This conceptual paper traces the emergence of the ‘skills-first’ approach, now dominant in international and domestic policy and in all sectors of education. It has two purposes: the first is to analyse policy documents from the European Commission, the OECD and UNESCO to trace the development of the skills discourse to culminate in ‘skills first’ policies. This analysis provides the context for the second purpose, which is to examine how the skills discourse has been most recently instantiated in England, through the UK Government’s Post-16 education and skills white paper (Department for Education et al., 2025). While the ontological and epistemological premise of our paper is critical realism in philosophy and social realism in the sociology of education (Wheelahan & Moodie, 2026), we nonetheless draw on discursive institutionalism (Schmidt, 2008) to explain the ways in which international policy flows are constituted by policy actors in international government organisations, think tanks and other policy actors and how policies undergo processes of recontextualisation to reflect national specificities. We also draw on Bacchi’s (2012, 2026) ‘What’s the problem represented to be’ to problematise the concept of skills and the problems policies on skills seek to address.

The skills discourse originated first in the vocational education sector and has progressively expanded within vocational education to encompass a wide range of attributes and character qualities not traditionally associated with skill (Payne, 2000). ‘Skills first’ now has colonised higher education, but also schools and early childhood education. ‘Skills first’ has two meanings: it was popularised by the World Economic Forum (2023) to exhort firms, enterprises, and government agencies to focus on specific skills and competencies that applicants have, rather than their educational qualifications, previous job titles, or job history. It has subsequently been adopted and developed by the European Commission (2024) and the OECD (2025), and operationalised by the European Commission (nd-a, nd-b) in its ‘Union of Skills’ and ‘Pact for Skills’ and UNESCO (2025) through tools such as its ‘Global Skills Tracker’.

The second meaning of ‘skills first’ is that all education and all sectors of education must be pressed into the service of skills. For example, the OECD (2025) argues that better and more equitable access to early childhood education and care services is necessary because skills disparities develop early and only widen with time. Moreover, “Compulsory schooling systems must balance excellence, equity and labour market relevance” (OECD, 2025, p.20). The OECD continues: “…[school] curricula should ensure academic proficiency in core 21^st-century skills, social and emotional skills, and career readiness” (p.20).

The ‘Skills First’ policy framework is both underpinned by human capital theory but also demonstrates the failure of human capital theory (Milana et al., 2025). Human capital theory posits that more education leads to greater and better skills, and higher productivity (Becker, 1962), yet despite the massive expansion of all levels of education in the last 50 years, policy bodies and governments complain of skills gaps and mismatches. The problem is, according to the European Economic and Social Committee (2018, p.6), that there is too much education of the wrong sort and that “a larger part of the mismatch is due to over-skilling/education”. ‘Skills First’ policies are thus a tool for governments to discipline all levels of education to focus on skills needed for work as the priority.

The English White Paper exemplifies the focus on skills as the solution to all economic and social problems that beset England and it will result in a tighter focus on learning for work. All education in all sectors is pressed into the service of skills, with citizen development excluded from consideration.

We draw on Schmidt’s (2008) discursive institutionalism to analyse policy flows and the way in which the discourse of skill is defined and legitimated, and Bacchi’s (2012, p.23) ‘what’s the problem represented to be’ to examine how the ‘problem’ of skill is constituted in policy, and to probe “the unexamined assumptions and deep-seated conceptual logics” in skills policies. However, contrary to Schmidt (2012) and Bacchi (2016; 2026) who disavow the use of critical realism to base their approach more solidly on constructivism, we use critical realism to examine non-discursive relations of power that promote the skills discourse. Critical realists posit a complex reality that includes the importance of discourse in structuring relations of power, particularly in the way ‘problems’ are ‘named’. Critical realists take discourse seriously but argue that discourse is related to non-discursive relations of power in complex and stratified social structures that also have a material basis. Discourses contribute to, but cannot fully explain, relations of power and social structures. Critical realists use ‘abduction’, a process of theoretical redescription, to draw from alternative paradigms to engage in conceptual abstraction, necessary for understanding the way in which problems are defined. This allows us to draw from both Schmidt and Bacchi in our analysis without conceding their ‘strong’ constructivist premises, as interpretation of meanings is fundamental to critical realist analyses (Sayer, 2010). In using discursive institutionalism, we examine the relationship between international and national policy flows, including the coordinative discourses that shape policies and, communicative discourses which mediate between policy actors and the public (Wahlström & Sundberg, 2018). We draw on Bacchi’s six questions in her ‘what’s the problem represented to be’ to question the way in which skill is defined as both ‘problem’ and ‘solution’. Her six questions are: 1. “What's the ‘problem’…represented to be in a specific policy or policy proposal? 2. What presuppositions or assumptions underpin this representation of the ‘problem’? 3. How has this representation of the ‘problem’ come about? 4. What is left unproblematic in this problem representation? Where are the silences? Can the ‘problem’ be thought about differently? 5. What effects are produced by this representation of the ‘problem’? 6. How/where has this representation of the ‘problem’ been produced, disseminated and defended? How has it been (or could it be) questioned, disrupted and replaced?” (Bacchi, 2012)

