Keywords

Introduction

Adult education and training have unquestionably been made the object of global governance thanks to the work of international organizations (Milana 2017), paralleling similar work in the education policy domain more broadly conceived.

Recently, the United Nations’ member states (MSs) adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in September 2015 to end all forms of poverty. Grouped into 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs) for global transformation, the Agenda shall ensure that poor-, rich-, and middle-income countries promote wealth and prosperity that are sustainable for all countries worldwide. Education features high in this Agenda as one of its goals (SDG4) and through its links to most of the remaining SDGs (UNESCO et al. 2015). But in the framework for action for implementing SDG4, reference to adult education or training is spare and at times problematic, as it tends to focus on learning’s outcomes (i.e., adults’ skills) rather than on inputs and processes to achieve them (Milana et al. 2017). So, in October 2017, the midterm review of the VI UNESCO’s International Conference on Adult Education (CONFINTEA) not only monitored progress with global agreements made in this policy domain (e.g., 2009 Belém Framework for Action, 2015 UNESCO Recommendation on Adult Learning and Education) but also debated at length what should be MSs priorities, when considering the specific contribution that adult education and training can make to global transformation.

Against this background, in Europe adult education and training policy developments are more strongly entangled with European rather than global governance. Obviously, both conceptions share an understanding that governing is not only a domain of states and governments but also depends on plural “formal and informal types of public interactions” (Pierre 2000, p. 3), “where no single actor can claim absolute dominance” (Burns et al. 2016, p. 18), hence the stress on the “interactions among structures” through “steering” or coordination (Pierre and Peters 2000). But European governance is multilevel in nature and tends toward Europeanization, an all-encompassing process of “domestic adaptation to European regional integration” (Graziano and Vink 2006, p. 7), through regulatory politics and a joint decision mode (Kohler-Koch and Rittberger 2006). As a result, since 2011 a Renewed European Agenda for Adult Learning (REAAL) is deliberately supporting policy coordination in the adult education domain within the European Union (EU) and its MSs. Accordingly, adult education emerges as a separate, yet complementary, policy domain to (adult) vocational education and training (VET).

This chapter presents a critical appraisal of REAAL through an examination of its development and working mode. In so doing, it teases out how adult education policy development in Europe is being governed by EU institutions, but with the contribution of a plurality of stakeholders from within and outside its MSs, and points at some of its implications.

The heuristic model guiding this critical appraisal draws on a vast literature that conceptualizes and showcases the analytical strength of governance mechanisms and policy instruments as key units of analysis to examine governance in public policy domains such as education, yet primarily on the work of Del Rio and Howlett (2013) on complex policy mixes and that of Lascoumes and Le Galès (2007) on policy instrumentation. Building on this work, REAAL is conceptualized as a policy mix or complex intergovernmental, multi-sectoral policy, which involves multiple policy goals. As such it is implemented through different governance mechanisms and instruments. The distinction between these conceptions lays in the fact that governance mechanisms are policy process aimed at reaching specific policy objective(s), which naturalizes these objectives and their effects, whereas policy instruments are the means used to reach policy outcome(s), which produce more or less stable frameworks that structure collective action. This heuristic model helps examining the different elements that concur to policy instrumentation and their relations, in the contest of European governance, and is used to analyze a set of data that consists of 60 policy documents and reports and other written information publicly available through the official websites of the EU and its institutions. Each data source was assigned an identification number, which appears in squared parenthesis when cited in this chapter. Further information has been obtained through consultation of the European Commission’s registry of committees and groups (http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/).

The chapter is structured in three sections. The first section features REAAL as a policy mix that performs three authoritative functions: legal, epistemic, and procedural. It claims that these functions have put into motion a complex process to govern the adult education policy domain in Europe. The following section examines the antecedents of REAAL to appreciate its historical development and distinguishes between a pre-foundation stage (1996–2005), a foundation stage (2006–2010), and a consolation stage (2011–to date). Then, the third section examines the policy instruments and governance mechanisms through which REAAL governs adult education policy development in Europe. This brings to light two distinctive qualities that differentiate European from global governance in the adult education domain: its regulatory politics and its wealth redistributive capacity. Moving toward the conclusion, a further section outlines some implications for the adult education and training sector and its market segments.

Featuring the Renewed European Agenda for Adult Learning

In 2011 the Council of the EU approved a resolution on REAAL [17]. Council Resolutions have no legal effects on EU MSs, as they are non-binding documents, but express political positions on a specific topic and set out future work within a particular policy domain that is not (or not entirely) of EU exclusive competency. Accordingly, they may have different scopes that span from inviting MSs or other EU institutions to take action in a particular area to coordinating MSs’ actions by setting objectives and proposing assessments and monitoring procedures. Although not binding, this section argues that REAAL constitutes a policy mix that performs three substantive authoritative functions (i.e., legal, epistemic, and procedural), which ease European governance in the adult education policy domain.

Previous to REAAL, the Directorate-General for Education and Culture (DG-EAC) of the European Commission (EC) had put forward an agenda for adult learning in one of its 2006 communications [10], and a corresponding action plan was proposed in 2007 to the Council of the EU, the European Parliament (EP), the European Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee of the Regions (CR) [11]. This led in January 2008 to its adoption by the EP through to a resolution on adult learning [12]. More on the historical development of REAAL will be discussed in the next section. Here it shall suffix that REAAL built on these previous normative steps, yet tailed the global financial crisis that had made its effects felt in Europe too, when MSs from the Eurozone became unable to repay or refinance their government debt. It was to contrast this and related social consequences that in 2010 the EC reconsidered the union’s growth strategy in Europe 2020 [16].

