Mutual Learning Programme DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion Key lessons learned from the Dissemination Seminar on The value of mutual learning in policy making Brussels (Belgium), 9 December 2016 Written by ICF December 2016
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion Unit A1 Contact: Emilio Castrillejo E-mail: EMPL-A1-UNIT@ec.europa.eu European Commission B-1049 Brussels
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Mutual Learning Programme DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion December 2016 Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion Dissemination Seminar on The value of mutual learning in policy making Brussels, 9 December 2016
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union. Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you). LEGAL NOTICE This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016 European Union, 2016 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Table of Contents 1 Introduction... 1 2 The value of mutual learning in policy making and lessons learned... 2 3 Recommendations for the future... 5
1 Introduction The Dissemination Seminar of the Mutual Learning Programme (MLP) was held in Brussels on December 9, 2016, with the purpose of discussing the value of mutual learning through practical experiences of Government representatives/policy makers and independent experts around four thematic areas that have been the focus of many MLP activities in recent years: youth, labour market reforms, migration and skills. The seminar was opened by a high-level panel consisting of Ms Ylva Johansson (Minister for Employment and Integration, Sweden), Mr Peter Pogačar (State Secretary of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, Slovenia) and Mr Detlef Eckert (Director, Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, European Commission). The seminar provided participants with an opportunity to showcase and discuss the rich lessons and insights shared by Government institutions and experts during the latest four-year cycle of the MLP. In particular, two questions were addressed: How have MLP activities informed or influenced policy at national level?; and In what ways have MLP activities encouraged further exchanges between EU Member States (MS)? Mutual learning among Member States forms an integral part of the European Employment Strategy (EES). MLP activities aim to increase the understanding of the EES with the goal of supporting, coordinating, and encouraging mutual learning between EU Member States towards achieving the goals of the European Employment Strategy. These efforts are underpinned by a range of different MLP activities, including thematic events, peer reviews, learning exchanges, dissemination seminars, and a database of labour market practices. A continued commitment to joint learning is important to address the common labour market challenges which MS face across the European Union. In this context, having a platform which allows for the exchange of best practices and lessons learned becomes increasingly important: Common challenges need to be addressed jointly and the Mutual Learning Programme is an excellent tool for exchanging experiences and best practices, so let us use this to successfully address some of the challenges the EU is facing today. (Ms Ylva Johansson, Minister for Employment and Integration, Sweden). Similarly, the Slovenian State Secretary of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, Mr Peter Pogačar, noted that the Slovenian experience has been very positive, including in terms of transposing the ideas of the formal and informal discussions during the events to concrete measures...the exchange of views and experiences has great value for decisions that form the policy response. December 2016 1
2 The value of mutual learning in policy making and lessons learned This section aims to assess the value of MLP activities and the lessons learned from the MLP activities carried out between 2013 and 2016 in relation to the programme s objectives of supporting, coordinating, and encouraging mutual learning between EU Member States towards the goals of the EES. In the period 2013-2016, a large number of mutual learning activities have been organised under the MLP. The 15 Peer Reviews organised over the period gathered 600 participants, while the 14 Learning Exchanges and six Thematic Events brought together more than 200 and 600 participants respectively. The MLP activities have, inter alia, allowed Government representatives/policy makers, independent experts and other stakeholders to gain a better understanding of other countries policies and objectives and facilitated exchanges of information, experience and good practice among stakeholders. A recent survey of Government representatives/policy makers and independent experts that have participated in MLP activities over the past four years also reveal that the MLP activities and outputs have been important in terms of informing or influencing policy change 1. For example, more than two in three (70%) government representatives/policy makers reported that MLP activities and outputs had informed or influenced the work their organisation or the way they address policy issues. Similarly, 43% of independent experts reported that they were aware of examples where MLP activities and outputs have informed and influenced the way policy issues are addressed. Examples of how the MLP activities have been used in policy making include: Launch of new projects / legislation / policies (including in relation to services for integration of refugees; research on possible implementation of senior guarantee ; tackling labour market challenges; minimum wage; e-services; and individual