OECD Economic Surveys: Austria 2024

4. Addressing labour market challenges for sustainable and inclusive growth

Barriers to economic opportunities persist for particular groups

Labour market developments have been positive in recent years, with low unemployment and labour force participation at historically high levels (Chapter 2). The average annual gross earnings of full-time employees, around USD 50 thousands (on a purchasing power parity basis), is among the highest across the OECD. Furthermore, income inequality is relatively low due to substantial redistribution through public transfers (Causa, Browne and Vindics, 2019[1]; Rocha-Akis et al., 2023[2]). The poverty rate is well below many other OECD countries.

However, employment and earnings of women, the elderly and disadvantaged groups continue to lag. The labour-market engagement of women of childbearing age is weak. This contributes to a high incidence of part-time work among women, and comparatively large gender gaps in pay and retirement income. The employment rate of older workers (between 55 and 64 years of age) is lower than the OECD average (Figure 4.1). Employment gaps also exist for disadvantaged groups, such as the low educated and migrants, particularly non-EU migrants. The poverty rate of migrants is three times higher than that of the native-born population and is well above the OECD average (OECD/European Commission, 2023[3]).

Evidence points to Austria having strong intergenerational persistence in socio-economic outcomes, which may be amplifying disadvantages. Research suggests that in Austria it would take at least 5 generations for those born in low-income families to approach the mean income in their society (compared with 4.5 generations in the OECD, on average) (OECD, 2018[4]). For Austria, growing up in socio-economic disadvantage has only a limited impact on the probability of later employment, but considerable effects on later earnings and health. Employed men and women who had the most disadvantaged childhoods (bottom quintile on the Index of Childhood Socio-Economic Status) earn 23% and 15% less, respectively, than those with more favourable childhoods (third quintile on the Index of Childhood Socio-Economic Status), in large part because of differences in hourly wages and occupations. They also report worse health, equivalent to the loss of two- to two-and-a-half-week per year in time lived in full health (OECD, 2023[5]). This persistence likely contributes to Austria’s relatively high concentration of wealth (Balestra and Tonkin (2018[6]); Chapter 2).

Figure 4.1. Labour market outcomes are weak for particular groups

Difference between the group employment rate and the employment rate among 25-54 year-old, in 2022

Note: Panel A: employment gap defined as the difference between the employment rate of prime-age men (aged 25-54) and that of the group, expressed as a percentage of the employment rate of prime-age men; OECD figures are unweighted averages of countries for which data are available. “Mothers with young children” refer to working-age women with at least one child aged 0-14; “non-natives” refer to all foreign-born people with no regards to nationality; ”older workers” refer to those aged 55-64; “low educated” refers to those aged 25-64 with education below upper secondary.

Source: OECD calculations based on OECD Employment database, OECD International Migration database, and OECD Education Database and OECD Family database (https://www.oecd.org/els/family/database.htm).

Statlink

Past Economic Surveys have recommended a number of policy actions that would help narrow gender gaps and improve outcomes for vulnerable groups. These include in particular changes to policy settings as regards the labour tax wedge, parental leave, childcare services, and the public employment service. Progress on these issues is reported below, followed by a special focus on what Austria can do to further improve skills to promote inclusiveness.

Tax wedges for low-income earners should be reduced further

Austria’s average tax wedge is the fourth highest in the OECD, reflecting high levels of social security contributions (OECD, 2023[7]). Of greatest concern, the wedge is large for low-income workers (OECD, 2023[8]), dissuading both demand and supply in this segment of the labour market (L’Horty, Martin and Mayer, 2019[9]). Moreover, the tax system dissuades shifting from part-time to full-time work (increasing hours worked from 50% to 100% of full-time employment): almost 40% of additional earnings are lost to either higher taxes or lower benefits. Participation tax rates, i.e., the share of additional gross earnings lost to either higher taxes or lower benefits when a jobless person takes up employment, are also relatively high, about 80% of earnings are lost to higher taxes, lower benefits and net childcare costs when a parent with young children takes up full-time employment and uses full-time centre-based childcare, the third highest proportion in the OECD.