Within this scenario REAAL recognizes that

to face both the short and long-term consequences of the economic crisis, there is a need for adults regularly to enhance their personal and professional skills and competences… [but] adult learning is currently the weakest link in developing national lifelong-learning systems… [and] Implementing the Action Plan [for adult learning] has also highlighted the difficulty of adequately monitoring the adult-learning sector, due to a lack of sufficient statistical data and evaluation of policy measures. ([17], p. C372/2)

Accordingly, it sets new priorities in this policy domain that are “to be seen in the context of a longer term vision for adult learning which – in the period up to 2020 – will endeavour to raise the sector’s profile” ([17], p. C372/3). This vision stresses enhancing the possibilities for adults to engage in learning activities; developing new approaches based on learning outcomes and lifelong learning guidance systems; increasing awareness among employers of adult learning’s benefits for productivity; encouraging higher education institutions to embrace nontraditional students; promoting learning opportunities in support of seniors’ active, autonomous, and healthy aging; enhancing the involvement of civil society, social partners, and local authorities on the basis of shared responsibility; and promoting adult learning as a means to increase solidarity between age generations and cultures.

Short-term priorities for 2012–2014 invited MSs to better liaise ministries and other stakeholders; use lifelong learning tools agreed at EU level; use Grundtvig, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Structural Fund to co-finance activities; use the open method of coordination (OMC) to promote mutual learning; and designate a national coordinator to facilitate cooperation with other MSs and the EC in implementing the agenda.

Moreover, the EC was invited to ensure complementarity and coherence between policy initiatives; establish close liaison with the national coordinators designated by the MSs; enable the sharing of information through peer-learning activities and reviews, conferences, workshop, etc.; commission studies and reinforce the capacity of existing research structures; pursue and intensify collaboration with other international organizations and particularly the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to exploit the results of the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC), but also the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the Council of Europe; harness available EU funds to support the REAAL; and report on its implementation as part of the joint progress report of the strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training (ET2020).

Overall, REAAL performed three authoritative functions: legal, epistemic, and procedural.

Legally, although resolutions are non-binding documents like communications, according to EU Law the latter set out the EC’s own thinking on a particular matter, whereas the former are legal instruments that encourage all those addressed to act in particular ways and hence enable EU institutions to establish non-binding rules for MSs. So REAAL elevated political authority on adult education from the EC (accountable to appointed impartial and independent commissioners) to the Council of the EU (accountable to national governments) (Klatt 2014). A precedent had been established in 2008, when the previous action plan on adult learning had gained legitimacy through the EP’s Resolution on adult learning [12].

Epistemically, REAAL’s short-term priorities and longer-term vision legitimate an “instrumental epistemology” in the adult education policy domain that, as Bagnall and Hodge (2018) argue, has come to be favored in contrast to alternative, competing ones (i.e., disciplinary, constructivist, emancipatory) in the contemporary cultural context.

Such a cultural context focuses on, or places a high value on, action: on doing, on performing and on achieving (Ball 2000)… it focuses on outcomes – on what is done or achieved in and through that action and on its effectiveness in doing so (Bauman 1992). In its focus on achieving desired performance outcomes of extrinsic value, it places a high value on the efficiency with which resources are used in doing so, to the exclusion of other outcomes being attained (Rizvi and Lingard 2010). It therein promotes attention to the comparative competitive advantage of different types of engagements, processes, programmes, policies or organisational arrangements in achieving the desired outcomes (Marginson 1997)…The focus, then, is on technical, mechanistic and programmatic relationships between the desired economic outcomes and the costs of contributing human actions, engagements, policies and interventions (Bauman 1998). (Ibid., pp. 24–25)

Procedurally, REAAL sets the objectives of MSs’ action (e.g., liaise ministries and other stakeholders, co-finance adult learning activities, promote mutual learning) and of EC’s action (e.g., ensure complementarity and coherence between policy initiatives, establish close liaison with MSs, enable knowledge sharing, reinforce research capacity of existing structures, pursue and/or intensify collaboration with other international organizations). But it also prescribes the policy instruments through which these shall be achieved. Finally, it interlocks the short-term priorities in adult education and related policy instruments, to ET2020, a different policy mix.

In short, REAAL, through its legal, epistemic, and procedural functions, has put in motion a complex process of instrumentation in the adult education policy domain, which frames “adult learning” as the process leading to the acquisition of skills by adult citizens and, which, in turn, increases the pool of skills available in a country and, by extension, within the European region as a whole and undivided territory, in its racing for global competition.

Before understanding how REAAL naturalizes policy solutions that may produce changes in the adult education policy domain in MSs, however, it is worth appreciating its antecedents.

The Antecedents to the Renewed European Agenda for Adult Learning

It is possible to differentiate between two periods in the prehistory of REAAL to appreciate its formation as a policy mix on its own rights. The first, spanning from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s, is a pre-foundation stage in which the EU sets the ground for adult education to emerge as a policy domain distinct from education and training. The second period, covering just a few years from the mid-2000s to 2011, is the foundation stage in which adult education became a clearly defined policy domain.

The Pre-foundation Stage (1996–2005)

A landmark for the pre-foundation stage is in the establishment of 1996 as the European year of lifelong learning [1]. Thanks to the activities organized across Europe to celebrate it, the conclusions of the Presidency of the European Council held in March 2000 [2] called upon the MSs, the Council of the EU, and the EC, within their areas of competence, to move toward a European Framework defining the new basic skills to be provided through lifelong learning. Thus, in June 2000 the Presidency conclusions of the European Council [3] declared lifelong learning an essential policy area and invited the MSs, the Council of the EU, and the EC to work toward “coherent strategies and practical measures” (art. 32) to foster lifelong learning for all. No reference to the “adult learning’s sector,” as framed in REAAL, was present, with the only exclusion of making higher education more accessible to nontraditional students.

