STATISTICS ON INVESTMENT IN TRAINING:

AN ASSESSMENT OF THEIR AVAILABILITY

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report is the result of a fruitful collaboration between the Skills Development Department (IFP/SKILLS) and the Bureau of Statistics (STAT). Mr. E. Hoffmann and Ms. S. Lawrence provided guidance and comments throughout the definition of, and preparation for, the data collection procedure. Their critical comments and technical support during the whole process were extremely valuable.

My appreciation is also extended to Mr. T. Riordan, Manager of Training Policies and Programmes (IFP/SKILLS), for his encouragement and support in this activity. Mr. A. Cifuentes, an external consultant, helped with the translation of the questionnaire in Spanish, and Ms. G. Thevenon (ED/EMP/MSU) with the French version and web presentation of the questionnaires. Ms. J. Auvré (IFP/SKILLS) proofread the entire text and helped to edit it in a very professional and creative way.

I am also grateful to the persons contacted in the various institutions surveyed for their time, suggestions and information provided. I would also like to mention the important support received from colleagues in the field, in particular, Mr. G. Gamerdinger (ILO/CAMAT) and Mr. V. Gasskov (ILO/SAAT), who facilitated the contacts with institutions in several countries.

Table of contents

1. Introduction

2. The inquiry: structure and content

3. Analysis of results and major findings from national statistical offices (NSOs)  

3.1 The scope of data available on expenditure

3.2 The scope of data available on participation 

3.3 Dissemination of data 

4. Complementary findings from other national institutions (ONIs)  

4.1 The scope of data available on expenditure 

4.2 The scope of data available on participation

4.3 Dissemination of data

5. NSOs versus ONIs: an assessment of their respective roles

6. How can we access the information when available and where ?  

7. Conclusions  

The imperative of higher, and often different, knowledge and skills to support employability in the knowledge economy makes access to human capital investment an important consideration for a growing number of individuals, enterprises and governments. Despite the growing attention being paid to such investment, we know little about it on a systematic basis. Without such information, it is very difficult to obtain a true picture of the magnitude and nature of investments in human capital. Likewise, without this quantitative information on a comparative basis, it is difficult to encourage countries, enterprises or entrepreneurs and individuals to increase current efforts to invest in training.

The General Conference of the International Labour Organization, meeting in its 88th Session, 2000, concluded that the "ILO should develop a database on current expenditures on vocational and continuing training, and suggest a series of benchmarks on investment in training, possibly differentiated for different regions of the world, size of companies or sector of industry" (para.12).

In general, international compilations of statistics collected at the national level on the costs of institutional vocational training (IVT) have focused on public secondary vocational and technical schools, and vocational training centres and institutes. These compilations consisted of statistics collected in a few countries (around 18) from Asia, Latin America, and Europe during the last two decades, the most recent studies being from the mid-1980s. Statistics from African countries are particularly lacking (Galhardi, R., 2001). ⁽¹⁾

The basic information on statistics on investment in training is difficult to collect accurately, largely because much of this investment is not reported in company accounts. Surveys of employer's training costs have been dogged by conceptual problems (e.g., definition of training costs, on-the-job training (OJT), as well as problems of sample selection, low and potentially biased response patterns, and of limited coverage). Nevertheless, efforts have been prominent in developed countries, e.g., the US, the UK, Germany and other countries in the European Union, to overcome these limitations in estimating employer's training costs. Household surveys such as labour force, household expenditure, time use and special surveys or modules on training activities can also throw some light on participation in training activities from the individuals' perspective. So far there have been few efforts to provide a comprehensive picture on the basis of the various survey results and from the relevant administrative sources (Freysson, L., 2000). ⁽²⁾

Information on training costs and on the participation in training is, therefore, very limited and fragmented. In order to develop a database it is necessary, first, to identify the kind of information available and/or systematically collected by those agencies responsible for conducting training surveys, e.g., national statistical offices and training agencies, ministries of education and labour, and employers' and workers' organizations. Second, it will be necessary to complement that information by targeting the inquiry to specific repositories of data such as national vocational training institutions, multinational enterprises, and business' organizations, research institutes, regional organizations such as MERCOSUR, etc. with the potential to provide the missing data.

