This chapter examines the supply of lifelong learning (LLL) opportunities as a fundamental pillar of LLL systems, focusing on how opportunities to learn are organised, delivered, and embedded across different stages of life. It recalls how learning can take place in schools and universities, in training courses, at work, in community organisations, and through everyday activities, including online environments. New technologies and more flexible forms of education are indeed changing the way people learn, often combining different learning experiences. The chapter also explores how governments, employers, welfare services, and community organisations support learning throughout life, and why countries differ in the opportunities they make available to learners.
A Conceptual Foundation for the Development of a Lifelong Learning Measurement Framework
Abstract
The third core pillar of the LLL framework is the supply or provision of learning opportunities in various forms across all stages and settings of life. This pillar is important for understanding both types of learning across the life course and between-country variability of LLL systems.
However, despite its centrality and previous intensive theorising (e.g. Coombs (1985[1]); Billett (2002[2]); Colley, Hodkinson and Malcolm (2003[3]) and Rogers (2014[4])), it is currently under-theorised and inconsistently operationalised and applied within policy and data collection frameworks, like the Labour Force Survey (LFS), AES, Continuous Vocational Training Survey (CVTS), or the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC). Similarly, data on learning beyond formal education are almost entirely absent from surveys like the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). As a result, we lack evidence that could help us understand how skill formation outside school at the age of 15 or in secondary school, such as the development of self-regulation capacities or the development of knowledge and skills that are not typically taught in formal education, might influence the acquisition of skills in school and later in life.
In the absence of a robust and up-to-date conceptual foundation, LLL policy is exposed to two significant risks. First, an overreliance on outdated classifications of learning provision that no longer reflect current learning practices. Second, the inadvertent exclusion of important (sub)types of learning that may be of particular relevance to diverse stakeholder groups (see Section 3), e.g. the utilisation of new technologies during informal learning among the current generation of youth. As learner and provider profiles grow increasingly diverse, developing a coherent conceptual basis and subsequent measurement framework for learning provision becomes essential. Doing so enables policymakers to align objectives with the full spectrum of learning opportunities, allowing for more effective allocation of funding, recognition of credentials, and targeted institutional support.
Over the last two decades, the learning provision has been mostly conceptualised through a “triadic typology” of learning activities that are delivered to individuals (CLA, 2006[5]; CLA, 2016[6]):
Formal education refers to highly organised learning in educational institutions, with hierarchical study programmes, chronological succession of levels, leading to accredited qualifications recognised by national education authorities. This form of learning accounts for the overwhelming share of organised education among individuals under the age of 24 (and is mandatory at least until 15) in OECD countries, while representing only a relatively small proportion of learning among older adults.
Non-formal education refers to organised learning of adults outside the formal education system, typically without credentials and encompassing various forms of both job-related and non-job-related organised learning like workshops, courses, individual lessons and guided on-the-job training. For children, this form of education encompasses organised learning outside regular school programmes, such as courses in art, digital skills, or social development, as well as in sports clubs, music schools, language classes, coding workshops, drama groups, or community-based cultural activities.
Informal learning refers to intentional, unorganised, and typically uncertified learning that may occur in both work- and non-work-related contexts. The source of learning can be the activity itself, various resources such as articles, message boards, or podcasts, as well as interactions with other individuals.
This framework was initially developed to enable comparative international data collection on LLL, particularly through initiatives by Eurostat (Eurostat, 2024[7]) and the OECD (see, e.g. OECD (2023[8]; 2025[9])). While analytically valuable, this classification now requires refinement in light of current empirical realities, as it was constructed around institutional characteristics observable in the early 2000s. The categories were initially conceived as distinct, clearly bounded, and mutually exclusive types of learning activities.
However, as many scholars have since argued (Rogers, 2014[4]; Baert, 2018[10]; Messmann, Segers and Dochy, 2018[11]), learning activities occur along a continuum, with overlapping boundaries that rarely fit neatly into such rigid classifications. Moreover, since the early 2000s, learning practices have become far more diverse. We have witnessed the emergence of semi-qualifications in formal education, and the implementation of recognition of prior learning from non-formal education, increasing organisation and systematisation of workplace informal learning, and a rapid expansion of digital forms of informal learning that differ from the past (Evans, 2023[12]; Kalenda and Boeren, 2025[13]).
Two interrelated processes, fuelled by unprecedented changes in information and computing technologies, call for a much stronger emphasis within LLL landscape: (1) the hybridisation and flexibilisation of higher formal education and formal education for adults, (2) the hybridisation of non-formal education, and informal learning (see Figure 4.1).
As these processes are intertwined with expansion of digital delivery of learning activities, a revised conceptualisation of learning categories should also address a higher level of digitisation. For example, how children’s non-formal education and informal learning is increasingly shaped by digital platformisation. As mentioned, algorithmic curation on social media platforms now supplements or competes with organised after-school activities, influencing attention, socialisation, and knowledge acquisition. Including this in the LLL taxonomy foregrounds issues of digital well-being and equity at early ages.
