The notion of skills dominates policy agendas and sparks debates on the economy, labour and education, usually as a panacea for all woes (Mikulec, 2018). Human capital is often perceived as the main vehicle for tackling the European skills crisis and achieving productivity and growth in a policy context that pushes the envelope of reskilling and upskilling through Lifelong Learning (LLL) for a just green and digital transition (European Commission, 2020; Cedefop, 2022). Yet, LLL participation is rather low, and the agency achievers –those who have incentives and motivation to seek training– are usually the ones enjoying quality or standard forms of employment (Boyadjieva & Ilieva-Trichkova, 2021). In that direction the OECD and especially the European Commission have produced a significant number of policy documents between 2019 and 2022, re-introducing the funding mechanism of Individual Learning Accounts (ILAs), as a policy tool that has the potential to enhance LLL participation, to promote reskilling and upskilling and also to tackle inequalities (OECD, 2019; European Commission, 2021). The European Commission published their proposal on ILAs alongside another proposal on micro-credentials (European Commission, 2021b) –both adopted by the Council of Europe on 16 June 2022– as parts of the twelve flagship actions announced in the European Skills Agenda (European Commission, 2020) and the European Social Rights Action Plan (European Commission, 2021c).

ILAs are ‘virtual individual accounts in which training rights are accumulated over time’ (OECD, 2019b, p. 2). The accumulated resources are mobilised only if training is undertaken. Their concept was first introduced in the late 1990s as a type of entitlement which could promote lifelong learning (Dunbar, 2019). The UK implementation of ILAs back in 2000 acted as a template for other governments willing to foster similar policies (Harrington et al., 2018). However, its results were rather mixed and, especially, in England the ILA programme was shut down in 2001 following disputes and financial claims by learning providers (UKCES, 2010). After a stagnant period concerning ILAs in Europe, in 2015 France introduced the Personal Training Account (CPF) as an ‘individualised scheme for financing training that is open to all economically active persons, and is fully transferable throughout the individual’s working life’ (Perez & Vourc'h, 2020, p. 4). The French CPF has been considered as an innovative scheme that allows individuals to build up training resources over time and also has the potential to enhance their autonomy and freedom of choice (Perez & Vourc'h, 2020).

In 2022 Greece, following the European relevant initiatives and recommendations mentioned previously, introduced the Individual Skills Account (ISA) adopting a discourse for freedom of choice and individuals’ empowerment. The Greek ISA is funded by the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) and seeks to promote LLL participation, and also to tackle the issue of skills mismatches through the upskilling and reskilling of individuals. However, the mechanism’s scope could be considered rather limited, since it leaves out individuals involved in vulnerable/non-standard forms of employment, and also relies in temporary funds (RRF). The theoretical underpinning of this study is critical policy analysis. Our contribution aims to critically analyse the policy documents that paved the ground for the re-introduction of ILAs at the European policy agenda. We also seek to explore the way the policy tool of ILAs is recontextualised in the Greek case through the appropriation of the empowerment of the individual discourse with implications on LLL participation, skills development and inequalities in a deregulated and rapidly changing labour market in the European South.

The foundation of this study is critical policy analysis. Our aim is to emphasise issues of power, the roots of policies and their emergence to the prevalence of ‘policy winners and losers,’ and also to explore implications on inequality (Diem et al., 2019, p. 6). Critical policy analysis is based on the conception that it is of significance to understand the complex links between educational policies and the relations of dominance and subordination in society (Apple, 2019; Aydarova, 2020). Our paper engages with the concept of ILAs and explores how powerful actors use educational policies and relevant discourses to reproduce unequal social structures. In a context where skills mismatches dominate social dialogue and policy agendas, we seek to unveil the mismatches between policy rhetoric and enactment of ILAs. Furthermore, the notion of recontextualisation (Bernstein, 1996) helps us describe the processes through which local agents develop discursive resources taken from different social contexts; here, the dominant discourse for the empowerment of the individual through LLL and its role in promoting choice and freedom to act, thus creating possibility for personal and social transformation. In that direction we analyse the policy documents that paved the ground for the re-introduction of ILAs at the European policy agenda. To be specific, the European Pillar of Social Rights (2017) and the relevant action plan (2021), the European Skills Agenda (2020), the Council’s recommendation of 24 November 2020 on VET, the Osnabrück declaration on VET (2020), the Commission’s communication on achieving the European Education Area by 2025 (2020), the Commission’s report of the high-level forum on ILAs (2021), the proposal for a Council recommendation on ILAs and the relevant recommendation (2021 & 2022). Furthermore, we explore the literature on ILAs and focus on the UK and French implementations. Last, we analyse the Greek enactment of the ISA policy instrument and explore the recontextualisation and appropriation of the dominant empowerment discourse with implications on LLL funding, participation and quality, and also individuals’ autonomy.