The first pilot inquiry on such statistics was designed to identify which kinds of statistics on training expenditures and participation are available and/or collected regularly, or at least once since 1990, by the National Statistical Offices (NSOs) in selected, less industrialized countries. For the purpose of the inquiry, training was defined as formal,structured work-related learning, including learning in formal and technical school programmes in training centres or institutes as well as in the workplace, both on and off the job, for individuals in and out of the labour force. Training undertaken as part of compulsory schooling or in preparation for further education should not be included, nor should training activities without any connection to current or possible future employment.

2. The inquiry: structure and content

In order to collect information on statistics on training expenditures available from the NSOs we prepared a questionnaire to be sent by e-mail (with possibility of being printed and sent by fax or ordinary mail) (Annex 1).

The questionnaire was designed on the basis of mock tables to obtain the information on the availability of statistics, as well as to gather a defined sub-set of such statistics whenever they were available. It included also some open-ended and closed questions. It was sent to 39 countries in the African, Asian and Latin American and the Caribbean regions. The sample was selected through discussions with experts and training specialists in the areas concerned (Table 1).

Table 1: List of surveyed countries by region

The questionnaire inquired whether the statistics on expenditures and participation in training activities were available, or could be obtained, for at least one year for the period 1990-2002. Considering that measuring the cost of training provides little information unless it is related to the nature of the training delivered and received, and the characteristics of those delivering and receiving the training, questions addressed the availability of statistics on expenditures in training activities by type of training, the occupation situation of trainees, the sector of their work activity, and the sources of funding. Statistics on participation in training activities, breakdown by occupation, gender, sector, and age of trainee, were requested. Information on the availability of plans for future surveys or inquiries at the national level, or any work-in-progress activity on this area, was also requested.

The sources of statistics covered by the questionnaire were: (a) reports from training institutions to a relevant authority, (b) statistical survey of national training institutions, (c) Statistical survey of (non-training) establishments, (d) household (or labour force) survey, (e) other administrative records not included in the reports from training institutions, and (f) official estimates based on several sources. These surveys have the potential to provide information on training expenditures and participation, if not directly, through related issues. Moreover, the usefulness of these surveys lies in allowing cross-tabulation of different variables among several sources.

3. Analysis of results and major findings from national statistical offices (NSOs)

The following description of the results obtained is based on replies to the specially designed questionnaire sent in March 2002 to the NSOs of the 39 countries listed in Table 1. Not all countries replied. About 25 countries had replied by the end of April 2002. After a time-consuming reminder process through several telephone calls and faxes to the sample of NSOs, we received back a total of 32 questionnaires by the end of May. Among the countries that replied, some questionnaires were filled in by other relevant authorities and, in other cases, information was sent on the relevant authority that could provide the statistics. Further information was obtained pursuing these contacts. Table 2 highlights the results of replies from the NSOs.

Table 2: Overview of the replies from NSOs

Among the countries in the sample, the three middle-eastern countries included, i.e., Turkey, the Arab Republic of Syria and Jordan, replied to the questionnaire. Between the ten Asia and the Pacific countries in the sample, only Thailand did not reply. In the case of the Latin American and the Caribbean countries, among the 14 selected, only two, i.e. Uruguay and Venezuela, did not answer the questionnaire. The biggest absence of replies came from the African sample. From the 12 countries included, only eight replied. The four that did not answer the questionnaire were: Cote d'Ivoire, Mali, Uganda and Nigeria (Figure 1).

From the 32 answers received, only 12 countries said that they had, and could provide, statistics on both participation and expenditures in training. Another three countries, i.e. Chile, Colombia and Egypt, informed that they could provide information just on participation in training. Altogether 15 countries indicated that they could provide statistics on expenditure and/or participation in training.

In regional terms, all three middle-east countries included in the sample can provide both statistics on participation and expenditure in training. Among the LAC countries, only three indicated that they could provide these statistics, namely Costa Rica, Guatemala and the Dominican Republic. Among the African countries, only Zambia and Tunisia stated that such information could be offered by the NSOs.

As indicated in Table 2, among the six sources of statistics on expenditure and/or participation in training, household (or labour force) survey is the most common source. In the case of Jordan, Turkey and Chile these surveys are not used for providing statistics on training activities. The next important source pointed out by the respondents were the reports from training institutions to a relevant authority. This was not the case in Singapore, Guatemala, Turkey and Jordan. The remaining 11 countries acknowledged the availability of such reports. Statistical surveys of NTIs seem to be a relatively important source of data on expenditures and participation in training activities as almost half of those countries, i.e. seven NSOs, said they could provide statistics on both variables from such a source. This source is particularly important in the case of Turkey, as it is the only source of statistics on investment in training available to the NSO. Six countries can also provide information from establishment surveys. Administrative reports other than those already included in the NTIs reports do not seem to be a significant source of information on investment in training considering the sample as a whole. Only five countries indicated this as a source of such data. However, for some countries this could be a relevant source of statistics on expenditure and participation in training activities, as in the case of Jordan for instance. For this country, this is the only source available. Official estimates based on several other sources seem to be a complementary source of information available as indicated by eight countries of the sample. The relative importance of the six sources of statistics is presented in Figure 2.

