The Survival of Apprenticeship Training: A British, American, Australian Comparison
| Date | 01 December 1994 |
| Published date | 01 December 1994 |
| Author | Howard Gospel |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8543.1994.tb01048.x |
British
Journal
of
Industrial Relations
32:4
Dec
1994 0007-1080
$3.00
The Survival
of
Apprenticeship
Training: A British, American,
Australian Comparison
Howard
Gospel
Abstract
This
paper examines the development
of
apprenticeship training
in
three
English-speaking countries where apprenticeship has fared very differently. It
declined at an early date in the USA in most sectors
of
the economy; it survived
intact
in
Britain well into the post-Second World War period; and it has
survived relatively strongly
in
Australia
up
to the present day. The reasons for
decline and survival are examined and an explanation
is
proferred in terms
of
the interaction between the institutional supports and the ability and need felt
by employers to sustain the system.
1.
Introduction
This article examines the training
of
blue-collar workers in three English-
speaking countries, chosen because of the historical similarities in the
origins of their training systems. It focuses on apprenticeship training
because historically this was the main formal method
of
manual worker skill
formation in each country. However, in these three countries, apprentice-
ship has fared very differently. It declined at an early date in the USA in
most sectors
of
the economy; it survived intact in Britain well into the post-
Second World War period; and it has survived relatively strongly in
Australia up to the present day, though it is now under pressure in some
industries. The experience of these countries is in contrast to the German-
speaking countries, where apprentice systems have grown in coverage and
remain strong to the present date.
The following section provides some definitions and a framework
of
analysis. Three sections then briefly trace the development
of
apprentice-
ship training in each country.
A
further section seeks to explain the course
of
apprenticeship training and to investigate what has taken or is likely to take
its place in each
of
the countries. In the final section, implications are
considered and conclusions are drawn.
Howard Gospel is at Pembroke College, Oxford, and the Centre for Economic Performance,
London School
of
Economics.
506
British Journal
of
Industrial Relations
2.
Training arrangements
Apprenticeship is here defined as a method
of
employment and on-the-job
training which involves a set
of
reciprocal rights and duties between an
employer and a trainee: the employer agrees to teach (or cause to be taught)
a range
of
skills, usually
of
a broad, occupational nature; in return, the
apprentice agrees to work for an extended period
of
time at a training wage
which is relatively low compared with the skilled worker rate, but which
normally rises on an annual basis until the term
of
the apprenticeship is
completed. There is usually a contract between the employer and the
apprentice which may be in the form
of
a legal indenture, a formal
agreement or an informal understanding.
For the purposes
of
analysis, we would distinguish a number
of
different
methods whereby training may be organized. In the first place, training can
be co-ordinated by market mechanisms. In other words, market forces
of
supply and demand may determine training decisions, such as the decision to
become a trainee or to take on a trainee. In a system that is co-ordinated by
market mechanisms there will be mobility
of
workers, both trainees and
trained, within the external labour market. Second, training can be co-
ordinated within the firm
or
organization by administrative mechanisms. In
other words, the amount and type
of
training are determined according to
administrative criteria and needs within the internal labour market
of
the
firm. External price signals are less important, and the expectation is that
there will be less external mobility. Third, training can be co-ordinated and
largely funded by the state and provided within schools and educational
institutions. In this case training is likely to be
of
a more general nature and
usually needs to be supplemented by work-based experience.
This simple threefold typology may be further elaborated and developed.
There are other, less common, methods
of
training which might be included,
e.g. patrimonial training within the family, such as is to be found in many
small businesses; and inter-firm arrangements, where a group
of
firms
combine together to provide training.
There are also further distinctions that may be made within each
of
our
three main categories. Thus, there are different types
of
market arrange-
ments. Some markets for skill formation may be largely unorganized and
competitive in the classical free market sense; others may be more organized
and regulated. This latter category includes what Kerr (1954) described as
guild or craft markets, where institutions, such as trade unions and
employers’ associations, regulate market forces. The traditional apprentice-
ship clearly falls within this category.
Firms may also differ in that some, to use Osterman’s distinction, may
have ‘industrial’ internal labour markets, with highly defined jobs and
formal rules such as seniority governing the status
of
employees and access
to training; while others may have ‘salaried’ internal labour markets, with
more flexible jobs and less rule-bound conditions (Osterman 1988).
Industrial internal labour markets equate to the kind
of
highly constitutional
To continue reading
Request your trial