The diversity and wealth of regional training experiences would justify a detailed, case by case description of the progress and innovations attained. Nevertheless, in order to develop a typology of what is currently happening in Latin America and the Caribbean we must necessarily observe a certain degree of abstraction that inevitably leaves out many of the specificities of a case by case analysis. Abstraction also implies adopting a number of criteria to gather examples from the different countries on the basis of common traits that have to do, precisely, with the way in which training is organised at national level. To be useful for building a typology, those criteria have to be restrictive.

Besides, in that task definition of the analytical unit is decisive for the categories that make up the typology. There are three alternatives that could be used for units: countries; organisational arrangements; and training players. We have opted for organisational arrangements as analytical unit, rather than the countries that have adopted them or the players on the training scene.

There are reasons for not having chosen countries or players. The first alternative –taking countries as analytical unit- has the drawback that apart from what has been called "predominant arrangements" there is a whole range of heterogeneous training offers with varying degrees of maturity and development. To design a typology covering all those possibilities is particularly difficult; if achieved at all, it may include too many categories with too few cases each, which would be more like a case by case description than a general classification.

In turn, the alternative of taking the players as analytical unit raises another type of problem. Although in countries where the training offer, both in terms of policy definition and operation, is in the hands of a single player, the task could be quite easy, the truth is that the model does not apply to many countries of the region. In fact, an updated and useful typology to understand what is going on in the field of training, has to account not only for existing actors but also –and fundamentally– for the roles they have taken on and the interrelations among them.

This does not mean, however, that it is not possible to make classification efforts on the basis of the two alternatives that we are discarding, with different criteria from our own.

In opting for organisational training arrangements as analytical unit, we have accepted two basic criteria regarding categories:

• First, a distinction between two levels within each one of the arrangements: (a) the level of decision-making on training policies and strategies and; (b) the operational level of direct execution of training activities.

• Second, specification of which are the players that in the last resort assume responsibility for the actions included in the two previous levels.

The organisational arrangements included here are, on the other hand, those that may be considered "predominant" in each country, on the basis of the coverage and impact they have within the training offer.

We must also make two comments concerning the final form of the typology and the distribution of countries within it. Firstly, in no way are we making a value judgement or trying to establish which kind of arrangement is "better" and which "worse". The social, economic and political contexts in which they emerge are too complex to justify opinions that, to say the least, would be extremely rash. The various types of arrangements submitted here, have shown different drawbacks, hits and misses that we will not go into now. Secondly, there is a number of dimensions that we are not taking into account here, such as: quality of the training imparted, public or private nature of the bodies in charge of activities; management structure (tripartite, bipartite, State, entrepreneurial, trade union); financing schemes; degree of administrative and functional decentralisation; etc. There are at least two weighty reasons for this omission: one, including them would mean –once again– to build a typology requiring a category for every single case, that would be useless for the purposes of classification; two, all those dimensions are considered elsewhere in this document, in contexts that seem more relevant, or they are mentioned in the concrete clarifications justifying the inclusion of certain cases in some categories. The four resulting categories are:

A. Arrangements wherein responsibility both for defining policies and strategies and implementing direct training actions is concentrated in a single body, usually national or sectoral institutions.

This type of arrangement is embodied in the region by: INFOCAL, Bolivia; SECAP, Ecuador; INSAFORP, El Salvador; INTECAP, Guatemala; INFOP, Honduras; INATEC; Nicaragua; INAFORP, Panama; SNPP, Paraguay; SENATI and SENCICO, Peru; and INCE, Venezuela.

As already mentioned, over and above common characteristics regarding the organisational arrangement of training there are differences in other aspects. For example, in connection with management schemes, as in some cases they are tripartite institutions, and in other they are managed by entrepreneurial organisations. Although most of these arrangements are national institutions -covering production and service– sometimes they are sectoral bodies

However, these institutions constitute the training offer with the widest coverage in each of these countries, and the one that includes the greatest number of specialisations. They are also the arena where vocational training policies and strategies are defined and where most of the training is implemented.

 

B. Arrangements wherein the definition of strategies and policies is concentrated in a single body, which also plays a predominant role in execution of training actions, where it has the complement of shared management and collaborating centres.

Examples of arrangements of this kind are: HEART, Jamaica; INFOTEP, Dominican Republic; SENA, Colombia; INA, Costa Rica.