We found that as human capital theory increasingly came to dominate government policies on education over the last 50 years, policy has progressively narrowed the focus of education away from broader conceptions of citizenship formation, personal development, and occupational preparation to the production of skills. In the 1970s, human capital theory was descriptive, it was used to explain why individuals and enterprises invested in education. In the 1980s and 1990s, it became normative, education should be about jobs. In the 2000s, human capital theory has become prescriptive, education must be about jobs. The ‘problem’ of skills arises from human capital theory but also from neoliberal assumptions about society, competition and individuals. The transition to a ‘market society’ amplified human capital theory’s concerns with investment in knowledge and skills, in which the purpose of education is to supply the ‘skills’ needed by individuals and employers. The ‘problem’ is cast as a supply problem, in which educational institutions do not supply the ‘right’ skills needed by employers and labour markets. The structure of societies and labour markets, relations of class, gender, race and other dimensions of power and inequality, are recast as ‘technical’ problems which must be overcome to ensure adequate labour market supply. The consequences of this approach are examined through close examination of England’s skill policies. The definition of skill, its reduction to a problem of ‘mapping’ between supply and demand, and its rendering as a technocratic problem waiting to be solved, are explored. Attributes and character qualities are redefined as skill, colonising our inner worlds and helping to shape sensibilities of the ‘good’ worker. Skill policies produce aggregative and additive conceptions of skill, in which skills can be enumerated, counted, and aggregated in different ways, ignoring the social contexts in which skills are developed, deployed, extended, and evaluated.

Bacchi, C. (2012). Introducing the ‘What's the Problem Represented to be?’ approach. In B. Angelique & B. Chris (Eds.), Engaging with Carol Bacchi: Strategic Interventions and Exchanges (pp. 21-24). University of Adelaide Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/UPO9780987171856.003 Bacchi, C. (2016). Problematizations in Health Policy: Questioning How “Problems” Are Constituted in Policies. Sage Open, 6(2), 2158244016653986. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016653986 Bacchi, C. (2026). What's the Problem Represented to Be? : A New Thinking Paradigm. Routledge. Becker, G. S. (1962). Investment in Human Capital: A Theoretical Analysis. Journal of Political Economy, 70(5), 9-49. http://www.jstor.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/stable/1829103 Department for Education, Department for Work and Pensions, & Department for Science Innovation and Technology. (2025). Post-16 education and skills white paper. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/post-16-education-and-skills-white-paper European Commission. (2024). The ‘Skills First’ Approach - Opportunities and Risks. https://pact-for-skills.ec.europa.eu/document/download/006e50d4-6383-4f1a-b2fc-75a5ac082f63_en European Commission. (nd-a). Pact for Skills. Retrieved 26 January 2026 from https://pact-for-skills.ec.europa.eu/index_en European Commission. (nd-b). Union of Skills. Retrieved 27 January 2026 from https://commission.europa.eu/topics/competitiveness/union-skills_en European Economic and Social Committee. (2018). Skills Mismatches–An Impediment to the Competitiveness of EU Businesses. https://www.eesc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/files/qe-02-18-922-en-n.pdf Milana, M., Ulrik, B., Steven, H., Tetyana, H.-K., & and Morris, T. H. (2025). Skills, skills, skills! The European Commission’s endorsement of a Skills-First approach and the future of adult education and lifelong learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 44(2), 127-130. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2025.2472553 OECD. (2025). OECD Skills Outlook 2025: Building the Skills of the 21st Century for All (OECD Skills Outlook, Issue. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-skills-outlook-2025_26163cd3-en.html Payne, J. (2000). The unbearable lightness of skill: the changing meaning of skill in UK policy discourses andsome implications for education and training. Journal of Education Policy, 15(3), 353-369. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930050030473 Sayer, A. (2010). Method in social science : a realist approach (Rev. 2nd ed.). Routledge. Schmidt, V. A. (2008). Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas and Discourse. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 303-326. Schmidt, V. A. (2012). Discursive Institutionalism: Scope, Dynamics, and Philosophical Underpinnings. In H. Gottweis & F. Fischer (Eds.), The Argumentative Turn Revisited (pp. 85-113). Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780822395362-004 UNESCO. (2025). Global Skills Tracker User Manual. https://unevoc.unesco.org/up/gst-user-manual.pdf Wahlström, N., & Sundberg, D. (2018). Discursive institutionalism: towards a framework for analysing the relation between policy and curriculum. Journal of Education Policy, 33(1), 163-183. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2017.1344879 Wheelahan, L., & Moodie, G. (Forthcoming, 2026). Beyond Skills: A Capability Conception of Vocational Education (Vol. 14). Brill. World Economic Forum. (2023). Putting skills first: a framework for action. https://www.weforum.org/publications/putting-skills-first-a-framework-for-action/