Context

The importance of skills for economic development and social cohesion is well recognised across countries. Equally well recognised is the role of public intervention in providing education services and developing skills. For illustration, public expenditure on education and training in the EU is among the largest categories of public spending, trailing only social protection, health, and broad economic governance. Private investment is also sizeable. With ageing populations in advanced and emerging economies, there is a persistent concern about sustaining growth to support living standards amid rising social and health expenditures. Ensuring growth – irrespective of the specific economic development and competitiveness strategy chosen – has direct implications for how skills demand evolves and, in turn, for the design of public skills policies.

Aim

This paper analyses and contrasts the design of skills policies in two different jurisdictions—the European Union and Singapore—through the lens of competitiveness paradigms. While the EU and Singapore differ in economic and political structures and in the level of policy intervention, they also embody distinct ways of competing that shape how skills policies are conceived and implemented. We hypothesise that the competitiveness paradigm adopted in each jurisdiction is a primary driver of skills policy design features.

Analytical Framing

We define the EU as a meta-level competitiveness and skills regime organised around a Single Market logic that promotes efficiency, innovation, and strategic transitions. This regime is articulated through EU-level strategies and instruments (e.g., the internal market acquis, the Green and Digital agendas, the Skills Agenda and European Education Area, and EU-wide coordination tools such as EQF, ESCO, Europass, and related data/standards initiatives). By contrast, Singapore’s competitiveness paradigm reflects a developmental state approach that prioritises high-value-added export competitiveness and the attraction of foreign direct investment, with skills policy embedded in global value-chain upgrading, continuous industry restructuring, and a strong emphasis on lifelong learning as the skills platform for rapid and continuous adjustment.

Theory and Mechanisms

Building on comparative political economy and policy design traditions, we link competitiveness paradigms to concrete mechanisms that shape skills policy design. Specifically, paradigms influence: (i) incentives and priorities (e.g., innovation, upgrading, inclusion); (ii) funding logic and risk-sharing across states, firms, and individuals; (iii) the mix of instruments (e.g., regulation and standards; subsidies and individual entitlements; provider quality assurance; data and recognition frameworks); (iv) governance levels and coordination (EU multi-level steering versus Singapore’s central strategic steering with social partner and sectoral roles); and (v) demand-side intervention and expectations on firms regarding skills utilisation and workplace transformation. These mechanisms provide an operational pathway from abstract paradigms to observable policy design choices.

The paper employs a structured literature review and policy document analysis. For the EU, we examine the articulation of the Single Market competitiveness paradigm and its skills/VET policies through EU-level frameworks and initiatives. For Singapore, we analyse the developmental competitiveness paradigm as it appears in industrial strategy, global value-chain positioning, and the associated skills and lifelong learning policy.

We expect to find a strong linkage between the prevailing competitiveness paradigm and the design features of skills policy. Our analysis will also explain the rationale behind the different linkages. In the EU case, we anticipate a policy design that emphasises common frameworks, standards, coordination instruments, and mission-driven transitions to steer diverse national systems. In Singapore, we expect a policy design oriented to rapid upgrading, targeted sectoral steering, and lifelong learning mechanisms that enable continuous skill change and utilisation. More broadly, the paper reframes skills policy as a derivative of different approaches to competing, offering an analytically grounded alternative to supply-side human capital accounts and providing reviewers with a clear, operational comparison of how paradigms shape instruments, governance, and outcomes.

Draghi, M. (2024a). The future of European competitiveness, Part A | A competitiveness strategy for Europe. https://commission.europa.eu/topics/competitiveness/draghi-report_en Draghi, M. (2024b). The future of European competitiveness, Part B | In-depth analysis and recommendations. https://commission.europa.eu/topics/competitiveness/draghi-report_en European Commission (2025a). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A Competitiveness Compass for the EU. Brussels, 29.1.2025 COM(2025) 30 final. European Commission (2025b). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: The Union of Skills. Brussels, 5.3.2025 COM(2025) 90 final. European Council. (2024, November 8). Budapest Declaration on the New European Competitiveness Deal. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press- releases/2024/11/08/the-budapest-declaration/ Lintzeris, P. (2024). European skills strategies: concepts and typologies, theoretical foundations, institutional architecture, and political priorities. In J. Kontio, P. Gougoulakis, L. Moreno Herrere & M. Teras (eds,) Emerging issues in research on vocational education & training vol. 9 (special issue), pp. 40-64. Atlas Academi. Mazarr, M. J. (2022). The societal foundations of national competitiveness. Rand Corporation. Mazarr, M. J., Dale-Huang, A., & Sargent, M. (2024). The Emerging Competitive Paradigm: A Contest of Effective Governance. OECD (2024), Insights from Skills Strategies in the European Union: Lessons Learnt for Developing and Implementing Effective Skills Policies, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0bf9e78e-en. Sakamoto, A., & Sung, J. (2018). Skills and the future of work: Strategies for inclusive growth in Asia and the Pacific. ILO. Sancak, M. (2024) Why do national skill systems vary? The state’s role in skill system institutions for maintaining growth models, New Political Economy, 29:3, 478-493, DOI: 10.1080/13563467.2023.2279077 Sekmokas, M., & Institute for Adult Learning Singapore. (2019). An analysis of the capacity of Singapore's industry transformation programme (ITP) to meet the transformation expectations: the case study of precision engineering industry. Institute for Adult Learning Singapore. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14955909