In the case of older adults, informal and community-based learning, ranging from cultural associations and citizen science projects to digital peer support networks, represents the dominant form of participation. These activities often escape current monitoring yet have demonstrated benefits for cognitive health, resilience, and intergenerational solidarity.
4.1.1. Flexibilisation of formal education
Policy innovations such as the recognition of prior learning, modular qualifications, and micro-credentials have become increasingly integrated into formal education systems (Desjardins, 2017[14]; OECD, 2023[15]). Although situated within formal institutional frameworks, these tools often adopt organisational structures and pedagogical approaches more typical of non-formal education, and they do not necessarily result in a formal qualification. Moreover, the recognition of prior learning enables skills acquired through non-formal education, often gained in community settings or workplace, to be formally validated. This convergence increasingly blurs the long-standing boundaries between formal and non-formal education, making traditional indicators of formality, such as hierarchical progression, chronological sequencing, selective admission, campus-based delivery, and standardised curricula (CLA, 2006[5]; CLA, 2016[6]), less dependable as distinguishing features (Kalenda and Boeren, 2025[13]).
In Europe, flexibilisation and digitalisation are accelerating this transformation: over 58 per cent of formal provision for adults aged 25 to 64 years old now takes place in online or blended formats, eroding the primacy of the classroom-based model (Kalenda et al., 2026 (forthcoming)[16]). Such innovations can better align provision with life-course needs, including mid-career reskilling, but also warn of policy risks when modular offers are poorly coordinated, leading to fragmentation and limited labour market recognition. Addressing these risks requires governance mechanisms that ensure interoperability of qualifications, labour market alignment, and equitable access across diverse learner groups.
Source: Desjardins and Kalenda (forthcoming[17]), Worlds of Adult Learning Systems.
4.1.2. Hybridisation of non-formal education and informal learning
Digital platforms have transformed not only how learning content is distributed but also how it is experienced. The shift from Web 1.0, marked by passive content consumption, to Web 2.0, defined by interactive, co-created, and algorithmically curated content, has introduced powerful new actors into the ecosystem. Platforms such as LinkedIn, YouTube, and Facebook now influence learning trajectories as much as they disseminate educational material (van Dijck, Poell and De Waal, 2018[18]; Poell, Nieborg and van Dijck, 2019[19]; Pangrazio et al., 2022[20]).
Two interlinked mechanisms drive this transformation. Datafication involves the systematic collection and analysis of user data to personalise learning experiences, while algorithmic selection curates content and learning pathways according to engagement metrics and interface design. Together, these mechanisms blur the boundaries between informal learning and non-formal education by imposing a structured, goal-oriented framework on learning spaces that originated outside formal institutions.
While these developments broaden opportunities by revealing (latent) demand, diversifying provision, and lowering access barriers through free or low-cost resources, they raise governance and equity issues (Zuboff, 2019[21]).
For the younger generation, the platform-driven dynamics of datafication and algorithmic selection are reshaping LLL from its earliest stages, embedding new forms of informal learning in families and communities, as well as in pre-school education into everyday digital practices. On one side, young learners now have unprecedented access to diverse sources of knowledge and self-directed opportunities that may nurture curiosity, adaptability, and skills increasingly aligned with future labour market demands. On the other hand, their reliance on commercial platforms renders their early learning trajectories vulnerable to opaque algorithmic logics that amplify echo chambers, and narrow educational horizons according to patterns of engagement rather than pedagogical value (Haidt, 2024[22]).
In light of these processes, there is a rising need for a revised conceptualisation of the provision of LLL opportunities. For this aim, we propose two conceptual shifts: first related to an updated conception of learning categories, second linked to situating this updated framework in four institutional clusters of late-modern post-industrial societies, in which learning provision is embedded, and that causes multiplicity of national configurations of LLL (See Figure 4.2 for details).
Note: This figure presents a conceptual typology illustrating LLL activities along two intersecting dimensions: the extent of digitalisation (vertical axis). Together, these axes generate a continuum encompassing five main categories: formal education, mixed modes of formal and non-formal learning, non-formal education, mixed modes of non-formal and informal learning, and intentional informal learning. At the lower end of digitalisation and high formalisation, traditional school-based provision dominates, emphasising structured curricula, institutional accreditation, and physical learning environments. As digitalisation increases, new forms of blended and online provision emerge, such as Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) and micro-credentials, which combine accessibility with recognised qualifications. In the intermediate zones, hybrid approaches, such as recognition of prior learning, blended workplace education, and non-formal courses with non-recognised certification, reflect the growing interplay between education and employment. At the more informal and highly digitalised end, self-directed learning through online platforms, chatbots, and forums highlights the increasing autonomy of learners and the decentralisation of knowledge creation.
Source: Desjardins and Kalenda (forthcoming[17]), Worlds of Adult Learning Systems.
Rather than adopting a rigid typology, we begin by considering categories of learning provision as situated within a conceptual space defined by two key axes (see the degree of formalisation and the degree of digitalisation. The first axis captures variations in learning provision based on differing levels of structure, organisation, and credentialing. The second reflects the extent to which learning is mediated by digital technologies (See Figure 4.2).