However, following up on both Councils’ mandate, in October 2000, the EC published its Staff Working Paper A Memorandum on Lifelong Learning [4] and launched a European-wide debate on a comprehensive strategy for implementing lifelong learning in Europe.

It is in the Memorandum that adult learning received its first mentioning and attention at European level, so did the need for developing indicators and benchmarks in this area. Particularly, the EC states that “[i]ntegrating learning more firmly into adult life is a very important part of putting lifelong learning into practice” [4, p. 7] and recalls that improving adult literacy rates and equitable access to basic and continuing education for adults were among the goals agreed by worldwide country representatives at the 2000 World Education Forum held in Dakar. Further, the EC mentions that MSs’ education and training systems (including “further/higher or adult/continuing”) are responsible for guaranteeing “that each and every individual acquires, updates, and sustains an agreed skills threshold” [4, p. 11]. Accordingly, among the open questions put forward to debate, a few addressed issues of concern for the “adult learning’s sector.” Finally, the EC notes that data on participation of adults in education and learning were being collected at European level through the Labour Force Survey (LFS), and data on the direct assessment of adults’ literacy and numeracy skills were also available through the International Adult Literacy Survey held between 1994 and 1998 and published by Statistics Canada and the OECD. But it argues for the need to complement systems-based with learner-centered data and suggests that “[t]o cover most of the issues… for which gaps exist… the best solution seems to be a dedicated adult learning survey” [4, p. 34]. This led to the ad hoc module on Lifelong Leaning of the 2003 Labour Force Survey that initiated the European process of classification and typologization of adult learning activities, obstacles/barriers, and outcomes. Also, annexed to the Memorandum were 12 “good practices” in lifelong learning (two per each of its six key messages), compiled in collaboration with other European agencies (i.e., CEDEFOP, EURYDICE, the European Training Foundation, ETF) and a study commissioned by the EC. Three of these made direct reference to adult education and learning.

At a 1-year distance, two EP’s members, Hans Karlsson (Party of European Socialists group, PES) and Roy Perry (European People’s Party group, PPE or EPP), put forward to the EC a parliamentary question on “lifelong learning for adults” and on benchmarking in employment and education,” respectively.

On February 16, Hans Karlsson [5] enquired on what measures would the EC take to enable employees with several years of work experience to appreciate lifelong learning at an advanced level (e.g., beyond ongoing, in-service training, for instance, through university studies).

On March 9, Roy Perry [6] asked the EC what steps had been taken to address each of the objectives agreed at the 2000 European Council and asked, where appropriate, what benchmarks had been established.

On behalf of the EC, Mrs. Diamantopoulou (the then European Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities) replied on April 5 to Hans Karlsson:

Lifelong learning is now seen as a horizontal objective of the Employment Strategy… The strategies should include the development of tertiary systems and further education and training for adults to improve their employability, adaptability and skills as well as their participation in the knowledge-based society… Moreover… the Commission expects to come up with some proposals at European level in its Action Plan in the autumn of this year based on the conclusions of the consultation process for the memorandum on lifelong learning. [5, pp. C 235 E/204–205]

She further clarifies, in her answer to Roy Perry on June 6, that

The Employment Guidelines for 2001… have incorporated these objectives [i.e., the objectives agreed in Lisbon] in a detailed way, setting also specific European or national targets as appropriate.

The European Social Fund is the Community’s main financial for supporting the European Employment Strategy and hence, also, these four objectives. [5, p. C 340 E/78]

A number of additional complementary initiatives undertaken a European level were also mentioned by Mrs. Diamantopoulou, among which the request to the European Council and the EC to prepare a detailed work program on the follow-up of the objectives of education and training systems to be presented in the spring 2002 European Council, where “[i]ndicators and benchmarks will be key elements,” as well as the then ongoing consultation of the Memorandum, the results of which were to “be used by the Commission for drafting an action plan in the second half of 2001 including the development of indicators and benchmarking” [5, pp. C 340 E/78–79].

In the meantime, the Memorandum had been forwarded to the EP and referred by the Parliament to the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport as the one responsible and to the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs for an opinion. At a 1-year distance, the Parliament, in its 2001 Resolution on the Memorandum, adopted the motion to support it [7].

In fact, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs in its opinion (adopted in July 2001) had highlighted the raising levels of investment in human resources as the most important message of the Memorandum and noted that “[e]xisting educational systems are dominated by basic State education for young people. An emphasis on lifelong learning would shift the centre of gravity toward adult education and further education” [7, p. 19]. Moreover, it pointed at three distinctive strategies embedded in the Lisbon Agenda: the elite strategy (i.e., develop new skills in knowledge intensive sectors), the compensation strategy (i.e., combat social exclusion with priority to basic education for marginal groups), and the comprehensive strategy (i.e., set full employment as a priority goal). Albeit the committee recognized that MSs may combine or opt for either of such strategies, it thought important that they could be assessed and compared.

By recalling the coordination of MSs’ employment policies through the European Employment Strategy and the more recent coordination process under the Education and Training 2010 (ET2010) work program, the committee affirmed that all this “should give the European Union a special role in overall educational planning and a specific responsibility for coordination on the basis of the open coordination procedure” [7, p. 20]. Hence a number of general principles were presented to the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media, and Sport, for incorporation in its motion for Parliament’s resolution. All five principles listed under the motion’s title Adult Education Systems are those proposed by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs.

It is following the backing of the EP that in November 2001 the EC issued its Communication Making a European Area of Lifelong Learning a Reality [8], which then led to the Resolution on lifelong learning by the Council of the EU in June 2002 [9]. In this Resolution the Council reaffirms the need for convergence between the 2001 Communication and the ET2010 work program “in order to achieve a comprehensive and coherent strategy for education and training” [9, p. C163/2]. MSs are thus invited “to develop and implement comprehensive and coherent strategies… involving… in particular the social partners, civil society, local and regional authorities” [9, p. C163/2] and to mobilize resources in support of such strategy in conjunction with the European Employment Strategy.