Up to a point, this category is subordinated to the previous one, insofar as each one of these institutions is the main player in the field, both regarding the definition of policies and strategies and the implementation of training action. The difference lies in that in these four cases, each institution seeks to find its place in the respective national training system, which also includes extra-institutional supply. They do so through various mechanisms such as: outside contracting of courses, accreditation of training activities and institutes, co-operation agreements, support to upgrading of training, etc.

C. Co-existence and interrelation of two predominant arrangements with different rationale. One of them is normally associated with Labour Ministries, that through specialised bodies define policies and strategies without ever implementing training action; training is carried out by a multiplicity of agents. The other one, associated to national or sectoral training institutions that may fall into the descriptions for arrangements (A) or (B).

Cases in this category are to be found in at least three countries: Brazil, Mexico and Uruguay:

• Brazil, where the LbM through SEFOR designs policies and strategies without implementing any actions (which are carried out by private agents, non-governmental organisations, trade unions, etc.) and the so called "S" system (SENAI, SENAC, SENAR, SENAT) characterised by two fold approach: on the one hand, designing training policies and strategies at their respective sector (manufacturing - SENAI; commerce and services - SENAC; agriculture - SENAR; transportation - SENAT), and on the other hand, implementing training programmes

• Mexico, where that coexistence is represented, on the one hand, by the Secretariat of Labour and Social Security through its National Office of Training and Productivity, and on the other by the Secretariat of Education through its Technological Education System (CONALEP, CECATI, CETI, CBTI, etc.).

• Uruguay, with the National Employment Office (DINAE) on the one hand, and the Council for Technical – Vocational Education (CETP-UTU), COCAP and CECAP, on the other.

The distinguishing characteristic of these countries is precisely the coexistence of both types of arrangement. But this should not lead us into thinking about separate, independent entities. Everywhere, the links and overlaps of the two arrangements are in a state of flux, which inevitably raises deep and enriching discussions about the present and future of vocational training in the respective countries. Some of the main items on the agenda of this debate are: ties between vocational training and technological secondary education; the development of national systems for the standardisation and certification of occupational competencies; management and financing schemes.

On the other hand, in nearly all these cases there are no "watertight compartments". Quite the contrary; in analysing tenders for courses, and the mix of executing agents of programmes sponsored by Labour Ministries, we find large participation by training institutes belonging to the other predominant arrangement.

D. Arrangements wherein definition of training policies and strategies is wholly in the hands of Labour Ministries through specialised bodies, that do not carry out any training action. Implementation is assumed by a large number of agencies and players.

Cases in this fourth category, and specialised bodies performing the tasks described are: Argentina, the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, through the Secretariat for Employment and Occupational Training, and the National Office of Employment Policies; and Chile, the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, through SENCE.

Both in Argentina and in Chile there are specialised bodies under the aegis of the respective Labour Ministries that have, among other responsibilities, that of laying sown the "rules of the game" regarding training supply and demand. Although financing is different, in both cases close links are established between training actions offered and active employment policies. This is done on the one hand by encouraging the demand of training by enterprises, to be implemented either with internal resources or contracting out services with executing agencies. On the other hand, training and employment programmes are designed, financed and managed for special groups, such as unemployed workers, young people, microenterprises, rural workers, ethnic minorities, etc.

The first conclusion that may be drawn from the current situation of organisational forms of training policies and systems in the region, is that they are far more heterogeneous than in the past.

The present diversity is significantly due to the plurality of agents acting in the training area in all countries. At a moment when national vocational training institutions are ceasing to be leading players in the supply of training, and Ministries of Labour, employers’ and workers’ organisations have appeared on the scene, as well as private training offers, the map of alliances and co-ordination inevitably changes.

This variety also expresses a different opinion as to which are the most efficient ways of conducting social policy and looking after the training requirements both of the productive sector and society as a whole. On the other hand, it echoes a discussion as to which ought to be the areas and forms of action by the State, what can and/or must be left to the forces of the market and – although more recently – what can be performed by civil society through its various organisational patterns.

The model based on a subsidiary role for the State emerges from a highly critical context of schemes that handed over responsibility for the design, planning and implementation of training policies to a national, public or para-state body. Such plans were denounced for their self-referral, for not paying enough attention to the demands of the labour market, for lacking a culture of evaluation of training results. Their national, centralised structures were blamed for a lack of flexibility to meet customised training needs. Although such criticisms were aimed at vocational training systems, they fitted into a wider debate concerning the role of the State in general.