Several steps to reduce the tax wedge have been taken recently. The eco-social tax reform (Box 2.3) includes reductions in personal income tax rates and health insurance contributions for low and medium incomes. At the same time the tax allowance per child - “Familienbonus Plus” - has increased, although this increase has the greatest relief effect in the middle- and high-income segments (Rocha-Akis et al., 2023[2]). For low-income earners, a specifically designated “Kindermehrbetrag” applies instead. In addition, the government has introduced annual indexation of personal income tax brackets to inflation, starting in 2023. This will reduce the upward pressure on the tax wedge over time. This reform is particularly relevant given the recent high-inflation environment. Despite these positive steps, there is room to shift the tax burden away from labour to more growth-friendly taxes, particularly for low-income earners (see Chapter 2).

Labour force participation of mothers should be further encouraged

Despite improvements in recent years, gender gaps in labour market outcomes remain sizeable. Compared with other countries, Austria’s women spend relatively large amounts of time on unpaid care and housework. Correspondingly, they spend about eight fewer hours per week in paid work compared with men; the OECD average is five hours (Figure 4.2). In 2020, almost half of the employed women (compared to just 15% of men) were in non-standard working arrangement such as part-time work. Austrian women earn about 12% less than men, measured at median earnings for full-time workers, slightly above the OECD average (OECD, 2023[10]).

Figure 4.2. Despite improvements, women still spend significantly fewer hours per week in paid work than men

Note: In Panel A, latest data for Czechia refers to 2021.

Source: OECD (2024), OECD Labour Force Statistics (database); and Eurostat (2024), Main reason for part-time employment - Distributions by sex and age (%).

Statlink

These labour market gaps are for the most part explained by an exceptionally large long-run child penalty of more than 50% compared to the pre-birth earnings trajectory, whereas fathers’ earnings are unaffected (Kleven and Landais, 2019[11]). Looking after a child is the main reason for part-time employment for more women than any other OECD country (Figure 4.2). On the other hand, only around 6% of men are employed part-time due to childcare while around 20% of men work part-time due to training (Statistik Austria, 2023[12]). In Austria preferences and social norms regarding the family-career choices of men and women can have large effects on gender inequality (Kleven and Landais, 2019[11]; Kleven et al., 2021[13]). Nevertheless, there is a room to strengthen incentives for parents to share caring responsibilities.

Assessments in the previous Economic Survey of Austria recommended a more balanced use of parental leave between mothers and fathers (OECD, 2021[14]). Policies encouraging fathers’ uptake of paternity and parental leave could not only weaken gender norms in the labour market but also potentially improve family wellbeing by strengthening father-child relationships (Tamm, 2019[15]; OECD, 2023[16]). Austria has been taking steps in this direction. Since 2019, fathers have been legally entitled to a month of paternity leave. Since 2017, those parents who claim the childcare allowance in equal parts receive a bonus of EUR 500. Austria offers additional weeks of paid leave if both parents use a minimum portion of the family entitlement. Paid parental leave effectively reserved to fathers in Austria is 13 weeks, above the OECD average of 10.4 weeks (OECD, 2022[17]).

Parental leave is fully shareable between parents. However, still only around 4% of Austrian fathers take parental leave, compared to around 50% in Luxembourg, Iceland, or Sweden (OECD, 2022[17]). Some OECD countries have recently strengthened incentives for paternity leave: for example, Japan and Korea have introduced around one year of non-transferable paid parental leave for each parent. In addition to parental leave, Austria needs to address disincentives within the tax and benefit system (see discussion above) and on childcare accessibility, in particular by removing conditions (e.g. related to parents' employment status) for the allocation of childcare places, and improving the quality and opening hours of childcare facilities (see below).

Changes in the family benefit system or childcare accessibility can be complemented with budget and regulatory policies that have an impact on gender disparities in the supply and allocation of labour. In this regard, Austria has already introduced a number of measures that integrate gender equality assessments into budgetary decision making, specifically identifying budgetary measures that have an impact on gender gaps and barriers. Progress on gender budgeting in Austria is one of the highest among OECD countries in terms of introducing measures that expose gender inequalities and promote budget measures that will be effective at closing gender gaps (OECD, 2023[18]). In particular, progress has been made in the area of accountability and transparency, including regular reporting to parliament and parliamentary committee hearings on gender budgeting.