In extreme synthesis, in the pre-foundation stage, the adult education dimension of lifelong learning is teased out in dialogue between EU institutions, which bolsters the ties between European education and training and employment policies. This created the ground for adult and further education to be seen as an intergovernmental and multi-sectoral policy domain with multiple goals. Therefrom, the concern of EU institutions for existing statistical data gaps at the microlevel (learner-centered), and stronger knowledge exchanges and collaboration across MSs, and with other international organizations with an interest in adult and further education.

The Foundation Stage (2006–2010)

It is at foundation stage, however, that a policy mix governing adult education within the EU starts to take its current shape, upon initiative of the EC.

In its 2006 Communication Adult Learning: it is never too late to learn [10], the EU provides the policy underpinning for implementing a dedicated action, under the Lifelong Learning Programme 2007–2013, to adult education (i.e., Grundtvig), and proposes five key messages (i.e., to remove barriers to participation, to increase the quality and efficiency of the sector, to speed up the process of validation and recognition, to ensure sufficient investment, and to monitor the sector) to advance adult learning in Europe.

Upon informal consultation with “national sounding boards” (i.e., policy-makers, social partners, and NGOs from 27 MSs, the 3 EEA countries, and Turkey) and with the support of individual experts, the social partners, and international bodies (e.g., UNESCO), the EC proposes various actions to address the five key messages in its 2007 Action Plan on Adult learning: It is never a good time to learn [11], addressed to the European Council, the EP, the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), and the CR. In January 2008 the EP endorses the action plan [12] in one of its resolutions, yet noting the need for comparable statistical data to develop, review, and evaluate policies in this domain and support the European Adult Education Survey. Moreover, it calls on the MSs to make a more active use of the Structural Funds, the European Social Fund (ESF) particularly, in support of adult learning, and the EC to ensure that all MSs take necessary legal and financial steps to offer and provide access to lifelong learning for all. All of this impinges on coordination, cooperation, efficiency, and transparency between legislative measures and the institutional frameworks, networks, and partnerships of bodies or associations involved in adult learning, using local, regional, national, and European (public or private) financial resources.

In March also the EESC endorses the action plan “wholeheartedly” but subject to the comments set out in its opinion [13], which warns against any inefficient overlap with other EU objectives, projects, and programs, and calls for better attention to vulnerable groups (e.g., disabled people, migrants). Accordingly, also the Council of the EU, in its conclusions on adult learning of 22 May 2008 [14], endorses the action plan, sets common priorities in the “adult-learning sector,” and invites all MSs to implement the measures for 2008–2010 outlined in its Annex.

Measures for the EC to implement the action plan span from analysis of national reforms in education and training, national qualification, and credit transfer systems, and the impact of national reforms in terms of funding dedicated to different age groups, to support professional development in the adult learning sector, and the quality of adult learning providers, to share good practices among, to support visibility of adult learning in nation lifelong learning strategies and awareness raising among potential learners. Attention is also paid to establishing European comparable core data needed to facilitate monitoring.

Measures for MSs to implement the action plan include exchange good practices and mutual learning, develop multi-stakeholders’ projects in adult learning, remove barriers and facilitate access to learning opportunities, reach out especially to early school leavers and low-skilled adults, motivate employers and employees toward adult learning, make effective and efficient use of EU funds in support of adult learning opportunities, cooperate more closely with CEDEFOP and the UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning, and “make full use of the research capacities of other international institutions” [14, p. C 140/13].

The EC is tasked by the Council of the EU to support MSs in further promoting access to adult learning opportunities, stressing results-oriented learning outcomes. More importantly, however, is to ensure complementarity and coherence between measures relating to adults across three policy subdomains: adult education (i.e., action plan), higher education (i.e., Bologna process), and vocational education and training (i.e., Copenhagen processes). To this aim, the EC is also tasked to pursue and/or intensify interinstitutional cooperation with other international organizations, and with nongovernmental organizations, and establish links with international education initiatives and agendas (e.g., Education for All, the Millennium Development Goals).

In the autumn 2008, the CR stresses that “the actions proposed in the Action Plan should also be carried out at local and regional level where appropriate…[and] that local and regional providers and stakeholders are involved as partners at all stages, in particular, at policy development, governance structures and delivery systems” [15, p. C 257/70].

In short, over a 3-year period (2006–2008), REAAL took full shape as a policy mix, with own mechanisms, instruments, and tools (see next section). On these precedents, the outbreak of the global financial crisis also impinged on the tuning of REAAL. Specifically, two elements of Europe 2020 [16], though indirectly, bear higher significance for the adult education policy domain: a European benchmark on tertiary education for young adults (i.e., at least 40% of the younger generation should have a tertiary degree) and a flagship initiative linking skills to better job prospects (i.e., an agenda for new skills and jobs).

Since 2011 onward, REAAL has moved into a third stage of development that has seen the consolidation of adult education as a clearly defined policy domain, which bears strong links with other domains within the EU (e.g., covering education and training, employment, and macroeconomic policies), but with its own policy instrumentation that is examined in the next section.

The Modus Operandi of the Renewed European Agenda on Adult Learning

A close examination of the modus operandi of REAAL points at standard setting, capacity building, and financial redistribution, as its core governance mechanisms (see Table 1), operating under the principles of the OMC.

Table 1 Governance mechanisms at play to implement the renewed European Agenda on Adult Learning
Full size table

But several policy instruments contribute to the working of these mechanisms. Those surfacing in the analysis include coordinated working groups/networks, mutual- and peer-learning arrangements, data generation, benchmarks, and funding schemes (see Table 2).