The situation of countries such as Hong Kong/China and the Republic of Korea is rather striking. Both of them indicated that they could collect the information required from all six sources of statistics suggested. In the African region, three NSOs, - Zambia, Tunisia and Egypt - informed that information could be provided from at least five sources. On the other hand, some countries stated that data could just be collected from one source of statistics. In the case of Guatemala, these are collected from household (or labour force) surveys, in the case of Turkey from surveys of training institutions, and in Jordan from other administrative records. Singapore, Chile and Costa Rica may provide the data from two sources of statistics. The others can provide data from, in general, three or four sources of statistics. Figure 3 illustrates the distribution of replies by the number of sources of statistics.

Summing up, information on expenditures and participation in training activities, if available, can be obtained through gathering data from different sources. It seems quite clear that there is not a single survey that can provide information on both variables. It is the combination of information from several surveys, and according to their own specificities and coverage, that can help to build up the picture of how much is spent on vocational training and by whom.

3.1 The scope of data available on expenditure

As mentioned before, 12 NSOs indicated that they could provide statistics on expenditures in training activities. The questionnaire inquired about the availability of such data broken down by (i) the industry in which trainees were working, (ii) the occupational situation of trainees, whether employed, unemployed or outside the labour force, (iii) the type of training provided, and (iv) the source of funds used to finance the training activity. Table 3 shows the findings.

Table 3. Availability of statistics on expenditure in training

Among the 12 countries of the sub-sample, ten said that these statistics could be provided, broken down by sources of funds. Only in Costa Rica and Turkey this information is not available. Expenditures in training by type of training seem to be largely available too. Only Singapore, Costa Rica and Jordan said that they could not provide this information. A breakdown by occupation can be obtained in at least eight countries of the sample. Availability of statistics on expenditure in training by the industrial sector of those trained is the least available at the NSOs. This is only available in some Asian countries, e.g. Hong Kong, the Republic of Korea and Singapore, and in two African countries - Tunisia and Zambia. These countries, except Singapore and Tunisia, are those in which statistics on expenditures in training can be provided by all four breakdowns suggested.

In terms of expenditures in training activities by type of training, the inquiry requested whether information was available by the following type of training activities: (i) institutional vocational training ⁽³⁾; (ii) apprenticeship; (iii) enterprise-based training ⁽⁴⁾; and (iv) training for specific target groups e.g. youth, unemployed, women, persons with disabilities, etc.

It is interesting to see that among those countries that indicated having the statistics on expenditures in training available, two of them - Singapore and Costa Rica -, do not have them disaggregated by type of training. Zambia, Tunisia, the Dominican Republic, and Hong Kong/China are the four countries able to provide data on the four breakdowns proposed. The three middle-eastern countries can provide data on expenditures on IVT and the Arab Republic of Syria and Turkey also on apprenticeship. Viet Nam has only data on IVT expenditures. This is the most available information collected by the NSOs that replied to this question as all of them indicated that they could provide this data. Expenditures on apprenticeship come second in terms of availability. Statistics on enterprise-based training expenditures and those directed to specific target groups are available in six countries of the sub-sample.

Table 4. Expenditure in training by type of training

With regard to sources of funds used to finance training activities, information was requested on the possibility of having statistics broken down by public and/or private, international and/or regional, and individual budgets. Table 5 summarizes the results.

Table 5. Expenditure in training by source of funds

In this case, Turkey joined Singapore and Costa Rica on the absence of breakdowns on expenditures in training. The remaining countries indicated the availability of statistics on expenditure in training by public sources, i.e. government budget. Some of them also have the possibility of providing data on expenditures by private sector. Only three countries stated that they could provide statistics broken down by the four sources suggested, namely the Republic of Korea, the Dominican Republic and Zambia. Information on individuals' expenditures in vocational training in countries could be found in Hong Kong/China in addition to the three previously cited. Statistics on funding by international agencies or foreign sources are available in some countries.