This paper explores the path for the re-introduction of the policy instrument of ILAs. The pandemic crisis, digitalisation and decarbonisation have accelerated structural changes with significant impact on the European workforce. The dominant discourse at the European level perceives ILAs as a vehicle that offers the potential for the realisation of the –‘so much needed– skills revolution’. Our aim is not to be drawn into the futile dilemma vis à vis ILAs as panacea or Pandora’s box. The underlying assumption behind the policy mantra of proactiveness and empowerment to achieve employability, is that, as a result, individuals’ training choices will match their aspirations. But is autonomy in access to LLL activities enough to build a career development strategy for individuals – particularly the unskilled or low-skilled audience of ILAs? (Perez & Vourc'h, 2020). Is the individualistic and utilitarian focus on employability skills enough to remove structural and cultural barriers to LLL? Our contribution suggests that such an approach could lead to an imbalance of power between ILAs holders, governments and employers. The policy rhetoric on ILAs exceeds the nature of a funding mechanism. They are intended as a mechanism that could ensure individuals’ rights to training, as a framework that could boost LLL quality and participation, as a policy that could address rising inequality. At the same time, however, ILAs operate as a tool of governance, putting the individual in the rather uncomfortable spot of managing risk, success and failure, thus marginalising and disempowering particular groups of people.

Apple, M. W. (2019). On doing critical policy analysis. Educational Policy, 33(1), 276–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904818807307 Aydarova, E. (2020). Jokers’ pursuit of truth: critical policy analysis in the age of spectacle and post-truth politics, Critical Studies in Education, https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2020.1831566 Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity. Taylor and Francis. Boyadjieva, P., & Ilieva-Trichkova, P. (2021). Adult Education as Empowerment. Palgrave Studies in Adult Education and Lifelong Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67136-5 Cedefop (2022). Championing the skills revolution. Cedefop briefing note, January 2022. https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/files/9164_en_0.pdf Diem, S., Young, M. D., & Sampson, C. (2019). Where Critical Policy Meets the Politics of Education: An Introduction. Educational Policy, 33(1):3-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904818807317 Dunbar, M. (2019). A Review of Entitlement Systems for Lifelong Learning. UNESCO & ILO. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_emp/---emp_ent/documents/publication/wcms_752215.pdf European Commission (2020). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. European Skills Agenda for Sustainable Competitiveness, Social Fairness and Resilience. COM(2020) 274 final. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0274&from=EN European Commission (2021). Proposal for a Council recommendation on individual learning accounts. COM(2021) 773 final https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52021DC0773&from=EN European Commission (2021b). Proposal for a Council Recommendation on a European approach to micro-credentials for lifelong learning and employability. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52021DC0770 European Commission (2021c). Communication - The European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2021%3A102%3AFIN&qid=1614928358298#PP1Contents Harrington, K., Cummins, P., & Yamashita, T. (2018). Funding individual learning accounts in the latter half of life: A comparison of initiatives in four countries. Presented at the Commission for International Adult Education annual conference, Myrtle Beach, SC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED597554.pdf Mikulec, B. (2018). Normative presumptions of the European Union’s adult education policy. Studies in the Education of Adults, 50(2), 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/02660830.2018.1522942 OECD (2019). Individual Learning Accounts: Panacea or Pandora’s Box?, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/203b21a8-en. OECD (2019b). Individual Learning Accounts: Design is key for success. Policy Brief on the Future of Work, OECD, https://www.oecd.org/employment/individual-learning-accounts.pdf. Perez, C., & Vourc'h, Α. (2020). Individualising training access schemes: France – the Compte Personnel de Formation (Personal Training Account – CPF). OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 245, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/301041f1-en. UK Commission for Employment and Skills (UKCES) (2010). Personal learning accounts: building on lessons learnt. https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/1307/1/424719%20-%20Personal%20learning%20accounts_1.pdf