Table 2 Policy instruments used to implement the renewed European Agenda on Adult Learning
Full size table

In the proceedings each instrument is explored in details, also to pinpoint at how it contributes to the working of the abovementioned mechanisms.

Coordinated Working Groups/Networks

Since foundation stage to date (2018), five working groups/networks have been established in the adult education policy domain, under the coordination of the EC: four temporary Commission Expert Groups (CEGs) and one permanent Other Similar Entity (OSE) (http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/). CEGs are consultative bodies set up by the EC or its departments when external specialist advice is needed “for sound policy-making.” OSEs have a similar function but, though administered and financed by the EC, are set up by the EU’s legislator. Both CEGs and OSEs advice the EC but their inputs are not binding. Appointed members may include individuals in their personal capacity (A); individuals representing a common interest/policy orientation (B); organizations (C); local, regional, or national MSs’ authorities (D); or other public entities (E). Unless there are overriding priorities or emergency conditions, all appointed members are selected through public calls for applications, with the exception of public authorities (i.e., D and E). Selected features of the working groups/networks under consideration here are presented in Table 3.

Table 3 Coordinated working groups/networks in the adult education policy domain
Full size table

All working groups/networks were tasked to assist the EC with the implementation of existing EU legislation, programs, and policies and to coordinate with MSs, through views’ exchange. Only WGPAL, active at foundation stage, was tasked also to assist in the preparation of legislative proposals and policy initiatives.

At consolidation stage, however, changes in EU education governance impinged on the adult education domain. An internal restructuring of the EC moved its responsibility from DG-EAC to the Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion (DG-EMPL) since 2013, so the coordination of working groups/networks in this domain shifted accordingly.

Moreover, due to the 2009 agreement ET2020 and its tuning to Europe 2020 , the work of these groups/networks slowly altered too, as to better fit the principles of the OMC. Made explicit in the mission statement of WGAL, such adaptation process is also evidenced in its stress on mutual learning among MSs, assistance to MSs in coping with country-specific “recommendations” by the EU institutions, and “concrete and useable outputs” as a result of the group’s activity.

Operating under a looser interpretation of the OMC’s principles, both TWGQA and TWGFAL had a thematic focus (quality vs. finance) and higher interest in research gaps. TWGQA explored synergies to strengthen the policy links between EU policy development on quality in vocational education and training, higher education, and adult learning through three subgroups on indicators, accreditation/governance, and staff competences [19]. In the meantime, TWGFAL explored existing good practices to produce policy recommendations to assist MSs in improving the efficiency and coherence of adult learning financing. Two subgroups focused, respectively, on funding adult learning for re-skilling and up-skilling to support innovation and growth and funding adult learning for social inclusion and active citizenship. Both working groups appointed also individuals in their personal capacity.

By contrast, WGAL, in line with its tighter governance function, did not appoint any individual in his/her personal capacity and instead increased representation of other public entities and particularly of candidate countries (now including Albania, Montenegro, Serbia, and Turkey). Further, among EU agencies, it replaced Eurydice, a network of intuitions that facilitate sharing of information on national education systems, with the European Training Foundation (ETF), an agency that supports education, training, and labor market reforms in transition and developing countries.

Yet, silenced members of all working groups/networks are consultancy firms that, having signed framework contracts with the EC, provide their services as facilitators and rapporteurs for the groups/networks’ activities.

Mutual- and Peer-Learning Arrangements

Mutual- and peer-learning arrangements can take many forms and may involve representatives of different elite groups. Participation may be restricted to the members of a group (e.g., one of those mentioned above) or open to nonmembers too.

At foundation stage a number of encounters, framed as “peer-learning activities,” involved members of a given group to share country-relevant knowledge on practices and experiences in a specific area or to pursue a given policy objective, like those that focused on each of the priority areas of the Adult Learning Agenda, organized by WGPAL in Dublin (January 2008), Slovakia (March 2009), London (April 2009), Prague (June 2009), and Oslo (March 2010) [25].

In addition, several regional meetings were organized by WGPAL in Germany (October 2009), Norway (October 2009), Spain (October 2009), and Slovenia (November 2009) clustering, respectively, Western European countries, Nordic and Baltic countries, Southern European countries, and Central and Eastern European countries. Such events were opened to a variety of stakeholders in adult learning “to engage in discussions, knowledge-transfer and other exchanges about topics and developments of importance to participating countries in the context of the Action Plan” [25, p. 21].

At both foundation and consolidation stages, WGPAL and WGAL also made use of workshops with country experts to discuss in-depth topics such as improving quality in adult learning, financing adult learning, adult learning in higher education, basic skills (Brussels, June 2010), effective policies for increasing the participation of adults in basic skills provision (Stuttgart, October 2014), or national and regional policies aimed at increasing the use of information and communication technologies and open educational resources in adult learning (Oslo, March 2015) [25, 33, 35].

Moreover, at consolation stage, thematic seminars hosted by national governments provided an opportunity for collective syntheses of what learned from in-depth country or regional discussions and case studies on agreed topics, as in the case of the policy coherence seminar organized by WGAL (Brussels, 2015) [34].

Finally, mutual and peer learning also occurred at conferences sponsored by the EC either in isolation (e.g., Adult Skills Conference: Empowering People, 6–7 December 2016 [58]) or in collaboration with other international organizations (e.g., Equipping adults for the twenty-first Century: Joining Forces for Action on Skills and Competences, 9–10 December 2013, with the UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning [21]). Through plenary sessions and workshops, these conferences provided several opportunities for policy implementers, professionals, and, to a lower extent, academics to share information about national and regional policies and practices in the adult education domain and for EC’s staff to inform about EU’s policy development and monitor their implementation at national and regional levels.