Crucially, this framework does not assume rigid or impermeable boundaries. Rather, it recognises the fluid and evolving character of learning environments, enabling the emergence of new forms that blend features across these axes. It highlights the continuity between different modes of learning, showing how digitalisation operates both as a catalyst for innovation and as a bridge linking formal and informal settings. The framework also stresses the policy importance of hybrid learning spaces in promoting inclusion, recognising diverse learning outcomes, and supporting adaptability within rapidly changing labour markets. This conceptualisation aligns with the priorities of the OECD and the European Commission on LLL, digital transformation, and skills development (European Commission, 2016[23]; OECD, 2023[15]; 2023[24]; Borgonovi and Suarez-Alvarez, 2025[25]). Moreover, it sheds light on emerging learning activities that remain unmeasured or misclassified in current large-scale data collections, owing to the limited refinement of existing learning activity categories.
In addition, the framework incorporates the growing influence of digitalisation in learning provision along this continuum. This digital shift increasingly decouples the physical location and timing of educational delivery – a phenomenon referred to as the “spatial shift” in learning practice (Evans, 2023[12]). For example, the recent study based on AES 2022-2023 data finds that digital formats (online and blended provision) now account for 58 per cent of formal and 46 per cent of non-formal education participation across European countries, with blended learning prevailing in formal education, while fully online provision is more widespread in non-formal education (Kalenda et al., 2026 (forthcoming)[16]). Therefore, measuring the digital axis should be systematised across various surveys measuring LLL.
Applying this framework across the life course is essential, as current perspectives on LLL under the age of sixteen remain largely confined to formal education and often neglect less formalised modes of learning. This omission is particularly significant given the sharp rise in online engagement and immersion in digital environments among younger generations over the past decade. Increasingly, a substantial proportion of their skill acquisition occurs outside traditional school settings, mediated by commercial platforms. The rapid emergence of conversational agents, with their high levels of usability, is likely to reinforce this trend and further shape future learning pathways and skill development.
We therefore contend that this conceptual framework) applies not only to adults but also to younger learners. It provides a more nuanced understanding of hybrid learning forms, such as micro-credentialed short courses delivered via digital platforms, workplace training that integrates formal assessment with organisational support for informal learning, and community-based initiatives with varying degrees of organisation and institutionalisation (Wenger, 1998[26]). This re-conceptualisation offers policymakers a more precise lens through which to chart the contemporary LLL landscape, identify existing gaps, and design governance mechanisms that recognise new actors and emerging modalities.
Finally, the limitations of the proposed framework should be noted. First, it remains centred on intentional learning and therefore does not capture the accidental, tacit, and incidental learning that can occur across all learning types shown in Figure 4.2. These dimensions are critical for understanding informal learning modalities in particular (OECD, 2025[27]), although they are less central when the primary objective is to map the provision of LLL. Second, the updated topology of learning activities is descriptive rather than evaluative. It does not address how different learning types are valued by individuals or societies, nor how they vary in outcomes, social recognition, and perceived legitimacy.
The characteristics of LLL provision differ significantly across countries because more organised learning activities (see the left-hand side) are embedded within specific clusters of institutions, which in turn influence their accessibility. Inspired by LLL systems framework recently outlined by Desjardins and Kalenda (2025[28]), we distinguish four key institutional clusters in the current advanced post-industrial societies, which are the main providers of organised learning: (1) Formal education cluster, (2) Employer cluster, (3) Welfare policy cluster, and (4) Civic cluster. Each of these clusters has its own institutions (rules, norms, and practices) responsible for the provision, financing, and coordination of organised learning (Figure 4.3). offers their overview.
Note: This figure illustrates four institutional clusters related to LLL (formal education, employer, welfare policy, and civic), representing interconnected domains where learning provisions are embedded. Overlaps between clusters, such as vocational training linking formal education with labour market needs or community programmes bridging welfare and civic spheres, highlight dynamic interactions that enable mixed types of provisions and cross-cluster skill flows. These overlaps vary by national context, contributing to diverse LLL configurations and emphasising the need for coordinated governance to align provisions with multi-level needs.
Source: Desjardins and Kalenda (forthcoming[17]), Worlds of Adult Learning Systems.
The embeddedness of learning provision within these clusters has a marked impact on cross-country variability in LLL systems.
First, countries differ in the origins of their LLL ecosystems within a given cluster. Distinct institutional histories often produce unique national trajectories in the development of LLL provision. For example, some countries may have prioritised a formal education system, particularly the initial phase, while others have emphasised employer-driven provision for adults, shaping legislative and normative frameworks accordingly.
Second, the size and prominence of institutional clusters within national LLL ecosystems vary considerably. In some cases, a single, well-developed cluster dominates a country’s LLL system, whereas in others, all four institutional clusters are equally developed. This distinction gives rise to what may be described as “monochrome” versus “multicoloured” LLL ecosystems.