After a period of harsh faultfinding with the older model of vocational training institutions – mainly ideological criticism – several things can be seen at present. First of all, some characteristics of that former model are redeemed taking into account the historical moment when that model saw the light and grew. Secondly, it has been understood that national vocational training institutions are no longer the same and are all undergoing deep transformation processes. Furthermore, sufficient progress has been made to draw a balance of the virtues and shortcomings of the models that were proposed as their substitutes.

To begin with, it is a mistake to equate the continuity of the organisational model based on a large national training institution, to the persistence of a supply-side approach. All national institutions have substantially changed their action-guiding principles. They have developed more or less sophisticated mechanisms to deal with the demands of markets and societies.

Policies promoted by Ministries of Labour have contributed to swell the private training offer and have diversified the agents operating in a new market that has emerged, to a large extent, from novel forms of action by the State. This fact has allowed for the creation of more immediate and concrete co-ordination mechanisms between supply and demand, such as short, intensive courses to meet real needs detected in the market. Ministerial policies have also fostered the culture of evaluating training results, mentioned earlier.

The above traits maybe considered to be positive characteristics of the new models of training systems. Nevertheless, there are certain areas in which they cannot substitute for national training bodies. One of them is the need for any system to incorporate suitable mechanisms of curricular development and updating, as well as technical and pedagogic development. A capacity for storing knowledge and experience can only grow adequately in enduring institutional contexts, based on a medium and long-term strategic horizon, rather than in the framework of a fragmentary, institutionally weak training offer, whose vision of reality does not go beyond the immediate demand of firms and enterprises.

A second point to be made is that, although the market and its needs ought to be taken into account, they cannot be the sole guideline for vocational training systems and policies. Markets have short-term views and reasons which, if followed unconditionally, may lead to decisions apparently correct for immediate purposes but counterproductive in the long term. The necessary matching of training supply and demand at micro level must not be taken as a substitute for serious long-term policies.

In all the various types of organisational arrangements adopted by countries of the region, multiplicity and diversification of the training offer is a reality. Nowadays, preventing that diversity from turning into fragmentation is a significant challenge.

Regarding State policies for the training and development of human resources, there are a number of strategic guidelines about which countries of the region are trying to reach a consensus.

• First of all, the equity conditions provided by systems in connection with access to training opportunities. These constitute a fundamental key to ensure socially fair conditions for the employment and full integration of citizens into social and political life.

Expansion and diversification of the training supply greatly contribute to ensure training coverage as compared to policy models centred round hegemonic institutions. However, an increase in the number of suppliers does not of itself guarantee higher levels of equity. State intervention continues to be essential for correcting market slants, regarding both different population groups and economic sectors.

• Secondly, the co-ordination between training policies and economic and productive development policies aimed – among other things – at raising entrepreneurial and national levels of productivity and competitiveness.

This implies a search for the necessary convergence of the bid made by countries to succeed in adapting to the new conditions of a globalised economy, and the training policies that are every day more fundamental for such an insertion. Of particular importance are the links and synergy that may be established between training, innovation and technological development.

• Thirdly, ensuring the political and economic sustainability of efforts made in the training area itself. The advent of new organisational models in different countries meant in many cases the end of both the policy arrangements and financing schemes that had supported training for decades. There are countries where the national institution model survives, despite the fact that its management and funding arrangements have been severely questioned. Nevertheless, either through institutions, Ministries of Labour or intermediate solutions new relational arrangements seem to be emerging. They are based on the realisation that rather than a specialised field, training is an area for social dialogue, agreement and negotiation that has been gradually enlarged to include employers, workers, academic education, technological development, economic policies and labour relations systems.

• Finally, a multiplication of funding arrangements has become apparent in the region. On the one hand, the system of public financing for in-plant training subsists, with resources raised through para-fiscal levies with specific destination, side by side with public financing from the general Treasury. But new schemes have emerged like tax incentives, such as reimbursement of training expenses upon filing in tax returns (the case of Chile). Other combinations are also possible especially in connection with VTIs (vocational training institutions) that explore mechanisms to open up systems and make them more flexible.

Centro Interamericano para el Desarrollo del Conocimiento en la Formación Profesional (OIT/Cinterfor)
Avda. Uruguay 1238 - Montevideo - Uruguay - Tel: (5982) 908 6023 - 902 0557 - 908 0545 - Fax: (5982) 902 1305
oitcinterfor@oitcinterfor.org -   webmaster@cinterfor.org.uy

Copyright © 1996-2009 Organización Internacional del Trabajo (OIT) - Descargo de responsabilidad