Data Generation

A policy instrument that equally supports European governance in the adult education domain is data generation, which comprises the collection of qualitative and/or quantitative data, more or less systematic procedures from collecting it from various sources and for organizing and/or storing it.

An approach to data generation used at consolidation stage is “literature reviews,” which implies a systematic search of the literature available in a selected area, with the scope of describing, summarizing, and possibly evaluating the facts and data it makes available and their analyses. Similar undertakings can be stand-alone activities or part of wider studies and reports. When stand-alone activities tasked by the EC to individuals or organizations, their results set the ground for further policy debate and hence frame further work in such area. An example of this is the literature review, Improving basic skills in adulthood: Participation and Motivation, prepared for WGAL in 2015 [31]. It offers an overview of key academic research investigating the participation of adults in activities aimed at raising their basic skills. The review comments on theoretical issues (e.g., life course, identity, and different forms of motivation) as well as empirical research evidence and highlights that “Low-income and poorly educated adults tend to be the least likely to engage in education and training, in part because of poor experiences in compulsory school, but also because employers are often reluctant to provide training for low-skilled staff” [31, p. 13]. At the same time, it recognizes that “the body of research literature in the field of adult literacy and basic skills education refers strongly to examples from the UK, the United States and Canada. Research (available in English) based on the situation in other countries is much more scarce” [31, p. 16].

But less systematic, more concise literature reviews are also done a posteriori, to build the knowledge bases that underpin data generated through other methods, for instance, in a wider study or report. In this case, the literature is cherry-picked for the benefit of the overall study or report. An exemplification is found in An in-depth analysis of adult learning policies and their effectiveness in Europe [30], a report published in 2015 (see later on).

But the most common approach to data generation adopted by the EC is “case study,” usually covering a country or region. Although the term is open to various definitions and interpretations, here it refers to an account that provides detailed information and report on facts, about something (e.g., a government policy, a policy implementation strategy, an initiative in the adult education policy domain), and possibly how it developed over time. Such definition comprises written accounts that derive from somewhat in-depth investigations and hence combine quantitative and qualitative data but may not necessarily involve a systematic mode of enquiry. Further, cases studies can follow quite different production procedures, and, as a result of this, data hereby collected can be organized in different ways. Their production can be tasked by the EC to selected members of working groups/networks, for instance, in preparation of mutual- and peer-learning arrangements [34], or commissioned to others (individuals or organizations), through calls for tenders or proposals. Both types of case studies, however, often tend to be reduced to written account of “best” or “good” practices identified (hence judged as such) a priori. For instance, the abovementioned report, An in-depth analysis of adult learning policies [30], includes ten case studies of countries that had been performing well over time (or had recently improved) in making their adult learning policies effective.

Written accounts of “best” or “good practices” are another way of generating data to govern the adult education domain. Albeit a best practice refers to “a working method or set of working methods that is officially accepted as being the best to use in a particular business or industry...” (according to the Cambridge dictionary), in the global education discourse, it often addresses those initiatives that limit some kind of deficit (e.g., lack of basic skills) or improve the conditions of someone (e.g., adult learner) or something (e.g., education and learning systems). In other words, best practices model desirable goal (s) that people or organizations can work toward. Similarly, a good practice is often used interchangeably, but to point more broadly at positive actions or application of general principles from which other people or organizations may learn. Accordingly, collections or libraries of good practices in the adult education domain may be produced before, during, or after mutual- and peer-learning arrangements (see above) or to generate data and capitalize from EU-funded activities and projects. Such was the case with the ERASMUS+: Good practices in the implementation of the European Agenda for Adult Learning 2012–2016 [48], a compilation developed by NCAAL’s members while implementing the European Agenda for Adult Learning, whereby good practices refer to “a number of successful activities that had a substantial impact in their countries and that is of interest to share with anybody interested in the field of adult learning” [48, p. 1]. These “good practices” cover meetings, conferences and bilateral exchanges, awareness raising activities, preparatory work leading to reforms of adult learning policies, and concrete measures to improve adults’ basic skills in just a small cluster of Western European countries (3), Nordic and Baltic countries (2), Southern European countries (2), and Central and Eastern European countries (2), yet with the United Kingdom and Slovenia overtly represented (with three good practices per country, in contrast to one per each of the other countries). Each good practice is described through a short overview of the activity carried out, its target, the reasons for success, and its impact, within approx. 400–500 words of length.

Also, “state-of-the-art reports” can at times generate data, like the State of the Art Report on the Implementation of the European Agenda for Adult Learning, published in 2014 by the European Association for the Education of Adults (EAEA) on behalf of the RENEWAL consortium [57], with a preliminary analysis of the main challenges, developments, and issues regarding the implementation of the Agenda in Southern and Central Eastern Europe. Likewise other instruments for data generation mentioned thus far, the depth, breath, and soundness of data gathered through state-of-the-art reports, vary, and so does the degree to which they apply a systematic method for data gathering. However, with a few exceptions, they organize and store fact and information in fiches, catalogues, and libraries that are often available to a larger public through the EC’s websites, including the European Platform on Adult Learning in Europe (EPALE).

Last but not least, data generation also includes the design and management of, and the financial support to, quantitative studies like the Labour Force Survey and the European Adult Education Survey on adults’ participation in education and training, managed by EUROSTAT (carried out in 2007, 2011, and 2016), and PIAAC, managed by the OECD (carried out in three rounds 2008–2013, 2012–2016, and 2016–2019).