Third, the degree of coordination among stakeholders, both within and between clusters, also differs. In some highly coordinated systems, the initial education, formal adult education and training in other clusters function as a unified whole. In less coordinated systems, LLL provision is fragmented, appearing as a collage of institutions responsible for different forms of adult learning, often using divergent terminologies and operating within separate boundaries. In such cases, stakeholders may even compete for attention and resources (Desjardins and Kalenda, 2025[29]).
4.3.1. Formal education cluster
The formal education cluster encompasses structured, credentialed programmes delivered by institutions such as schools, universities, vocational schools, and adult secondary education centres. These programmes follow curricula that culminate in recognised qualifications, classified under frameworks such as International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) levels. From a life-course perspective, it is essential to distinguish between initial education, designed primarily for so-called traditional students, and the formal adult-learning system that serves non-traditional learners who came back to formal education after a break in their educational pathway.
In modern labour markets, such qualifications perform a dual role. Beyond certifying specific skills, they exert signalling effect – communicating to employers, professional bodies, and society an individual’s potential productivity, reliability, and cultural capital (Spence, 1973[30]; Brown, Lauder and Cheung, 2020[31]). This signalling often amplifies the economic and social returns to formal education, sometimes independently of the actual competencies acquired. In this regard, qualifications from formal education predict many financial and labour market outcomes better than skills as measured by adult surveys (Erola, Mills and Solga, 2023[32]; Hornberg, Heisig and Solga, 2024[33]).
However, in the case of non-traditional adult learners, the rigidity of formal provision frequently limits recognition of informal or non-formal learning, thereby disadvantaging low-educated individuals who lack initial credentials despite having gained relevant experience, skills and knowledge through other channels. Beyond that, according to recent data, the signalling power of qualifications has been weakening (OECD, 2026[34]).
Beyond the mandatory formal education up to 15-18-year-olds depending on countries, the availability and accessibility of learning provision within this cluster vary widely across countries for older learners. The Nordic countries (e.g. Sweden, Norway, and Denmark) provide extensive learning opportunities across the life course, with publicly funded institutions offering provision from basic education through to higher vocational programmes. In the United States, a wide array of subsidised community colleges with open enrolment policies provides substantial access to postsecondary and vocational education for adults. However, overall provision for adult learners remains more fragmented due to its decentralised, state- and locally-driven nature, variable funding and eligibility across jurisdictions, and uneven coordination between credit-bearing programmes, non-credit adult basic education (ABE), English language services, and workforce training. This can limit seamless pathways, outreach to underrepresented groups, and consistent accessibility compared to more integrated systems. Accessibility across these contexts is shaped not only by the range of programmes but also by eligibility requirements, delivery modes (e.g. flexible scheduling, online options), financial support, and the extent of proactive outreach to underrepresented and disadvantaged groups (Desjardins, 2017[14]; 2020[35]).
Significant variation exists in how education across both initial and adult formal systems is regulated and financed, and in the balance between public and private provision. Although participation in initial education is compulsory and families may choose private providers, the state typically guarantees a sufficient number of publicly funded places for all learners. In this context, regulation in the form of admissions, accreditation, and curriculum standards often shapes participation and equity more than financing alone (Bukodi et al., 2017[36]).
As with other clusters, the formal education system demonstrates areas of overlap. Particularly significant is its intersection with the labour market cluster, notably through its links to employer training strategies and industrial relations systems (Busemeyer and Trampusch, 2012[37]; Kalenda, 2024[38]). This represents an additional dimension in the ways countries differ in the organisation of LLL provision. Countries with dual vocational systems, such as Germany and Austria, display strong coordination between initial education, continuing training, and employer engagement (Culpepper and Thelen, 2008[39]; Thelen, 2004[40]; 2014[41]). By contrast, systems such as that of the United Kingdom maintain a clearer institutional separation between education and employment. The extent of employer involvement, both financial and strategic, plays a decisive role in shaping the capacity of formal provision to respond to evolving skills demands. Formal education also connects with welfare-oriented interventions (e.g. subsidised second-chance programs), which are vital, as these connections create cumulative effects on capability expansion, employability, and social inclusion (UNESCO, 2016[42]; Desjardins, 2017[14]). Recognising the signalling role of formal credentials within these interconnections is crucial for designing policies that reduce inequality while strengthening the adaptive capacity of education systems.
4.3.2. Employer cluster
The employer cluster covers employer-led provision (e.g. apprenticeships, on-the-job training, and reskilling) targeted at easing skill shortages and bolstering productivity, innovation, and competitiveness. Delivery is primarily through private firms and vocational training bodies, typically in job-specific formats; apprenticeships are sometimes offered jointly with formal education. These models are increasingly hybridised via digital platforms (Karger et al., 2024[43]). Within this cluster, LLL is shifting towards less organised, more flexible approaches that prize agility and peer-to-peer learning among employees (Kearns, 2015[44]; Messmann, Segers and Dochy, 2018[11]; Lancaster, 2020[45]). In contrast to the previous cluster, centred on compulsory provision and young people in tertiary education, this one focuses on adults in the labour market beyond their initial schooling.