3.2 The scope of data available on participation

Concerning participation in training, the availability of data is greater considering that three countries of the sample - Chile, Colombia and Egypt- can only provide statistics on this indicator of investment in vocational training. Their respective NSOs do not collect information on expenditures in training. Therefore, 15 countries, out of 32 that replied to the questionnaire, have statistics on participation in training activities. They were asked to inform whether information could be obtained by (i) sex of trainees; (ii) age group of trainee; (iii) industry of trainees' main job; (iv) occupation of trainees' main job; and (v) type of training undertaken, i.e. institutional training, apprenticeship, enterprise-based training or for a specific target group, e.g., youth, women, persons with disabilities, adult unemployed, etc.

As presented in Table 6, eight countries have data on participation in training and by the five breakdowns proposed. Viet Nam, however, can only provide information on enrolment in training activities by type of training. Costa Rica can offer statistics broken down by sex and age of participants in training activities. Colombia, on the other hand, does not have information available on these two variables, but could provide data on the industrial sector and occupation of trainees' main job and type of training as well as Tunisia.

Table 6: Availability of breakdowns on statistics on participation in training

In terms of the availability of statistics on participation in training by the breakdowns proposed, type of training seems to be the most easily available followed by sex, occupation and, then, age in a descending order in respectively 13, 12, 11 and 10 countries. The least available information is on participation by the industrial sector of trainees' main job. Even in this case, more than half of the sample (i.e. nine countries) indicated that they could provide this kind of information.

3.3 Dissemination of data

When data is available, is it easily accessible? If so, through which means? Has the data already been provided to some international or regional institutions? These questions were put to the respondents and just two countries informed the data had been provided to other international organizations. Egypt indicated a yearly submission of statistics on enrolment in training to UNESCO. Tunisia informed having submitted data on investment in training to the World Bank in January 2002. Syria did not answer the question.

Among the replies which indicated the availability of statistics on expenditures and/or participation in training, almost all of them, with the exception of the Arab Republic of Syria, Turkey and Zambia who did not answer the question, indicated that they could provide the data in hard copy. The information is also available in electronic format in many countries, except Viet Nam and Costa Rica. The latter, instead, can provide the information by Internet as well as Guatemala and the Asian countries, e.g. Hong Kong/China, the Republic of Korea and Singapore. Although the majority of countries have not provided the data to international organizations, they seem to be accessible if required. Table 7 presents these findings.

Table 7: Means of access and future developments

Concerning future action on collecting and producing statistics on expenditures and/or participation in training, replies indicate that most of the countries intend to continue collecting them in the future (Table 7). Some countries such as the Asian ones, i.e. the Republic of Korea and Hong Kong/China, will continue to collect the information from all the sources of statistics proposed and used by them. The same last observation is valid for Singapore and Viet Nam. Tunisia will drop information from surveys on establishments and search information in other official estimates based on non-specified sources. In Latin America, two countries - Colombia and Guatemala - informed that they will pursue this practice but concentrating on two sources of statistics, i.e. the reports from training institutions and other official estimates available. Zambia also seems to be focusing on gathering the information from household surveys by dropping other sources previously used. Turkey seems to have the intention of broadening the coverage of the information by assembling data also from household surveys in addition to those provided by the surveys of NTIs. In these cases, the trend seems to be an attempt to concentrate efforts on the existing sources that may provide more reliable and systematic data on investment in training.

A few countries stated that they will not continue collecting statistics on expenditures and participation in training. These are three from the Latin American region, namely Chile, Costa Rica and Guatemala, and one from the Middle East, i.e. Jordan. This may suggest that they no longer have an interest in obtaining this kind of data. However, it may also indicate that the NSO might not be the best institution to deal with this information, especially if, in the countries concerned, the national public vocational training institution or the ministry of labour, for instance, is the agency responsible for the management, operation and implementation of vocational training actions and controls the budget too. This suggests also that, in order to have access to information on expenditures and participation in training, an assessment of the country's national vocational training system is needed in order to identify the institutions that may have the information required. This is the rationale behind the fact that we complemented the information provided by the NSOs with other information obtained from the NTIs and/or ministries of labour (MOL) or related institutions in several countries of the sample, precisely in those that replied negatively to the inquiry. The next session will describe the findings from these institutions.

