (1998, 1999). The nature of these barriers has been extensively
researched and is now widely understood (Campbell, et al, 1998;
Gardiner, 1997). Essentially they relate to:
— health, family, housing and personal
problems which may mean individuals are not prepared to look for
work;
— lack of qualifications, skills and
personal attributes required for jobs which are available;
— lack of motivation to look for work,
constraints on the scope of job search and wage expectations which
do not match available jobs;
— caring responsibilities which constrain
ability to take up work;
— employers' attitudes and recruitment
practices and conditions of employment which hinder the recruitment
of unemployed and other disadvantaged groups.
However, it is increasingly recognised that
the barriers which disadvantaged groups face in obtaining work
exist as part of a wider complex of problems which relate to the
community in which they live. For example, many studies have demonstrated
the importance of personal and institutional contacts and networks
in obtaining jobs and have highlighted the disadvantage experienced
by unemployed people living in communities where such contacts
and networks are poorly developed or have been eroded. As Molina
(1998) argues, success in job seeking is not simply dependent
upon having the necessary skills but also requires ". . .
job leads, referrals and references to specific employers"
(p13). In neighbourhoods with high and persistent unemployment
the networks which sustain information flows, contacts and referrals
break down both at the personal level (based on family, friends,
neighbours) and at the institutional level (based on education,
training and employment). This process reinforces the disconnection'
of unemployed residents from the labour market (ibid.).
This problem has been analysed in recent literature
on "social capital" which emphasises the role of social
relationships, ties and networks in facilitating effective economic
and social functioning (Midgley and Livermore, 1998; Lang and
Hornburg, 1998). Thus, residents of communities suffering from
a lack of social capital are likely to experience social exclusion
due to poor educational attainment, lack of access to jobs and
services and attendant poverty and multiple deprivation. This
literature indicates the importance of local action across a range
of policy areas to address these problems in an integrated way,
including the need to build the social capital necessary for sustainable
economic, social and community development. Thus, action to develop
educational achievement and skills, to support and develop networks
for connecting jobs seekers with job opportunities, and to promote
the development of local businesses needs to be set in the context
of broader strategies to strengthen the capacities of local communities
and address wider problems such as poor housing, crime and substance
abuse. This is recognised in the Government's Strategy for Neighbourhood
Renewal to address social exclusion (Social Exclusion Unit, 1998).
Effective action therefore requires strong and
coherent local strategies which co-ordinate the work of all the
relevant agencies and comprise a range of policies and programmes
which acknowledge the inter-related nature of the problems in
communities experiencing high structural unemployment. In our
recent research (Campbell, et al, 1998; Sanderson, et al, 1999)
we have identified from the evaluation of local schemes a number
of lessons for effective local action which are consistent with
a range of other recent research on the Government's welfare to
work agenda (eg Bennett and Walker, 1998; Legard, et al, 1998;
Woodfield, et al, 1998) and on action by local authorities (Audit
Commission, 1999). Moreover, these lessons are also consistent
with findings of recent research on "employment linkage programs"
in the USA (Molina, 1998). Therefore, there is a developing body
of knowledge in this area which is becoming quite rebust. The
implications for local action can be considered in three key areas:
— developing a strategic approach to
policy formulation;
— developing effective programme design;
— developing effective programme implementation
and delivery.
We consider each of these in turn.
A Strategic Approach to Policy Formulation
A key characteristic of the challenge for local
action to reduce structural unemployment is the complex, multi-dimensional
nature of the problems facing people in disadvantaged, high unemployment
and high inactivity neighbourhoods. Not only is there potentially
a wide range of interrelated factors to be addressed but there
is also a need to accommodate the dynamics of labour market change.
Given this complex and dynamic context, there is a need for integrated
action over a prolonged period of time across all relevant policy
areas. Action to address structural unemployment needs to be part
of a broader long-term strategy for economic and social regeneration
to promote "social inclusion". Such a strategy needs
to incorporate measures to "re-balance" the labour market—to
overcome barriers to the efficient matching of labour supply and
demand—while stimulating broader processes and economic
growth and social development to promote economic competitiveness,
enhanced social welfare and environmental sustainability.
Such a strategic approach needs to achieve both
"vertical" and "functional" integration. Effective
'vertical integration' requires co-ordination of different levels
of policy action in relation to both labour demand and labour
supply: EU structural funds and programmes (eg ERDF, ESF); national
level policies (eg welfare benefits); regional and sub-regional
level policies (eg on skills, inward investment and infrastructure
development); local labour market/TTWA level policies (eg on education
and training, sectoral business development, industrial site development;
prevention of job losses); and neighbourhood level action to address
the barriers faced by local jobseekers. Thus, local action with
a supply-side emphasis needs to developed in the context of a
coherent policy framework for stimulating labour demand which
co-ordinates instruments and action at the above levels.
Such local action also needs to achieve "functional
integration" at this level with co-ordinated action on three
main fronts (see Figure 4):
— to promote and influence labour demand
in general, but particularly focused on the needs of the long-term
unemployed, for example, by developing small businesses and Intermediate
Labour Market models (including those within the "Third System"),
and by working closely with local employers who are generating
new jobs seeking to influence their recruitment;
— to improve the matching of labour
supply to available demand by developing the "employability"
of local jobseekers (especially the most disadvantaged groups)
and achieving sustainable employment, for example through training,
job search and job placement activities;
— to support this matching process
through complementary measures which address broader personal,
family and social problems faced by jobseekers, for example homelessness,
substance abuse, offending, transport problems and a need for
childcare.
The basis for co-ordinated action across all
these policy areas is a long-term strategic approach which involves
all the relevant agencies at the various levels in effective partnership
working. Key requirements for effectiveness at the strategic level
are:
— an inclusive strategy development
process which seeks to involve all key stakeholders from the outset
in order to ensure their commitment and support—representatives
of target client groups, local communities and local employers
as well as the relevant agencies;
— a good understanding of the dynamics
of the local labour market, the problems to be addressed and likely
future trends to provide the basis for effective targeted action;
this requires a capacity for high quality labour market research
and a commitment to "evidence-based policy making";
— the specification of clear objectives
and meaningful measures of performance which capture the key desired
effects and outcomes of the strategy to provide the basis for
monitoring and evaluation;
— a sound funding basis and accountability
mechanisms which allow a long-term approach, support and encourage
the achievement of the desired outcomes and do not promote manipulative
"numbers games".
|