The foundational Varieties of Capitalism literature (Hall and Soskice, 2001[46]; Culpepper and Thelen, 2008[39]; Estevez-Abe, 2005[47]; Rees, 2013[48]) argues that the provision of LLL during the economically active stages of life is firmly embedded within national labour market institutions and the strategic orientations of firms. As a result, workplace-based adult learning, typically semi-structured, is the most common form of organised LLL worldwide (Rubenson, 2018[49]; Desjardins, 2020[35]; Desjardins and Kim, 2023[50]). Such provision is governed by implicit rules, norms, and practices, and is strongly shaped by the availability and initial skill levels of the workforce.
The scope of provision in this cluster depends heavily on the occupational structure. Countries with a high share of high-skill occupations, particularly in complex services and high-technology industries, such as the Netherlands and Norway, tend to maintain more extensive provision structures (Desjardins and Kalenda, 2025[29]). High labour force participation is also a critical enabler: the more people are active in the labour market, the more opportunities for this form of learning multiply (Saar, Roosmaa and Martma, 2023[51]). Finally, the scale of employer-based learning also depends on management practices and the company's learning culture (Fuller and Unwin, 2004[52]; OECD, 2010[53]; Dochy et al., 2021[54]).
Moreover, this cluster connects to welfare policy through reskilling schemes for unemployed workers, and to civic life through corporate social responsibility programmes that strengthen community networks. Provision often aligns with macro-level priorities such as green transitions (OECD, 2023[24]; Keese and Marcolin, 2023[55]). In liberal economies, automation and AI-driven disruptions have spurred targeted reskilling – for example, US initiatives addressing 14 per cent of jobs at risk (Acemoglu and Restrepo, 2019[56]). In coordinated economies such as Denmark, employer subsidies play a central role in sustaining high participation rates in job-related adult education among individuals aged 25 to 64 (Rasmussen, 2025[57]).
4.3.3. Welfare policy cluster
The welfare-policy cluster comprises LLL embedded in social protection systems. It primarily serves working-age adults outside the labour market and younger learners with health conditions or special educational needs within formal education. Provision typically falls under Active Labour Market Policies (ALMPs), including unemployment retraining, elder-care training, and inclusion programmes for migrants and other disadvantaged groups. These initiatives are usually run by public bodies, most often social services, and financed through general taxation or targeted subsidies to promote equity and build human capital (Desjardins and Ioannidou, 2020[58]; Cabus, Ilieva-Trichkova and Štefánik, 2020[59]; Bonoli, Emmenegger and Felder‐Stindt, 2025[60]). Delivery is most often through local units of the social security system and training agencies co-funded with public resources.
Across Europe, persistent skill shortages have intensified interest in expanding this cluster (Hemerijck and Matsaganis, 2024[61]; Bonoli, Emmenegger and Felder‐Stindt, 2025[60]). Migration has further stimulated welfare-linked LLL provision. Germany and Norway, for example, have seen substantial growth in such programmes in recent years (Bæck, 2025[62]; Ioannidou and Kohl, 2025[63]).
UNESCO’s Education 2030 framework highlights welfare-linked education as a pathway to sustainable development, citing examples such as EU-funded programmes that reduce institutional barriers for migrants (UNESCO, 2016[42]). However, significant cross-national variation exists in LLL provision and adoption, design and target groups of such programmes (Kalenda and Desjardins, 2025[28]). Differences reflect each country’s adoption of social investment strategies (Bonoli, 2007[64]; Hemerijck, 2018[65]; Hemerijck and Matsaganis, 2024[61]) and the specific groups they prioritise (Thelen, 2014[41]; Busemeyer, Carstensen and Emmenegger, 2022[66]). In Nordic welfare regimes, like in Norway or Sweden, universal access models integrate welfare with LLL, resulting in more extensive and inclusive provision (Bæck, 2025[62]; Nylander and Rubenson, 2025[67]). In contrast, residual models such as those in the U.S. emphasise targeted interventions, which often produce uneven outcomes (Desjardins, 2017[14]; Lee and Desjardins, 2019[68]).
Connections to formal education frequently occur through subsidised access mechanisms, such as tuition-free community colleges. Moreover, labour market linkages are maintained through ALMPs, such as job placement training, designed to address latent skills demand within vulnerable cohorts (Rubenson and Desjardins, 2009[69]; Card, Kluve and Weber, 2018[70]).
4.3.4. Civic cluster
The civic cluster comprises community-based learning (e.g. volunteer programmes, citizenship courses, cultural projects) delivered by NGOs, local government, faith and cultural associations, and informal networks. While it serves all ages, its distinctive contribution lies in two domains: (1) organised learning for children, typically outside mandatory schooling, and (2) non-job-related organised adult learning that unfolds across the life course in communities and digital spaces.