Public employment services can be further strengthened

Past Surveys have assessed much of Austria’s policy for the unemployed as being reasonably effective in ensuring financial security while also encouraging employment. Unemployment insurance provides benefits at almost 60% of previous income for 20 weeks (OECD, 2020[19]), although inflation in recent years has reduced the disposable income of the unemployed. Persons in low-income households who are not entitled to insurance-based benefits may qualify for means-tested non-contributory minimum income benefits. Austria’s spending on activation policies per unemployed is close to the OECD average. More than one-third of registered unemployed participate in active labour market policy programmes, which is more than in most other OECD countries (OECD, 2024[20]).

However, evidence from Austria shows that there is room to strengthen the public employment services (PES), which are responsible for delivering activation policies. Research shows that lower caseloads in public employment offices mean that the unemployed have more meetings with caseworkers, more job offers, and more program assignments. This more intensive counselling has shortened time spent in unemployment episodes (Böheim, Eppel and Mahringer, 2023[21]). In 2023 the Austrian PES has started a new process “ORG Neu” (Organisation new), which allows more targeted activation and assistance for the unemployed. Federal States where this new organisation has been already implemented have lowered long-term unemployment significantly.

Table 4.1. Past OECD recommendations on improving social and labour market outcomes

Recommendations in in previous Survey	Actions taken since previous Survey (Dec 2021)
Continue to reduce the employment cost and employee tax burden for those in low-skill, low-wage jobs.	The eco-social tax reform was introduced in 2022, which includes reduction of personal income tax rates, a reduction of health insurance contributions for low and medium incomes, and an increase of the tax-deductible amount per child - “Family Bonus Plus”.
Encourage the balanced use of parental leaves between parents to promote a more equal sharing of paid and unpaid work.	No action taken
Help the long-term unemployed to start their own business in new market niches, drawing on ongoing pilot experiments.	The “Springboard” programme targeting the long-term unemployed was extended in 2022. The programme has been mainly used to provide recruitment incentives, as well as in-work benefits for older people and people with disabilities (‘Kombilohn’), and supports employment in social enterprises.

Improving skills to support inclusiveness

The Austrian school system generally delivers good education outcomes, but there is room to improve inclusiveness. The proportion of the population with at least upper secondary education is 85%, above the OECD average (80%). Although the new 2022 PISA results were down compared to 2018 in mathematics, and about the same as in 2018 in reading and science, learning outcomes for 15-year-old students as measured by PISA are still above the OECD average. However, there are large differences between students’ outcomes depending on their socio–economic status (Figure 4.3). The difference between advantaged and disadvantaged students in reading is 106 points, which corresponds to more than five years of schooling. Segregation between schools on the basis of socio-economic status and migrant background is becoming more widespread (Breit, 2018[22]). Although the share of young people who are not in employment nor in education is lower than in the OECD (10.5% compared with 14.7%, as of 2022), many in this group are from migrant backgrounds. The early school leavers were 3.5 times higher among migrants compared to the native-born (OECD, 2020[19]).

Figure 4.3. Socio-economic status is a strong predictor of school outcomes

Note: In Panel A, a socio-economically advantaged (disadvantaged) student is a student in the top (bottom) quarter of ESCS (the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status.) in his or her own country. In Panel B, a positive score indicates better performance for students with native-born parents than students with immigrant parents.

Source: OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education (Table I.2 and Table I.4).

Statlink

Reducing education and skills gaps should start early on

Greater participation of disadvantaged children in early childhood education and care (ECEC) can help improve both efficiency and equity in education. Experience in other OECD countries confirms that child development can be significantly improved through participation in early childhood education (OECD, 2018[23]). Indeed, data indicate that children who attend preschool education are less likely to become low-performing students in most OECD member countries, with the impact in Austria being relatively large (Figure 4.4). Other evidence for Austria points to positive effects of preschool attendance on later educational attainment, on the probability of working full time, and on hourly wages. In particular, disadvantaged groups such as native-born descendants of immigrants or people with less educated parents benefit more (Fessler and Schneebaum, 2019[24]).

Figure 4.4. Students who attended preschool education are less likely to become poor performers

Proportion of low performers among 15-year-old students according to the number of years spent in early childhood education, 2015

Source: OECD PISA online education database.