4. Complementary findings from other national institutions (ONIs)

During the month of May 2002, we sent the questionnaire to NTIs/agencies and/or ministries of labour in the countries whose NSOs said they did not have the data available. Among those countries, most of them replied to this second inquiry positively. This is an indication that those institutions were the right ones to be addressed, i.e. the collectors and suppliers of the information on investment in training activities. Other countries, notably India, China and Indonesia did not reply the questionnaire, however, we managed to find an explanation for their failure to respond. In the case of China, the explanation was that the questions could not be answered because they did not match their own standards of statistics classification. In India, the problem was the decentralization of the vocational training system. The ministries are in charge of their own statistics and institutions funded by the federal government. There seems to be very few of them. State governments manage and determine their training budgets and expenditures and have the responsibility to generate their own statistics. In Indonesia, the situation is similar as far as decentralization of information is concerned. The availability of data on training expenditures and participation is spread among several government institutions. In some departments or institutions, data may be available in specific divisions or units. In others, it may be stocked in different divisions across the institution or department. In both cases, an attempt to gather the information would require additional efforts to collect and combine data from the different potential sources. Similar reasons may explain the absence of replies from Mexico, Botswana and Burkina Faso.

It is interesting to note that all the institutions contacted in this complementary attempt indicated that they could provide information on both expenditures and participation in training activities, with the exception of Trinidad & Tobago and Cameroon. The former does not have statistics on participation but on expenditures and, vice versa for the latter. Table 8 shows these findings.

Most of the replies (i.e. eight countries) came from the Ministry of Labour or an agency subordinated to the Ministry as in the case of Chile, but not exclusively. The national vocational training agency, board or council only completed a few questionnaires. This was the case of the Philippines, Mauritius, and Barbados. Additional information was obtained in the case of Malaysia and Jamaica whose respective ministries of human resources and labour also provided relevant information on the statistics available. In other countries, in addition to the reply from the MOL, we received information from the NTI, e.g., Brazil and Peru. In Colombia, the questionnaire was replied by the NTI only. It is no surprise that in Latin America, information and statistics on investment in training can be provided by the NVTIs. This is the institutional arrangement that characterizes the so-called Latin American model of vocational training. In general, these institutions are subordinated to the Ministry of Labour, with a ruling body composed of public sector, private firms, and unions' or workers' representatives. In most countries, they were created with statutory authority to impose a levy on firms, or with a firm claim on budget resources (Galhardi, 2002) ⁽⁵⁾.

Table 8: Overview of replies from other national institutions

All the countries in this sub-sample, with the exception of South Africa and Argentina, can provide information from reports from training institutions to a relevant authority. This is the unique source of statistics in the case of Barbados. In general, information is also available from statistical surveys of NVTIs as pointed out by nine institutions from seven countries. This is, however, the only source of statistics on training expenditure and participation compiled by the National Vocational Training Council of Malaysia. Another important source of data is household or LF survey, accessible to both the ministries and the national vocational training agencies (NVTA) or institutions as in the case of Brazil and Colombia. Very few institutions reported that they could provide information from establishment surveys. This is the least available source of statistics as illustrated by Table 9.

Table 9: Source of statistics available in other national institutions

4.1 The scope of data available on expenditure

Table 10 shows that statistics on expenditures can be offered in different levels of disagregation in most of the countries of the sub-sample. At least more than half of them, i.e. seven countries, can provide statistics on expenditures broken down by the industrial sector in which those trained were working, their occupational situation, type of training provided and source of funds used to finance the training activity. Peru can offer the information by the four variables proposed due to the combination of statistics collected by different providers, i.e. the MOL and the NVTI for the industrial sector. The NVTA in the Philippines does not have data on expenditures broken down by industrial sector, nor Cameroon by sources of funds. In the case of South Africa, the Department of Labour can only provide data on expenditures in training by the industrial sector. In the Technical and Vocational Education and Training Council of Barbados data is only available broken down by the occupational situation of trainees.