Benchmarks

Benchmarks are accepted standards for evaluating (by comparison) countries’ performance in a policy domain, which results from benchmarking, or the process of finding “good practices” (based on both quantitative and qualitative data) on which basis standards can be identified and agreed upon at EU levels. But benchmarking can be deliberate and systematic (i.e., explicit) or a by-product of data generation (i.e., implicit) (Jackson 2001). In either case, it can focus on inputs, processes, or outcomes (or any combination of these) either vertically (e.g., improving the performance within an organization from bottom line to top management) or horizontally (e.g., improving different manifestations of the same inputs, processes or outcomes, or their combinations, across organizations (Jackson 2001)). Along this line of thinking, it is possible to distinguish between explicit and implicit benchmarks (as the result of benchmarking).

Since foundation stage, even if various explicit benchmarks, agreed under ET2020 (2009) and reaffirmed in Europe 2020 (2010), may relate to the adult education policy domain, only one is purposely targeting the adult population: by 2020, an average of at least 15% of adults should participate in lifelong learning. Hence it is such percentage to explicitly set the average European standard in this policy domain and used to assess MSs’ performance, as they advance with the implementation of REAAL. But, among implicit benchmarks supported by the EU is also an average increase at European level of the percentage of adults with (literacy and numeracy) skills proficiency Level 3 or higher. Construed by Statistics Canada and the OECD (2005, p. 31) as “the level considered by experts as a suitable minimum level for coping with the increasing demands of the emerging knowledge society and information economy,” Level 3 has endured in PIAAC and made an implicit horizontal benchmark for evaluating OECD’s member and nonmember states’ performances (Hamilton et al. 2015), as well as EU MSs, in terms of their policy outputs.

Improved networking, collaboration, and mutual and peer learning among MSs, the EU, and other international organizations can be seen as the products of benchmarking activity (cf. Jackson 2001). But by flipping the picture upside down, they are as well the fertilizers for benchmarks to be negotiated and agreed among heads of states and governments, so that MSs’ performances in the adult education policy domain can be measured, compared, and judged.

Funding Schemes

One more policy instrument assists all the others reviewed thus far, by providing the financial resources needed for the implementation of REAAL: funding schemes. These are plans or arrangements designed by the EU institutions to encourage governments, organizations, and people to attain particular objectives as they provide the money to finance an activity, a program, or a project entirely or in part. Three such schemes support REAAL in various ways: the ESF, the Europe Programme for Employment and Social Innovation (EaSI), and Erasmus+.

Specifically, set up in 1957 the ESF is the main funding scheme to support achievement of the Europe 2020’s priorities, including in the fields of education and lifelong learning. Each MS agrees with the EC “Operational Programmes” covering an entire MS and/or one of its regions, which set the priorities for ESF’s spending over a 7-year period (currently covering 2014–2020). ESF funding is always co-financed by public or private funding, which varies between 50% and 85% of the total project costs, depending on the relative wealth of MS or region. MS’s participation to PIAAC, for instance, was supported through the ESF.

EaSI is a funding scheme that supports employment and social protection for combating social exclusion and poverty and improving working conditions. Over the period 2014–2020, it has earmarked a total of 1.000.000 euros of EU budget in support of Europe 2020’s priorities that, managed by the EC, co-finance projects led by public entities in MSs and candidate countries, Iceland and Norway, are responsible for national or regional up-skilling policies and actions. In 2017, for instance, a call for proposals was dedicated to Awareness-raising activities on Upskilling Pathways: New Opportunities for Adults [56].

Finally, Erasmus+ is an additional funding scheme that also supports the Europe 2020’s priorities, but only in the fields of education, training, youth, and sport. It is open to both organizations and people, depending on the country in which they are based (including also selected non-EU countries). A co-financing by public or private organizations is foreseen, but its amount varies depending on the line of financing. Its management can be centralized (when funds are managed by the EC’s Education, Audiovisual and Cultural Executive Agency, EACEA) or decentralized (when funds are managed by national agencies located in each country eligible under Erasmus plus). Activities by NCAAL’s members to implement REAAL in their countries have been partially financed through the Erasmus+, under the Key 3 Action: Support for policy reforms.

Summing up, the connections between the policy instruments reviewed thus far (Table 2) and the governance mechanisms (Table 1) through which REAAL governs adult education policy development in Europe are presented in Table 4.

Table 4 Connections between policy instruments and governance mechanisms in the implementation of the renewed European Agenda on Adult Learning
Full size table

One of the mechanisms through which REAAL is enacted is standard setting, a process that involves normative actions toward the establishment of a single, European model in the area of adult education and learning. Implicit and explicit European benchmarks (or accepted standards), however, result from complex negotiations and consensus building among heads of states and governments. Negotiations and consensus building are facilitated by data generation activities and mutual- and peer-learning arrangements, as well as by working groups/networks dedicated to adult education and learning coordinated by the EC, and the availability of EU financial resources that are redistributed (via funding schemes) to public entities, organizations, and people within and outside MSs.

But, standard setting through negotiation and consensus building requires a parallel mechanism to promote “good” or “best” practices that can help orient the practical implementation of policy solution in the area of adult education and learning: capacity building. This is a process that involves EU institutions, national governments, and other stakeholders in mutual and peer learning thanks to (though not exclusively) the management of, and participation in, coordinated working groups/networks. However, portions of the EU budget support capacity building by making funding available through plans and arrangements to attain particular policy reforms and their local implementation.

The fact that EU’s wealth can be shared out between MSs (via funding schemes), as a deliberate effect of joint decisions that include conditionality, constitutes a strategic opportunity for REAAL’s to perform its legal, epistemic, and procedural functions, and for a plurality of stakeholders from within and outside EU MSs to support European reforms and activities in the area of adult education and learning. By the same token, there are also serious constrains in Europe for supporting reforms and activities in adult education and learning that move always from, or even contrast conformity to, expected MSs’ performances which cannot be measured, compared, and judged toward agreed (explicit as well as implicit) standards.