For children and young people, organised provision – after-school clubs, youth-led councils, scouting, arts and heritage workshops, service-learning, and local environmental projects – builds participatory skills, civic literacy, and collaborative problem-solving without seeking formal credentials. These programmes create low-stakes settings in which learners experiment with roles, practise deliberation, and develop social responsibility. Social capital theory (Putnam, 2000[71]) helps explain why they work: bonding ties within relatively homogeneous groups (e.g. volunteer networks or cultural associations) generate trust, enable collective action, and provide stable contexts in which civic learning can flourish (European Commission, 2024[72]; UNESCO, 2022[73]). The rise of platform-enabled participation has widened access further; NGO-run forums and educational apps saw marked growth during periods of crisis, lowering barriers to entry for younger participants (Forus International, 2020[74]).
Beyond youth, the civic cluster sustains non-job-related organised learning across the life course. In adulthood, parent academies, neighbourhood councils, cultural societies, and peer-led courses could provide organised opportunities to build civic literacy, deliberation, and collective problem-solving unrelated to employment. Later in life, intergenerational volunteering programmes, heritage projects, and community education workshops could maintain social connectedness and purpose, supporting active citizenship and healthy ageing. Sustainability-focused programmes, such as Botswana’s community education initiatives, show how these non-formal provisions foster environmental stewardship and collective efficacy rather than economic returns alone (UNESCO, 2019[75]).
Despite their importance, informal civic activities are poorly represented in international surveys such as AES, PIAAC, or PISA. This omission is especially stark in non-Western contexts, where 50–70 per cent of learning occurs through community-based initiatives yet remains rarely quantified (UNESCO, 2016[76]). As a result, the contribution of civic engagement to social cohesion, skills development, and policy outcomes remains insufficiently understood.
References
[56] Acemoglu, D. and P. Restrepo (2019), “Automation and New Tasks: How Technology Displaces and Reinstates Labor”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 33/2, pp. 3-30, https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.33.2.3.
[62] Bæck, U. (2025), Navigating change: adult learning systems in Norway from 1990 onwards., Edward Elgar.
[10] Baert, H. (2018), Informal learning at work: What do we know more and understand better?, In G. Messmann, M. Segers, & F. Dochy (Eds.), Informal learning at work: Triggers, antecedents, and consequences (pp. 154–187). Routledge.
[2] Billett, S. (2002), “Critiquing workplace learning discourses: Participation and continuity at work”, Studies in the Education of Adults, Vol. 34/1, pp. 56-67.
[64] Bonoli, G. (2007), “Time matters: Postindustrialization, new social risks, and welfare state adaptation in advanced industrial democracies”, Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 40/5, pp. 495-520, https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414005285755.
[60] Bonoli, G., P. Emmenegger and A. Felder‐Stindt (2025), “Re‐Skilling in the Age of Skill Shortage: Adult Education Rather Than Active Labor Market Policy”, Regulation & Governance, Vol. 20/2, pp. 482-494, https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.70065.
[25] Borgonovi, F. and J. Suarez-Alvarez (2025), “How can adult skills assessments best meet the demands of the 21st century?”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 319, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/853db37b-en.
[31] Brown, P., H. Lauder and S. Cheung (2020), The Death of Human Capital? Its Failed Promise and How to Renew It in Age of Disruption, Oxford University Press.
[36] Bukodi, E., F. Eibl, S. Buchholz, S. Marzadro, A. Minello, S. Wahler, H-P. Blossfeld, R. Erikson and A. Schizzerotto (2017), “Linking the macro to the micro: a multidimensional approach to educational inequalities in four European countries”, European Societies, Vol. 20/1, pp. 26-64, https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2017.1329934.
[66] Busemeyer, M., M. Carstensen and P. Emmenegger (2022), “Orchestrators of coordination: Towards a new role of the state in coordinated capitalism?”, European Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 28/2, pp. 231-250, https://doi.org/10.1177/09596801211062556.
[37] Busemeyer, M. and C. Trampusch (2012), The political economy of collective skill formation, Oxford University Press.
[59] Cabus, S., P. Ilieva-Trichkova and M. Štefánik (2020), “Multi-layered perspective on the barriers to learning participation of disadvantaged adults, Mehrebenen-Perspektive auf die Barriere für die Weiterbildungsteilnahme benachteiligter Erwachsener”, Zeitschrift für Weiterbildungsforschung, Vol. 43/2, pp. 169-196, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40955-020-00162-3.
[70] Card, D., J. Kluve and A. Weber (2018), “What Works? A meta-analysis of recent active labor market program evaluations”, Institute for the Study of Labor, Vol. IZA Discussion Paper No. 11441, https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/11441/what-works-a-meta-analysis-of-recent-active-labor-market-program-evaluations.
[6] CLA (2016), Classification of learning activities - Manual, European Commission.
[5] CLA (2006), Classification of learning activities - Manual, European Commission.
[3] Colley, H., P. Hodkinson and J. Malcolm (2003), Informality and formality in learning: A report for the Learning and Skills Research Centre. Learning and Skills Research Centre, Learning and Skills Research Centre, http://lllp.iugaza.edu.ps/Files_Uploads/634791628087049086.pdf.
[1] Coombs, P. (1985), The world crisis in education: The view from the eighties, Oxford University Press.