Statlink

Austria has been successfully expanding early childhood education and care services over the past decade. Compulsory education in Austria starts at the age of 5 and is free of charge. Austria also offers an unconditional entitlement to at least 20 hours a week of care for children between the ages of two and five. Enrolment rates in early childhood education of 3- to 5-year-olds is at 90%, above the OECD average (87%) and close to the EU target of 96%. However, only 20% of 0- to 2-year-old children are enrolled in early childhood education, below the OECD average (Figure 4.4). Regional variations in the coverage of ECEC facilities are large, and only the federal states of Vienna and Burgenland (37% in 2020/21) meet the Barcelona-Target of 32% (OECD, 2023[5]).

Despite these policy efforts, short supply of childcare remains the main barrier to preschool attendance. In addition, limited opening hours reduce the usefulness of the services for working parents; in some regions many facilities close as early as 2 pm. Apart from availability and affordability, cultural norms regarding childcare and maternal employment also influence the actual use of childcare services (Buber-Ennser, 2015[25]).

Austria’s expenditure on ECEC is lower than the OECD average and lags well behind leading countries such as Norway, Sweden, or Denmark (OECD, 2023[26]). Those countries that have succeeded in providing affordable ECEC on a wide scale have directed substantial public resources to ECEC. Last year, the Austrian government has increased funding by more than EUR 557 million per year for the next 5 years, via the Federal-Lander-Agreement on Early Childhood Education and Care and the new Financial Equalisation Act. In addition, the Austrian Recovery Fund already allocates around EUR 28 million to expanding childcare facilities. However, estimates suggest more investments are needed. According to some recent research, increasing the participation of children below the age of 3 to the level of Denmark would require an additional spending of EUR 1.6 billion per year to reach an overall spending of around 3 billion in 2020 (Graf, 2021[27]). This expansion would require around 5 500 additional staff by 2025.

Figure 4.5. Participation in pre-school among young infants is particularly low

Note: There might be some inconsistencies in enrolment statistics. Data in Panel B come from the table B2.1 in the publication, OECD (2023), Education at a Glance 2023. For more details on data sources and methodologies, see the technical note (https://doi.org/10.1787/d7f76adc-en).

Source: OECD (2023), Education at a Glance 2023: OECD Indicators; and OECD Family Database.

Statlink

The expansion of preschool education should continue but pay particular attention to ensuring increasing take-up among disadvantaged families. Austria so far shows very little differences in participation according to socio-economic background (OECD, 2023[28]), which is good news. However, OECD countries with higher levels of participation show wider differences (OECD, 2023[29]). This suggests that Austria’s policy needs to take care to ensure these differences remain small.

Inclusive language policies are important for improving education among migrants. Research using PISA data indicates that around 80% of the score difference between immigrants and native-born in Austria (after controlling for socio-economic status) is due to language, a larger share than most OECD countries (OECD, 2023[30]). Austria has already developed a national curriculum framework for language learning in kindergarten and standards for second-language learning. In addition, there are routine language screenings in kindergarten years to help develop tailored support. These welcome measures can be further expanded. For example, in Estonia language classes are provided to all those in pre-primary school who do not speak Estonian at home. In the Netherlands, children from disadvantaged backgrounds between the ages of two and a half and four are entitled to ten hours of language development per week, which has been assessed as highly beneficial (OECD, 2021[31]).

Ensuring equal implementation of ECEC policy over the entire territory is important in the Austrian context as evidence points to wide differences. For instance, a review of ECEC language support by the Austrian Court of Auditors found large regional differences in the depth of support, and identified a suboptimal use of federal purpose grants to achieve quality improvements (RH, 2021[32]). More generally, quality standards across all aspects of ECEC need to be harmonised across Landers. For instance, regulations for external and internal evaluations of ECEC facilities and access to results by the public varies across the country.

Reducing inequalities in primary and secondary schooling

School funding in Austria does not differentiate allocations enough according to socio-economic criteria. Overall public expenditure on primary and secondary schools is close to the OECD average as a share of GDP. The allocation of funding to schools is determined by number of students and type of schools. Only around 16% of the overall funding is earmarked for special-needs students and other education priorities such as language education.