counselling); Policy discussions (e.g. to put national practices in a European perspective, sometimes defend them or to seek other approaches and learn from other countries successes and mistakes); and Tweaking existing policies/approaches (e.g. client service model; benchmarking has become a step in the implementation process of every new project; preparation of evaluation plan that clarifies limitations and conditions to conduct counterfactual impact evaluation). Respondents that indicated that they had not been able to apply the learning from the MLP activities, mentioned the following practical constraints: No need lack of demand or political initiative to change existing practices/policies; External validity specific priorities, objectives, legal rules, pre-existing conditions does not allow for straightforward transferability of practices; Political process the decisions are based on the state of political arena at the given moment; and Lack of time or resources - recent budgetary cuts. 1 Two surveys were undertaken. One of the surveys targeted government representatives/ policy makers and was sent out to 640 individuals that had participated in MLP activities in the last four years. The other survey was targeted at independent experts and was sent out to 135 individuals. The surveys were completed by 105 government representatives/ policy makers and 44 independent experts. December 2016 2
In addition to having a direct impact on policy making, the MLP activities also helped facilitate further exchanges between participating countries and individual participants. Examples of further exchanges included: Exchange of data and information on how particular issues are solved (including in relation to the monitoring and communication activities under the Youth Guarantee; undeclared work; implementation of ALMP and PES services; early prevention and integration of refugees; LTU). Follow-up learning exchanges in a smaller group of countries and invitations to conferences. Study visits to participating countries to gain insight of their programmes for integration of refugees in the labour market. Regular cooperation in transnational projects and through setting up regional cooperation programmes. Further examples of how MLP activities have contributed to learning and change in participating countries can be found below. Box 1: Estonia and the Irish model on skills forecasting Following the attendance of the Peer Review on 'Methods for forecasting skills needs for the economy' hosted by Ireland in June 2016 (and the Peer Review on Human Capital in Poland labour market research project for 2016-2023' hosted by Poland in November 2016), the representative of the Estonian Qualifications Authority presented the ideas discussed through a series of seminars/ workshops. These seminars/ workshops were attended by an advisory panel consisting of 40 stakeholders from ministries, universities, think tanks, etc. The specific Irish measure of a red and green list of occupations for immigration policy was identified as transferable into the Estonian model and was brought to the Estonian Government by an expert and further refined in another advisory panel meeting in December 2016. During this meeting, a basic agreement was made to use the results of the Estonian skills forecasting model (OSKA) as an input in immigration policy. Other areas of learning have included ideas on how to refine the quantitative forecast model (Finland), the design of web portals (Sweden and Norway) and the role of transversal skills (Poland). Box 2: Lithuania and the design and implementation of Youth Guarantee schemes The Thematic Event on Practical support for the design and implementation of Youth Guarantee schemes organised in Belgium on 17-18 October 2013, helped the Lithuanian PES in developing a new approach to policy design and implementation. This resulted in several measures which comprise: Individual employment action planning, active labour market policies; Provision of social and psychological rehabilitation services to low-skilled young people and to young people not registered with PES; Implementation of new employment mediation and mentoring services targeted at young people; Development of the PES information system, providing opportunities for young people to learn about job offers, internships and practice; and Dissemination of information about the Youth Guarantee initiative measures and their implementation. December 2016 3
According to the Lithuanian PES, the Thematic Event also contributed to a coordinated, holistic and individualised approach for young people. In that respect, a network of youth job centres has been further developed (46 by the end of 2016) and early intervention and activity promotion measures to young people have been provided. Box 3: Germany and its dual apprenticeship scheme Germany hosted a Learning Exchange on its dual apprenticeship scheme in September 2013. The German dual apprenticeship scheme is one of the most copied best practice examples in Europe and the learning exchange provided participants with an opportunity to familiarise themselves with the German system of vocational training, which gives employers and trade unions a shaping role in developing the curricula for the apprenticeship schemes. A second Learning Exchange on apprenticeship schemes was held in Austria during the same year. The overlap between the Austrian and German vocational training systems provided both countries with an opportunity to exchange lessons learnt and discuss good practices. The MLP activities have provided participants with an opportunity to create a platform of mutual learning to reflect, share, consolidate and transfer knowledge, experiences and good practices. Seminar discussions revealed