[39] Culpepper, P. and K. Thelen (2008), Institutions and collective actors in the provision of training: Historical and cross-national comparisons, In K. U. Mayer & H. Solga (Eds.), Skill formation: Interdisciplinary and cross-national perspectives (pp. 21–49). Cambridge University Press.
[29] Desjardin, R. and J. Kalenda (eds.) (2025), A Modern Guide to Adult Learning Systems, Edward Elgar.
[35] Desjardins, R. (2020), “PIAAC thematic review on adult learning”, OECD Publishing.
[14] Desjardins, R. (2017), “Political economy of adult learning systems: Comparative analysis of strategies, policies and constraints”, Bloomsbury Academic.
[58] Desjardins, R. and A. Ioannidou (2020), “The political economy of adult learning systems—some institutional features that promote adult learning participation, Die politische Ökonomie von Weiterbildungssystemen – einige institutionelle Merkmale, die Weiterbildungsbeteiligung fördern”, Zeitschrift für Weiterbildungsforschung, Vol. 43/2, pp. 143-168, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40955-020-00159-y.
[17] Desjardins, R. and J. Kalenda (forthcoming), Worlds of Adult Learning Systems.
[50] Desjardins, R. and J. Kim (2023), “Inequality in adult education participation across national contexts: Is growing employer support exacerbating or mitigating inequality in participation?”, International Yearbook of Adult Education, pp. 75–98, https://doi.org/10.3278/I73910W005.
[54] Dochy, F., D. Gijbels, M. Segers and P. Van den Bossche (2021), Theories of Workplace Learning in Changing Times, Routledge.
[32] Erola, J., M. Mills and H. Solga (2023), “Beyond Education and Training – How Can We Adapt to Future Needs of Local Labour Markets?”, Population and Policy 42.
[47] Estevez-Abe, M. (2005), “Gender Bias in Skills and Social Policies: The Varieties of Capitalism Perspective on Sex Segregation”, Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, Vol. 12/2, pp. 180-215, https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxi011.
[72] European Commission (2024), Horizon Europe Work Programme 2023-2025, European Commission, https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/horizon/wp-call/2023-2024/wp-1-general-introduction_horizon-2023-2024_en.pdf.
[23] European Commission (2016), A new skills agenda for Europe: Working together to strengthen human capital, employability and competitiveness (COM(2016) 381 final), European Commission, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52016DC0381.
[7] Eurostat (2024), Adult Education Survey (AES) Methodology, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Adult_Education_Survey_(AES)_methodology#Introduction.
[12] Evans, K. (2023), Learning outside the academy: Conceptual debates and research challenges, In G. Parry, M. Osborne, & P. Scott (Eds.), Access, lifelong learning and education for all (pp. 299–324). Palgrave Macmillan.
[74] Forus International (2020), A pandemic induced crossroads: International NGOs after COVID-19, https://www.interaction.org/blog/a-pandemic-induced-crossroads.
[52] Fuller, A. and L. Unwin (2004), Expansive learning environments: Integrating organizational and personal development, In H. Rainbird, A. Fuller, & A. Munro (Eds.), Workplace learning in context (pp. 126–144). Routledge.
[22] Haidt, J. (2024), The anxious generation: How the great rewiring of childhood is causing an epidemic of mental illness, Penguin Press.
[46] Hall, P. and D. Soskice (2001), Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage, Oxford University Press.
[65] Hemerijck, A. (2018), “Social investment as a policy paradigm”, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 25/6, pp. 810-827, https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1401111.
[61] Hemerijck, A. and M. Matsaganis (2024), Who’s Afraid of the Welfare State Now?, Oxford University Press.
[33] Hornberg, C., J. Heisig and H. Solga (2024), “Explaining the training disadvantage of less-educated workers: The role of labor market allocation in international comparison”, Socio-Economic Review, Vol. 22/1, pp. 195–222.
[63] Ioannidou, A. and J. Kohl (2025), The adult learning system in Germany: stakeholder coordination, institutional change and path-dependent development, In R. Desjardins & J. Kalenda (Eds.), A Modern Guide to Adult Learning Systems (pp. 123–145). Edward Elgar.
[38] Kalenda, J. (2024), Formation of Adult Learning Systems in Central Europe, Springer, https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-59827-2.
[13] Kalenda, J. and E. Boeren (2025), “Revisiting the triadic classification of learning activities: Rethinking their measurement”, International Journal of Lifelong Education, Vol. 44/3, pp. 257–272.
[28] Kalenda, J. and R. Desjardins (2025), Trends and patterns in the development of adult learning systems, In R. Desjardins & J. Kalenda (Eds.), A Modern Guide to Adult Learning Systems (pp. 382–408). Edward Elgar.
[16] Kalenda, J., T. Karger, I. Kočvarová, and E. Boeren (2026 (forthcoming)), “Uneven digital shift: Online provision of adult education and training across 30 European countries (under review)”.