Table 10: Statistics available on expenditures in training by industry, occupation, type of training and source of fund in other national institutions (e.g. MOLs and NVTAs)

In terms of statistics on expenditures broken down by type of training, i.e. institutional vocational training, apprenticeship, enterprise-based training, and training directed to target groups, just four countries, precisely the Philippines, Malaysia, Jamaica and Mauritius, indicated that they could offer them by the four categories inquired (Table 11). In the specific case of Malaysia and Jamaica, this was possible due to information gathered and combined from different providers. In the other countries, precisely on those from the LAC region, data can be obtained but with less breakdowns. In Brazil and Peru, the NVTIs seem to collect information on training courses offered by themselves or other training institutions funded or co-funded by them, on apprenticeship courses and enterprise-based training (EBT). SENA from Colombia indicated that it could not provide data on EBT expenditures. Instead, it collects information on training expenditures directed to target groups. This is the only breakdown available at the MOL in Argentina. Chile has also indicated that SENCE collects data on training expenditures directed to target groups and by enterprises. This information is very consistent with the role the National Service of Training and Employment (SENCE) plays in the area of VET in Chile. SENCE, under the supervision of the MOL, regulates training and does not own or operate training facilities. It administers an income rebate programme for firms that directly provide or contract out registered providers to develop training programmes for their workers. It also operates a National Fund of Skills Development, whose resources are allocated to finance training actions for disadvantaged groups (Galhardi, 2002, op cit).

Table 11: Statistics available on expenditures in training in other national institutions (e.g. MOLs and NVTAs) by type of training

Considering that some institutions/countries did not answer the question on this issue, i.e. the DOL in South Africa, the MOL in Brazil, the TVETC of Barbados, and Cameroon, the classification of "types of training" included in the questionnaire may not be the most appropriate to these countries. Conceptual and/or definitional problems may have hindered them from completing the choices provided. This points out the complicated issue of obtaining comparable data on expenditures in training across countries and constructing a coherent set of data. Although this may be desirable, it may not be feasible on a pilot scale and, even less, in a major, broader survey. Disaggregated figures will have to be gathered by additional efforts through national surveys and case studies.

As far as sources of funds are concerned, Table 12 shows that public investment in training is more easily available than private expenditures. Individual expenditure in training is the least available information. In some countries like Brazil and Peru, the national vocational training institutions did not answer this question. This could indicate that they are not interested in other sources of funds besides their own which is derived from levies on payroll; although this may not be a reasonable explanation for their blank answers, because the literature shows that these institutions are competing for extra resources and can bid for other public and international sources of funds. This may indicate that the best provider of detailed information on source of training funds is, maybe, the ministries of labour due to the changing role of the government in the process of funding training in several countries and, particularly, in the two above-mentioned. In these countries, for instance, there is clear evidence that the government, through the MOL, is changing from the traditional role of operator and provider of training, to the role of financial agent, i.e. buyer of training (Galhardi, 2002, ibidem).

Table 12: Statistics available on expenditures in training in other national institutions (e.g. MOLs and NVTAs) by source of fund

4.2 The scope of data available on participation

On participation in training, governments and NTIs indicated that information could be accessed in a disaggregated manner, but particularly by sex, industry and type of training as shown in Table 13. Information on enrollment of trainees by sex is the most available, in every country and/or institution of the sub-sample, followed by type of training, industry of trainees' main job and occupational situation in a descending order. Even in the last category, data can be obtained in 10 countries out of 12. Barbados and Colombia are the countries that cannot provide information on enrollment in training broken down by occupation and industrial sector of trainees' main activity. Age of trainees seems to be the information least collected and available. South Africa is the only country that does not have statistics on participation in training by type of training activity.

Table 13: Statistics available on participation in training in other national institutions

4.3 Dissemination of data

All institutions contacted during the complementary inquiry exercise indicated that the information available could be obtained in hard copy among other means (Table 14). This is the only way data from Barbados and Cameroon can be obtained. Data can also be accessed electronically in most of the countries, with the exception of Chile and Trinidad & Tobago. In these countries, data can be obtained via Internet as well (the websites of the institutions were provided).

Among the 13 respondents, just one, i.e. Barbados, informed that it does not intend to collect and produce statistics on expenditures and/or enrollment of training in the future. In the case of Malaysia, it was the National Vocational Training Council (MLVK) that expressed its lack of intention to generate or gather information concerning expenditures and participation in training in the future. On the other hand, the Ministry of Manpower will continue collecting these kinds of statistics through reports from, and statistical surveys of, NTIs. The Ministry intends also to use other administrative records and official estimates based on several sources.

Most of the sample intends to pursue this information through data provided by the NTIs either in the reports or statistical surveys. Household surveys are another source of information that will be used in some countries in addition to the previous ones. This is particularly the case of Trinidad & Tobago, who rely on these sources for future collection of statistics on investment in training.

Table 14: Dissemination of data and future plans for collection