Review of the institutional arrangements for labour market information and skills anticipation in India
This study was commissioned by the ILO as part of a dual phase assignment to review current institutional arrangements for labour market information and skills anticipation in India, and to develop a national model that recommends the roles, responsibilities and key data sets required to meet the information needs of key users in the future.
The study seeks to set out the views of key Indian stakeholders involved in the management and use of LMI for their professional data requirements. The specific objectives of the study cover:
- Detailing the policy and management decisions they make that require skills development data;
- Identifying the types of data required for making such decisions;
- Assessing the capacity of individual key data institutions at different levels;
- Assessing the roles and responsibilities of key institutions related to the collection, processing, management and reporting of LMI and data for skills anticipation.
The focus of the study is on the perceptions of key stakeholders which have been identified in consultation with the ILO and its affiliates. Accordingly, the conclusions carry the caveat that they are based on the subjective, though expert, views of specific individuals representing the institutional stakeholders. The objective assessment of either gaps in data provision or of institutional capacity is not a goal of this study.
- Detailing the policy and management decisions they make that require skills development data;
- Identifying the types of data required for making such decisions;
- Assessing the capacity of individual key data institutions at different levels;
- Assessing the roles and responsibilities of key institutions related to the collection, processing, management and reporting of LMI and data for skills anticipation.
The focus of the study is on the perceptions of key stakeholders which have been identified in consultation with the ILO and its affiliates. Accordingly, the conclusions carry the caveat that they are based on the subjective, though expert, views of specific individuals representing the institutional stakeholders. The objective assessment of either gaps in data provision or of institutional capacity is not a goal of this study.