Many OECD countries provide higher funding for disadvantaged students (OECD, 2012[33]). For example, in Chile a weighted voucher system was adopted which provides 50% more resources for students from poor socio-economic backgrounds (Elacqua, 2012[34]). Better targeting provides resources to schools to reduce class size and hire teaching assistants or social workers. For example, schools in the United Kingdom receive additional discretionary resources for every disadvantaged student they enrol in order to provide additional teaching time or specialised learning materials.

Austria should consider the introduction of “need-based financing”, which has been discussed in the country over the last decade. “Need-based financing” provides additional resources to low-achieving schools with greater needs according to socio-economic characteristics, immigrant background, and special educational needs. Experience form other OECD countries suggests that the introduction of need-based funding is an efficient and transparent way to address inequities in the provision of education (OECD, 2012[33]; Nusche et al., 2016[35]). The Netherlands, and the Swiss cantons of Bern and Zurich, have successfully introduced need-based funding.

In this regard, the federal government supports the pilot project “100 Schools – 1000 opportunities” which aims to gain a better understanding of how schools are currently dealing with special challenges – in particular, how they deploy and use resources and what this means for school quality. The evidence gathered throughout the implementation of this pilot programme will provide an opportunity to identify measures that work most effectively and to potentially scale up programmes and funding on this basis (OECD, 2023[5]).

Introducing measures to attract the best teachers to disadvantaged schools would help close gaps in educational outcomes between advantaged and disadvantaged students. Empirical research confirms that improving teacher quality can significantly reduce the achievement gap (Chetty et al., 2014[36]). In Austria’s urban areas, classrooms are becoming increasingly heterogeneous and multicultural. Survey evidence finds that only 15% of teachers in Austria feel well or very well prepared to teach in multicultural and multilingual settings (OECD, 2019[37]). Less experienced or untrained teachers in Austria more often teach in classes with more pupils with migrant backgrounds (EC, 2019[38]; OECD, 2022[39]).

Austria’s very early streaming of students is likely fuelling inequalities in education outcomes. After the completion of 4^th grade (when students are around 10-11 years old), students are streamed into two tracks: the Gymnasium and the Mittelschule. Experience in other OECD countries shows that early tracking reduces opportunities for day-to-day interaction between children from different social backgrounds and creates obstacles for children from disadvantaged backgrounds to catch up with their peers from better-off families (OECD, 2020[19]). A school reform in Bavaria illustrated the consequences of early streaming. Streaming was brought forward from grade 6 to grade 4, and research has found that this reduced performance of 15-year-old students and increased the share of very low-performing students (Piopiunik, 2014[40]).

Box 4.1. Getting strong teachers to the schools that need them most

Mechanisms attracting better teachers to disadvantaged schools generally involve additional remuneration. Experience from other countries shows that teachers’ least-preferred options are schools with higher proportions of disadvantaged children and children who speak minority languages (OECD, 2005[41]; OECD, 2019[42]). Countries aiming to improve teaching quality in disadvantaged areas offer various incentives.

• In Brazil, salary premiums between 24% and 36% of the base salary are offered to teachers working in disadvantaged schools. Disadvantaged schools are categorised as being located either in rural areas or in socially vulnerable areas peripheral to a large urban centre. This measure has been found to reduce teacher turnover by 8.3 percentage points in public schools in São Paulo.

• In China, career-related incentives are used to attract teachers to remote areas. The Special Teaching Post Plan for Rural Schools is based on the recruitment of university graduates to remote areas in central and western China with large minority populations and socio-economic disadvantage. The contract is for three years, after which the teachers are asked to take a test. Those who qualify are then given the opportunity to stay and take up a tenure track position. In 2015, around 90% of the teachers who finished the three-year period stayed in their schools.

• In the UK, various monetary incentives exist to train, attract, and retain strong teachers in the most challenging areas, including reimbursement of student loans for teachers teaching certain subjects in short supply, and retention payments for mathematics teachers in challenging areas.

• Korea offers multiple incentives to candidates working in high-needs schools, such as additional salary, smaller class sizes, and additional credits towards future promotions.

Source: OECD (2022), Mending the Education Divide: Getting Strong Teachers to the Schools That Need Them Most, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/92b75874-en.