[43] Karger, T., J. Kalenda, J. Vaculíková, and I. Kočvarová (2024), “Online learning platforms and resources in adult education and training: new findings from four European countries”, International Journal of Lifelong Education, Vol. 43/4, pp. 417-431, https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2024.2358896.
[44] Kearns, P. (2015), Organizational Learning and Development. From an Evidence Base, Routledge, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315777320.
[55] Keese, M. and L. Marcolin (2023), “Labour and social policies for the green transition: A conceptual framework”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 295, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/028ffbeb-en.
[45] Lancaster, A. (2020), Driving Performance Through Learning, Kogan Page Limited.
[68] Lee, J. and R. Desjardins (2019), “Changes to adult learning and education (ALE) policy environment in Finland, Korea and the United States: implications for addressing inequality in ALE participation”, Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, Vol. 51/2, pp. 221-239, https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2019.1610356.
[11] Messmann, G., M. Segers and F. Dochy (2018), Informal Learning at Work. Triggers, Antecedents, and Consequences, Routledge.
[67] Nylander, E. and K. Rubenson (2025), The adult learning system in Sweden: a child of welfare state, In R. Desjardins & J. Kalenda (Eds.), A Modern Guide to Adult Learning Systems (pp. 53–73). Edward Elgar.
[34] OECD (2026), A Skills-First Labour Market, Getting Skills Right, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2e1b85f0-en.
[27] OECD (2025), Rethinking Informal Learning. Assessment of the Latest Literature and Data, OECD Publishing.
[9] OECD (2025), Trends in Adult Learning: New Data from the 2023 Survey of Adult Skills, Getting Skills Right, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ec0624a6-en.
[24] OECD (2023), Assessing and Anticipating Skills for the Green Transition: Unlocking Talent for a Sustainable Future, Getting Skills Right, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/28fa0bb5-en.
[15] OECD (2023), Flexible adult learning: What it is, why it matters and how to make it work, OECD Publishing.
[8] OECD (2023), Who Really Cares about Using Education Research in Policy and Practice?: Developing a Culture of Research Engagement, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bc641427-en.
[53] OECD (2010), Innovative Workplaces: Making Better Use of Skills within Organisations, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264095687-en.
[20] Pangrazio, L., J. Sefton-Green, J. and L. Tsaliki (2022), “Datafication Meets Platformization: Materializing Data Processes in Teaching and Learning”, Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 92/2, pp. 257-283, https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-92.2.257.
[19] Poell, T., D. Nieborg and J. van Dijck (2019), “Platformisation”, Internet Policy Review, Vol. 8/4, https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.4.1425.
[71] Putnam, R. (2000), Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community, Simon & Schuster.
[57] Rasmussen, P. (2025), Danish adult education: between welfare state and market, In R. Desjardins & J. Kalenda (Eds.), A Modern Guide to Adult Learning Systems (pp. 184–199). Edward Elgar.
[48] Rees, G. (2013), “Comparing adult learning systems: An emergent political economy”, European Journal of Education, Vol. 48/2, pp. 224–246, https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12027.
[4] Rogers, A. (2014), The base of the iceberg: Informal learning and its impact on formal and non-formal learning, Verlag Barbara Budrich.
[49] Rubenson, K. (2018), Conceptualising participation in adult learning and education: Equity issues, In M. Milana, S. Webb, J. Holford, R. Waller, & P. Jarvis (Eds.), The Palgrave international handbook on adult and lifelong education and learning (pp. 337–357). Palgrave Macmillan.
[69] Rubenson, K. and R. Desjardins (2009), “The Impact of Welfare State Regimes on Barriers to Participation in Adult Education”, Adult Education Quarterly, Vol. 59/3, pp. 187-207, https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713609331548.
[51] Saar, E., E. Roosmaa and L. Martma (2023), “Participation of Vulnerable Young Labour Market Groups in Job-Related Training: The Effect of Macro-structural and Institutional Characteristics”, in Palgrave Studies in Adult Education and Lifelong Learning, Lifelong Learning, Young Adults and the Challenges of Disadvantage in Europe, Springer International Publishing, Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14109-6_5.
[30] Spence, M. (1973), “Job Market Signaling”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 87/3, pp. 355-374, https://doi.org/10.2307/1882010.
[41] Thelen, K. (2014), Varieties of liberalization and the new politics of social solidarity, Cambridge University Press.
[40] Thelen, K. (2004), How institutions evolve: The political economy of skills in comparative-historical perspective, Cambridge University Press.
[73] UNESCO (2022), Fifth Global Report on Adult Learning and Education: Citizenship education: Empowering adults for change, UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning.
[75] UNESCO (2019), Global report on adult learning and education, UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning.
[42] UNESCO (2016), Education 2030: Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action, UNESCO.
[76] UNESCO (2016), Global Education Monitoring Report 2016: Education for People and Planet: Creating Sustainable Futures for All, Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
[18] van Dijck, J., T. Poell and M. De Waal (2018), The Platform Society: Public Values in a Connective World, Oxford University Press.
[26] Wenger, E. (1998), Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity, Cambridge University Press.
[21] Zuboff, S. (2019), The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power, London: Profile Books.