Some Implications for the Adult Education and Training Sector

At this point it is worth interrogating the implications of the REAAL and its deliberate support to policy coordination within the EU and its MSs, for the structuration and/or regulation of the adult learning and training sector, as this has repercussions for several of its market segments.

In fact, from a market perspective, the adult education and training sector is seen as a system in which different types of providers can supply education and training, for which adults, or their employers, are willing to pay. Clearly, this concept derives from microeconomic theories where a “market” refers to the exchange of good or services that happens through the direct or mediated contact between buyers and sellers. Paralleling this understanding of the adult education and training market addresses the interplay between supply and demand for education and training activities. Yet different logics may substantiate policy (and EU policy) interventions on such market. One, building on behavioral economics, assumes that modeling human behavior can trigger adults’ demand for education and training, bringing about a “natural” market adjustment. A different logic, however, maintains that institutional formations as much as social structures are important determinants for the structuration of adult education and training markets. Such logic appreciates an adult education and training sector in which different market segments coexists (cf. Hefler & Markowitsch 2013). Accordingly, there is no adult education and training market (singular) but rather a plurality of adult education and training markets that may be affected by EU education policy, including in the adult education domain.

Now, the REAAL’s basic assumption (as mentioned at p. 4) is that adult learning represents the “weakest” link for lifelong learning systems to flourish in MSs. But this may be seen as an almost natural consequence of the fact that those education and training activities that stimulate adults to learn, contrary to other type of educational provisions (e.g., primary education), can take a plurality of forms. For instance, Hefler and Markowitsch (2013) distinguish at least eight market segments in the adult education and training sector: (1) General Education (Schools for Adults/Evening Schools); (2) Vocational Education for Adults; (3) Active Labour Market Policies; (4) Corporate Training; (5) Management Training, Human Resource Development, and Organization Development; (6) Professional Education (offered by professional bodies; (7) (Liberal) Adult Education; and (8) Higher Education for adult students, including postgraduate programs. In each market segment, the supply-demand interplay is dependent on a number of factors on which policy can intervene (e.g., existing regulations, available resources, a provider’s relative positioning in relation to its competitors).

Yet, when REAAL refers to “adult learning” is de facto addressing the adult education and training sector as a whole. But, as such, within MSs, public power authority on adult learning is more often than not fragmented between ministries and across governmental levels (from central to local). Hence governance of the adult education and training sector involves collaboration across public and private sectors and civil society. Consequent to this, MSs statistical evidence on the number of providers and participation rates is difficult to gather, so is detailed information on the type, characteristics, and quality of the provision and on its financing. Cross-country comparisons turn even more challenging, when one takes into consideration the different categorizations found in the academic and policy-oriented literature of educational provisions and the various classifications used in survey questionnaires (Boeren et al. 2017). So, for instance, the Adult Education Survey, a recurrent household survey of adults aged 25–64, run by the statistical office of the European Union (EUROSTAT) every 5 years (2007, 2011, 2016), covers participation in formal and nonformal education and training (http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/microdata/adult-education-survey). Formal education and training “consists mostly of initial education” (as classified in ISCED 2011), which includes vocational education, special needs education, and some parts of adult education that are part of the formal education system. Nonformal education and training cover courses, workshops or seminars, guided on-the-the-job (planned periods of education, instruction, or training directly at the workplace, organized by the employer with the aid of an instructor), and lessons. However, such categorizations capture information on the demand rather than on the supply side, at the same time as they classify types of provision that is supplied, or privileged, by certain market segments, not others.

Finally, a key question is whether European governance, with its distinctive qualities (i.e., regulatory politics and wealth redistributive capacity), is promoting an elite strategy, a compensation strategy, or a comprehensive strategy (cf. p. 8) in the adult education domain. Answering this question requires in-depth analysis of the development of the adult education and training sector and its market segments within and across MSs. However, it is reasonable to assume that different market segments may be differently responsive to either strategy. At best, within a MS, different market segments may privilege and specialize to differential strategic objectives, and thus the development of new skills in knowledge intensive sectors may progress hand in hand with full employment and social inclusion of the adult population. At worst, however, differential responses may produce further fragmentation in the adult education and training sector, which in turn may lead to higher competition within and between market segments, for instance, for accessing financial resources and/or attracting adults-as-customers.

Conclusion

Departing from the claim that adult education and training policy developments in Europe are more strongly entangled with European rather than global governance in this policy domain, this chapter presented a critical appraisal of REAAL. By featuring its main characteristics, and in light of its historical stages of development, it elucidated how, as a policy mix, REAAL performs three substantive authoritative functions (i.e., legal, epistemic, and procedural), which ease European governance in the adult education policy domain. Moreover, through a closer examination of REAAL’s mode of working, this chapter identified the governance mechanisms (i.e., standard setting, capacity building, and financial redistribution) and policy instruments (i.e., coordinated working groups/networks, mutual- and peer-learning arrangements, data generation, benchmarks, and funding schemes) that concur to its enactment. In doing so it also highlighted two distinctive qualities that differentiate European from global governance in the adult education domain: its regulatory politics and its wealth redistributive capacity.

Further, this chapter argued that adult education emerged as a separate, yet complementary, policy domain to (adult) vocational education and training (VET) under EU policy coordination. On the one hand, this is appreciative of the distinctive characteristics that learning provision embeds, depending on its primary orientation toward different spheres of adults’ further development (personal, social, and professional). This is in turn reflected in the differentiated market segments that compose the adult learning and training sector. On the other hand, within each market segments, the supply-demand interplay is dependent on a number of factors that fluctuate, also due to policy intervention. Hence, the fluctuating effects that differentiation as well as coordination in European policy promotes in adult learning and training markets (plural), at European, national, and local levels, are an aspect that merits further research attention.