Addressing the digital skill divide is also important (Ziliana and Samantha, 2020[43]). Disadvantaged children are less likely to pursue careers in technology-intensive fields compared to more advantaged children. In Austria, the share of teachers with good ICT skills is lower in socio-economically disadvantaged schools (OECD, 2022[39]), which is likely to affect student skills in this area. Some OECD countries have been strengthening teachers’ involvement in ICT learning. For example, Estonia, one of Europe’s top countries when it comes to teacher involvement in ICT learning, provides training to teachers through HITSA (Hariduse Infotehnoloogia Sihtasutus), which is a non-profit organisation jointly established by the Estonian national government, the University of Tartu and Tallinn University. It aims to foster educational leaders in a digital age by helping teachers to conduct goal-oriented teaching using ICT, and formulate visions and action plans that incorporate digital tools (OECD, 2022[39]).

Improving the labour market integration of migrants

Migrants represent a substantial share of Austria’s potential labour force (Angel et al., 2023[44]). The foreign-born population represents almost one-fifth of Austria’s resident population, the third highest share in the OECD. Recently, the war in Ukraine has sparked a large influx of refugees. According to the latest data, almost 80 thousand Ukrainians are now living in Austria (EC, 2023[45]).

Figure 4.6. The gap of exposure to poverty between immigrant and native-born is large

Relative poverty rates, 16-year-olds and above, 2020

Note: Data are based on European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) and different national labour surveys (see the source for more details). Data for Israel cover populations aged 15 years and over. Data for the United States refer to amounts before deducting property tax. Data for Chile and Colombia refer to amounts before tax deductions, which were annualised based on income in the preceding month.

Source: OECD (2023), Indicators of Immigrant Integration 2023

Statlink

Migrant employment could be strengthened further as immigrants have higher poverty rates than natives (Figure 4.6). This reflects both a lower labour market participation and a higher unemployment rate. Employment has been extremely low among some groups of migrants. For example, a survey conducted in 2017 among refugees from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran showed that only 17% of respondents were employed, 28% were unemployed, and 54% were inactive (Haindorfer, 2021[46]). Foreigners in Austria are also at greater risk of having to work in occupations that are below their qualification level (OECD/European Commission, 2023[3]). As part of a ”Strategic action plan to combat the shortage of skilled workers", EUR 75 million has been earmarked in active labour market policy for 2024 and 2025 for an intensive program for the integration of persons entitled to asylum and subsidiary protection. For many migrants, language is a substantial barrier to labour market access in Austria. According to one survey, almost half of the people born abroad stated that insufficient German language skills are the main reason for the difficulties in finding a job (Statistics Austria, 2022[47]). Research has also found that explicit and implicit language requirements in online job vacancies were stronger than in other OECD countries (OECD, 2023[48]). Experience with asylum seekers in Austria shows that language programmes are among the most effective measures to promote the labour market integration of foreign citizens (Hofer, 2013[49]; WIFO, 2023[50]).

Austria has strengthened its language courses for migrants in recent years. Courses are provided free of charge to migrants with refugee status or beneficiaries of subsidiary protection and can be taken up by employed and non-employed persons alike. There is also a wide range of online courses and self-learning options. In addition, Austria provides vocation-specific language training courses, which is generally considered effective as it allows migrants to build work-related language skills (OECD, 2021[51]). Austria also promotes incorporated community engagement, in which, for instance, mothers can participate alongside their children to learn the German language.

Austria should further expand language courses. Access needs to be widened beyond refugees and related groups. Most OECD countries grant legal access to public language training programmes to all legally resident foreigners. For example, in the United States, many language programmes are available to adults regardless of visa status (OECD, 2021[51]). In addition, consideration should be given to more courses that combine language learning with training for a profession. Sweden and Luxembourg, for example, combine courses and language support with studies for a profession in the adult education system or during internships or work placement (OECD, 2021[51]).

Processes for recognising foreign qualifications could also be strengthened. This would help foreigners integrate and ensure their skills are better utilised. Overqualification is almost twice as high among foreign-born workers in Austria compared to native-born workers. Around 15% of the foreign-born unemployed in a recent survey mentioned non-recognition of their educational qualifications as the biggest obstacle to finding a job (Statistics Austria, 2022[47]).

