The Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) conducted by OECD in 2012 revealed interesting differences in tested skills between the employed and the unemployed. Quite expectedly, in average, the employed score higher than the unemployed in literacy and numeracy tests. The result is very well in line with the human capital theory (e.g. Becker; Mincer). But, what is more interesting is the observation that there are huge differences in skill levels of the unemployed between countries, also between the highest scoring countries. For example, the employed in Sweden score much higher in the literacy tests than do their unemployed fellow citizens. In Finland and Australia the difference between the employed and unemployed in literacy proficiency is smaller than in OECD countries in average. The case of Japan is strikingly different from the other top ranking countries: the unemployed score higher in literacy tests than do the employed Japanese population.

Research problem and questions: The aim of this paper is to analyze the skill differences between the employed and unemployed people in the six highest scoring countries, Japan, Finland, Netherlands, Sweden, Australia and Norway, using the PIAAC-data from 2012. What is the role of (a) formal qualifications (level of education, diplomas) and (b) the actual proficiency (tested skill level) in protecting individuals from unemployment in different countries when the general rate (percentage) of unemployment is taken into account?

Theoretically the the research problem is closely connected to the debate on how good an index the educational attainment (as measured by formal qualifications) is of a person's actual skills. Human capital theory assumes there being an imminent connection between formal and actual qualifications, whereas Bourdieu, Collins, Labaree, etc., emphasise that there are various social and cultural factors intervening here. The higher level of education a person has the more unlikely he or she is getting unempolyed. By laying off low-educated employees first employers want to retain the personnel with high (actual) skills. But is this also the case among employees with the same level of education? Are the employees with higher level of numeracy and literacy skills better protected against lay-offs and unemployment than their peers with same level of education but lower level of actual skills? Theoretically it is reasonable to assume that, besides the actual skill level, there are several other factors at play when a person is getting laid off, the amount of social capital of the person and seniority rules of the company being maybe the most crucial. The role of factors like seniority rules and the importance of involvement in social networks is known to vary from a country (or culture) to another. This entails that not only the level of education has a different role in different countries as a protector against uneployment, but also the importance of assumed level of actual skills vary from country to country.

Arkes, J. (1999). What do educational credentials signal and why do employers value credentials? Economics of Education Review 18, 133–141. Barbieri, P. (2009). Flexible Employment and Inequality in Europe. European Sociological Review 25 (6), 621-628. Bassi, L. J. (1999). Are employers’ recruitment strategies changing? Competence over credentials. In N. G. Stacey (Ed.), Competence without credentials. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 13–27. Becker, G. S. (1964). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research. Bills, D. B. (1988). Credentials and capacities: Employers’ perceptions of the acquisition of skills. Sociological Quarterly 29, 439–449. Bills, D. B, (2003) Credentials, Signals, and Screens: Explaining the Relationship Between Schooling and Job Assignment. Review of Educational Research 73 (4), 441–469. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. (1977). Reproduction in education, society and culture. London: Sage. Breen, R. (2005). Explaining cross-national variation in youth unemployment, market and institutional factors. European Sociological Review 21, 125-134. Brown, P. & Lauder, H. (2012). Globalization, Knowledge, and The Myth of The Magnet Economy. In The Knowledge Economy and Education (vol 4) (eds. Livingstone, D. W. & Guile, D.) Springer, 117–146. Brown, P. & Green, A. & Lauder, H. (2001). High Skills. Globalization, Competitiveness and Skill Formation. Oxford University Press. Brown, P. & Hesketh, A. (2004). The Mismanagement of Talent, Employability and Jobs in the Knowledge Economy. Oxford University Press. Fevre, R., Rees, G., & Gorard, S. (1999). Some sociological alternatives to human capital theory and their implications for research on post-compulsory education and training. Journal of Education and Work 12, 117–140. Kerckhoff, A. C. (1996). Building conceptual and empirical bridges between studies of educational and labor force careers. In A. C. Kerckhoff (Ed.), Generating social stratification: Toward a new research agenda. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 37–56. Kerckhoff, A. C., Raudenbush, S. W. and Glennie, E. (2001). Education, cognitive skill, and labour force outcomes. Sociology of Education 74, 1–24. Labaree, D. F. (1997). How to succeed in school without really learning: The credentials race in American education. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Mincer, J. (1989). Human capital and the labor market: A review of current research. Educational Researcher 18 (4), 27-34. Oxenham, J. (1984). Education versus qualifications: A study of relationships between education, selection for employment and the productivity of labor. London: Allen & Unwin.