Author:
Experts, conferences and missions abound these days on the need for skills development in much of the developing countries; even those which have embarked upon a trajectory of rapid economic growth (like India), development of skills is being touted as the next big âgame changerâ. Various schemes have been formulated to promote skills development in order to utilize the demographic dividend in those countries which have a high percentage of youthful population (like India). What is the progress on this account?
When National Skills Development Corporation (NSDC) was launched in India three years ago, it was envisaged that nearly 500 million persons will have acquired new skills through a formally recognized programme. NSDC only agreed to look after 30% of these through a business model of public-private partnership; it listed 21 skill sets as its focus, the 21st being âunorganised sectorâ. The Governing Board of NSDC comprises of private business leaders and government officials; it provides loans and guarantees, no grants. The students are expected to pay for learning skills, mostly after completing their high school level education.
The above approach to skills development is pretty standard; it is linked to employability, and curriculum and pedagogy are prepared in partnership with employers. A recent World Bank Report âFlexibility, Skills, & Employabilityâ generally recommends that pathways to skills learning should be flexible and multiple, though necessarily linked to employment opportunities.
This approach to skill development misses out three important aspects. First, and foremost issue is the nature of the economy and the workforce in a given country. Most developing countries, including India, have a huge unorganized sector of the economy, and therefore a substantial percentage of informal work force. A recent analysis of National Statistics Committee in India, set up in the wake of recommendations of National Commission on Employment in the Unorganised Sector (2008), has distinguished between the segments of economy which are unorganized, and segments of workers who work in an informal manner. These estimates suggest that unorganized sectors (including agriculture and allied activities) contribute more than 50% to Indiaâs economy; nearly four-fifth of the entire workforce in India is informal (including those who are self-employed in household enterprises).
Therefore, a national policy on skills development must come to terms with this reality. What mechanisms are needed for skills development for women vendors, masons, drivers, plumbers, carpenters, shop-keepers, home-delivery boys, domestic cleaners, cooks, etc? The first 20 sectors mentioned in the NSDC list of skills sets each have a major component of informal workers, and unorganized sector; how is this going to be addressed? In textiles, for example, how will the skills of small tailoring outfits in each neighbourhood be included? In construction, how the skills of making brick klins from mud (and then baking them) be provided for? What about the skills of âcleanersâ who accompany drivers on lorries? Should there be a distinction made for drivers of small cars and BMWs? In the absence of inclusion of such informal workers and unorganized sectors of economic activities, a large proportion of Indiaâs workforce will not be able to benefit from these policies.
The second aspect not adequately considered in these policies is about learning of skills; there is an assumption that new skill development programmes in formal institutional settings would be launched. In most cases mentioned above, skills are acquired in non-formal and informal ways; most vendors become skillful accountants by doing so; most masons, carpenters, cleaners, farmers, etc etc learn their skills by working. Learning by doing is a well- established pedagogy. What such âskilled professionalsâ (women vendors, toddy tappers, compounders, cleaners, home-based attendants, and many others) need is a system that recognizes their already existing skill sets; ârecognition of prior learningâ is critical for such a vast number of workers. In addition to recognition, standards of skills need to be established specifically for the unorganized sector (since working conditions and market factors vary considerably between the organized and unorganized sectors of economy). Accreditation processes and mechanisms need to be put in place in a highly decentralized manner such that informal sector of the workforce can access these easily. Once recognition of existing skills sets has occurred, systems for upgradation of the same can be planned. A recent UNESCO report (from UNESCO Institute of Lifelong Learning) has focused precisely on this set of issues by providing guidelines for RVA (Recognition, Validation & Accreditation) of outcomes from non-formal and informal learning.
It is unfortunate that this penchant for formal schooling and training in countries like India has delegitimized the enormous power and continued relevance of non-formal and informal learning in the lives of a vast majority of people world-wide.
Third, there is a tendency in these policies to focus narrowly on those skill sets which are tightly linked to employment, income and economy. Such a pervasive perspective tends to overlook the equity and transformative dimensions of skills development (as highlighted during the 3rd World Congress on TVET in Shanghai earlier this year). What skills sets are primarily important from a societal lens, not just economic lens? In Europe and North America, the policies of life-long learning have taken a holistic perspective about skills beyond âeconomic vocationâ (as much of vocational education tends to be). Social and citizenship skills are also valued, and provided for in such policies. Viewed in a societal lens, many new skill sets may be included in the policies of agencies like NSDC in India. It may be worthwhile to focus on skill sets of community organisers, grassroots educators, RTI activists, SHG facilitators, trainers in participatory methodologies, social auditors, conflict negotiators, peace builders, etc? Should these skill sets be deemed valuable in a society, there should be policies and mechanisms for their RVA, and upgradation; who should invest in these skills sets? Are these not public goods, requiring public investments?
Such issues were deliberated upon in two recent platforms, both organized by civil society--- the 6th National Skills Conference organized by FVRTS (Bangalore) in Trivandrum, and Asia-Pacific regional conference in Phnom Penh by ASPBAE. These issues need to be now brought into mainstream policy discourse by civil society efforts, which should also perhaps claim its own representation on existing policy institutions like NSDC. In the absence of such an approach, the existing economic divide between India and âBharatâ may get deepened further.
PRIA’s MobiliseHER team traveled to Bangalore during the week of June, 10 – 14, 2024. The aim of the visit was to gain relevant insights into the civil society ecosystem in Bangalore and meet different organisations to understand the city through a lens of gender and inclusive mobility.
Working at PRIA, often leads us to various cities across the country. Each trip is an opportunity to witness firsthand the challenges and triumphs of different communities.
Mr. Yedukrishnan V has recently joined PRIA after gaining valuable experience in the development sector. Drawing from his journey in the social sector and personal encounters in Kerala, he emphasises the importance of participatory governance and research in empowering marginalised communities.'