Austria, through its four regional “one-stop-shop” administrative centres, provides information on qualification recognition requirements and procedures and directs immigrants to the relevant recognition bodies. Some countries provide more comprehensive one-stop-shop services. For example, the Danish Agency for Higher Education co-ordinates the different recognition authorities, maintains an online information portal and can also provide statements of equivalence that migrant workers can then present to employers (OECD, 2017[52]). In the case of Sweden, OECD research found that the creation of the Swedish Council for Higher Education, which serves as a one-stop-shop for qualification assessment and recognition, contributed to a record-high number of requests for assessments of foreign qualifications (OECD, 2017[52]).

Bridging courses can also help migrants utilise their foreign qualifications and experience. Austria provides bridging programs mostly for regulated professions. Experience in OECD countries suggest that bridging courses combining tailored professional training with language instruction, work experience and a mentoring scheme, can provide immigrants with all the resources that they need to transfer their skills into the receiving country’s labour market (OECD, 2017[52]). These integrated bridging courses are most effective when they provide easily recognised domestic qualification for employers. In 2023, around 8,000 courses in basic general skills (especially in German, Mathematics and English) for apprentices were offered to migrants as well. Furthermore seven projects were funded to prepare disadvantaged people for apprenticeship training in cooperation companies, which are also available for migrants.

Table 4.2. Recommendations on inclusiveness

MAIN FINDINGS	RECOMMENDATIONS (Key recommendations in bold)
Promoting equal opportunities for everyone
Labour market participation by women of child-bearing age remains low, reflecting little shift towards men taking a greater role in childcare. Only around 4% of Austrian fathers take parental leave.	Further strengthen incentives for more balanced use of parental leave between mothers and fathers.
Improving skills to support inclusiveness
Shortages in the supply of high-quality childcare limit women’s labour force participation.	Further expand high-quality early childhood education and care services, prioritising disadvantaged families.
The OECD’s PISA shows there are still large differences between students’ outcomes in Austria and these are significantly explained by socio–economic status. The gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students corresponds to more than five years of schooling.	Provide more resources to low-achieving schools with greater needs and a large share of disadvantaged students, for instance through “need-based financing”. Phase out early tracking; separate students into different streams later in the schooling process.
There are big differences in school outcomes between migrant and native students and this is largely explained by language barriers. This shortfall in language skills significantly contributes to higher unemployment among migrants.	Further expand language courses in ECEC, schools and among migrants and their families. Further strengthen existing processes of recognition and validation of qualifications acquired abroad.

References

[44] Angel, S. et al. (2023), Aktivierbare Arbeitsmarktpotenziale und “Stille Reserven” in Österreich, Österreichisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, https://www.wifo.ac.at/jart/prj3/wifo/resources/person_dokument/person_dokument.jart?publikationsid=70889&mime_type=application/pdf.

[6] Balestra, C. and R. Tonkin (2018), “Inequalities in household wealth across OECD countries: Evidence from the OECD Wealth Distribution Database”, OECD Statistics Working Papers, No. 2018/01, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/7e1bf673-en.

[21] Böheim, R., R. Eppel and H. Mahringer (2023), “More Caseworkers Shorten Unemployment Durations and Save Costs”, Labour Market Res 57, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12651-023-00357-4.

[22] Breit, S. (2018), “Nationaler Bildungsbericht Österreich 2018”, Vol. Band 2.

[25] Buber-Ennser, I. (2015), Childrearing in Austria: Work and Family Roles, pp. 121–146, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290496943_Childrearing_in_Austria_Work_and_family_roles.

[1] Causa, O., J. Browne and A. Vindics (2019), “Income redistribution across OECD countries: Main findings and policy implications”, OECD Economic Policy Papers, No. 23, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3b63e61c-en.

[36] Chetty, R. et al. (2014), “Where is the land of opportunity? The geography of intergenerational mobility in the US”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 129/4, pp. 1553–1623.

[45] EC (2023), Refugees from Ukraine in the EU, https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/ukraine-refugees-eu/.

[38] EC (2019), “Education and Training Monitor 2019 - Austria”, Vol. 2, https://education.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/document-library-docs/et-monitor-report-2019-austria_en.pdf.

[34] Elacqua, G. (2012), “The impact of school choice and public policy on segregation: Evidence from”, International Journal of Educational Development, Vol. Vol. 32/No. 3, pp. 444-53, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0738059311001283?via%3Dihub.