the following lessons learned: Key lessons learned The format and approach of the MLP has worked well and has been tailored to the policy needs. Whilst contradictions will appear when trying to fulfil divergent objectives (e.g. increasing the number of participants while maintaining a small group setting), the concluding panel advised that the format and approach of the MLP should be maintained as it has proven to work well over the past few years. The examples of policy practices must help address the practical needs of policy makers based on their country-specific experiences. Learning is valuable both between countries with similar contexts, systems and policy approaches as there can be a more immediate understanding of detailed implementation issues, as well as countries with notable differences in policy performance and approaches. Learning from what has not worked well is equally helpful as learning from best practice. This requires a setting with a very open and frank exchange of lessons learned from less successful policies. Peer Reviews on particular country practices are particularly useful at two points in time: when a solid practice has proven its validity and effectiveness so that participants can learn from it, or when a new policy has been (or is about to be) implemented so that the host country can use it to fine-tune its policy based on the experiences of other countries. Finding the appropriate format for MLP activities is crucial to ensuring mutual learning. Whilst larger thematic events are useful in highlighting policy challenges and disseminate good practices, it was stressed that the real value of mutual learning lies in small-scale meetings which allow for informal and more in-depth discussions and exchanges. This can range from high-level political meetings at ministerial level to practitioner-led activities. Direct policy transfer can rarely be achieved given the diverse policy context within which MS find themselves in. Nevertheless, mutual learning activities December 2016 4
often generate ideas and knowledge that can be used to tweak existing policies or support policy discussions. Learning from best practice examples that have proven to be effective can result in faster implementation in other countries, resulting in important cost and time savings. This was especially found to be the case in the area of skills anticipation and in relation to the methods and dissemination techniques used. Mutual learning is a continuous process, even best practice examples are not final outcomes and will need to be adapted and evolve. Concise summary reports aimed at providing key conclusions of individual MLP activities can help ensure that findings reach appropriate decision makers at national level, thus contributing to policy learning and change. On-going exchange between participants following the attendance of MLP activities encourages and sustains effective knowledge exchange based on the establishment of long-term partnerships. The dissemination of knowledge gained at MLP activities varies significantly, largely depending on the individual initiative taken by participants. Making greater use of existing activity outputs and existing dissemination channels by the participants, in particular the database of labour market practices, should continue to be encouraged. In order to avoid the risk that the learning stays with the individuals taking part in the MLP, mutual learning needs to be institutionally embedded. Effective dissemination of the key policy messages from the MLP activities by individual participants (e.g. through seminars or workshops) is particularly important in this regard. The pairing involving one government representative and one independent expert from the country has proved to be a good combination as it has enabled to bring two different dimensions to the meetings. However, it is important to think how to further involve experts in the dissemination of results to ensure the best possible outcomes. 3 Recommendations for the future The seminar discussions identified a number of recommendations which can contribute to increasing the impact of future mutual learning activities. The main points are summarised below: The MLP format and approach has proven to be a successful programme over the last few years. Whilst improvements can be made, the MLP derives its success from keeping its format and approach simple and accessible. Encouraging participants to improve the dissemination of the key policy messages derived from the mutual learning activities. This could be facilitated by developing a learning plan for the participants. There should be a continued focus on specific policy challenges faced by MS, whilst also, as far as possible, recognising the priorities set by CSRs and the European Semester. The development of a European Pillar of Social Rights provides new opportunities for the MLP to contribute and reflect on the changing work environment. Organising follow-up activities, especially after Peer Reviews, in order to evaluate individual learning of participants and capitalise on potential lessons learned/implementation challenges. It is, however, important to allow sufficient time to pass before such follow-up activities are taking place (e.g. 1-2 years). December 2016 5
The benefits of mutual learning can be increased by exploiting synergies between different policy domains as well as international organisations facing common policy challenges. This can, for example, mean building bridges between different EU policy areas and programmes (e.g. PES ML) by organising joint MLP activities to bundle expertise and resources of other relevant organisations (e.g. the OECD or the ILO) involved in carrying out similar MLP activities. December 2016 6