Plans for life-long learning mostly look at a macro-perspective. A good example is the graph above. It shows how many jobs will vanish and how many vacancies there are in the Netherlands. The suggestion is obvious that we have to re-school the people that lose their jobs to fill the vacancies.
Even if all unemployed were able to acquire the new skills, it may not work. People live in a specific location, and many of them are not able or willing to move. They can be tied to the location by elderly relatives, schools, churches, neighbourhoods, friends, employers of their partners, voluntary organisations, or simple inertia.
Let us take a concrete example. TATA steel facilities in the Netherlands at IJmuiden were already struggling because of overcapacity in the world steel market before the Corona crisis. The Government now has to decide on large subsidies to keep the company afloat. Should this money be invested to preserve an “old industry”, or should it be used to expand new environmentally friendly industries instead? Sooner or later, this switch will have to be made anyway.
There are about 11.000 people working for TATA in IJmuiden. The company was founded in 1918, when the Netherlands were cut off steel imports. To accommodate the large number of new workers, the company built its own houses. A strong connection of workers with the company and the region has been part of its DNA ever since. If the company were closed, people would not easily look for employment elsewhere.
Plans for lifelong learning and re-schooling have to take this geographical component into account. We need not only plans at the national level, but also at the regional level. We need a detailed analysis of a region’s endogen potential and of the potential new activities which would provide the best match. Though overall mobility has increased, it is still least for those, who may need new skills most. Plans for lifelong learning have to be location specific.
triplelll.nl 