| Abstract [eng] |
The aim of the study was to explain the reasons, which have caused a sharp difference in the level of lifelong learning, measured as a share of persons aged 25−64 engaged in learning activities four weeks before the survey, in two countries having similar social and economic background as well as historical experience – Lithuania and Estonia. Despite their similar starting conditions and Lithuanian effort to increase its level of lifelong learning the difference between two countries is more than double, in favour of Estonia. In order to answer the main research question three main streamlines of the theoretical explanations have been distinguished, namely micro (individual level determinants), meso (firm, labour market and educational institutions characteristics) and macro (socio-economic features of the state). Taking into account the explanatory power of the macro level theories the macro level approach has been chosen. The chosen theory states that the level of lifelong learning is determined by the combination of the type of the market economy and the type of the welfare state that the country belongs to. According to the theory due to the economy dependent on low wage, unskilled labour force, almost non-existent innovation activity and minimum level of intervention of the state, the level of lifelong learning is predicted to be low in both Lithuania and Estonia. In this context, relative Estonian success as compared to Lithuania could be explained by: 1) comparatively more modern economic structure and higher level of innovation activity; 2) more active policy of lifelong learning. It has been also taken into account that researchers studying welfare state policies of post-communist countries usually stresses the importance of early decisions taken by the state in formation of welfare policies as it creates path-dependency as well as external influence especially by the neighbouring countries and international organizations as most of the post-communist countries have been markedly influenced by them. In relation to this, the third hypothesis has been formed: 3) comparatively higher level of lifelong learning in Estonia has been caused by the influence of neighboring countries and international organizations. In order to test these hypotheses a comparative method has been applied. The analysis has revealed that significant differences in the way that lifelong learning policy was formed have occurred already in the very beginning of its development and have been largely determined by the Nordic influence on Estonian policy. The main differences were observed in the coherence of the policy, political support to its development, definition of adult learner employed, promotion of the demand side and in some cases of the supply side of lifelong learning. However, the most important difference, which has marked a significant turn in the development of the indicator of lifelong learning in Estonia and Lithuania, has occurred due to different use of EU structural funds assistance. Nevertheless, the importance of differences in economic structure and innovation level has appeared to be not as high as predicted. Even though Estonia has scored higher in almost all of the indicators and almost during all the period analysed, a clear linkage between the development of the innovation level or the share of high value added production in the overall export structure and the level of lifelong learning could not be identified. Nevertheless, the Estonian relative success in modernizing its economy and increasing level of innovation could have influenced a small difference in the level of lifelong learning, which was visible since the beginning of the time period selected for the analysis. It could also be one of the factors, which have influenced a more coherent and more successful lifelong learning policy as a shortage of the skilled labour force in Estonia was felt earlier than in Lithuania. |