[54] Federal Chancellery (2022), Gender Equality in Austria, https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/dam/jcr:b85c29b1-1295-4cd4-8fc9-a293a663bc69/gender_equality_in_aut_2022.pdf.

[24] Fessler, P. and A. Schneebaum (2019), The educational and labor market returns to preschool attendance in Austria, https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2019.1584368.

[27] Graf, N. (2021), Kosten des flächendeckenden Ausbaus der Kinderbetreuung in Österreich, Institut fur Wirtschaftsforschung, https://ecoaustria.ac.at/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/KM-15_Ausbau-Kinderbetreuung.pdf.

[46] Haindorfer, R. (2021), Determinanten der Arbeitsmarktintegration von Geflüchteten am Beispiel der Stadt Wien, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351748488_Determinanten_der_Arbeitsmarktintegration_von_Gefluchteten_am_Beispiel_der_Stadt_Wien.

[49] Hofer, K. (2013), “Without work”, Institute for qualitative work and living environment research (IQUAL) – Chamber for Workers and.

[11] Kleven, H. and C. Landais (2019), “Child Penalties across Countries: Evidence and Explanations”, American Economic Association, Vol. 109, pp. 122-26, https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pandp.20191078.

[13] Kleven, H. et al. (2021), “Do Family Policies Reduce Gender Inequality?”, https://www.henrikkleven.com/uploads/3/7/3/1/37310663/austria_family_policy_jan2021.pdf.

[9] L’Horty, Y., P. Martin and T. Mayer (2019), “The French Policy of Payroll Tax Reductions”, French Council of Economic Analysis, Vol. 49, https://www.cae-eco.fr/staticfiles/pdf/cae-note049-env4.pdf.

[35] Nusche, D. et al. (2016), OECD Reviews of School Resources: Austria 2016, OECD Reviews of School Resources, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264256729-en.

[20] OECD (2024), Public spending on labour markets (indicator), https://doi.org/10.1787/911b8753-en (accessed on 12 February 2024).

[5] OECD (2023), Childhood socio-economic disdvantaged in Austria: A snapshot of key challanges, November 2023 N°19, https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/c05f13f8-en.pdf?expires=1707214752&id=id&accname=ocid84004878&checksum=BCBF225A1D7ABDBCFC90425A0D98CE45.

[28] OECD (2023), Family database: PF3.2: Enrolment in childcare and pre-school, https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/PF3_2_Enrolment_childcare_preschool.pdf.

[18] OECD (2023), Gender Budgeting in OECD Countries 2023, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/647d546b-en.

[10] OECD (2023), Gender wage gap, https://data.oecd.org/earnwage/gender-wage-gap.htm.

[16] OECD (2023), Joining Forces for Gender Equality: What is Holding us Back?, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/67d48024-en.

[8] OECD (2023), OECD Taxing Wages - Comparative tables, https://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=AWCOMP.

[26] OECD (2023), PF3.1: Public spending on childcare and early education, https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/PF3_1_Public_spending_on_childcare_and_early_education.pdf.

[29] OECD (2023), PF3.2: Enrolment in childcare and pre-schoo, https://www.oecd.org/els/family/database.htm.

[30] OECD (2023), “PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education, PISA”, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/53f23881-en.pdf?expires=1701862825&id=id&accname=ocid84004878&checksum=8D6E501BA91BE72576F0A5B5404CBF01.

[7] OECD (2023), Taxing Wages - Austria, https://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/taxing-wages-austria.pdf.

[48] OECD (2023), “The demand for language skills in the European labour market: Evidence from online job vacancies”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Paper No. 294, https://www.oecd.org/fr/espagne/the-demand-for-language-skills-in-the-european-labour-market-e1a5abe0-en.htm#:~:text=Across%20countries%20included%20in%20the,and%202%25%20of%20all%20vacancies.

[17] OECD (2022), Family Database, https://www.oecd.org/els/family/PF2-2-Use-childbirth-leave.pdf.

[39] OECD (2022), Mending the Education Divide: Getting Strong Teachers to the Schools That Need Them Most, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/92b75874-en.

[51] OECD (2021), Language Training for Adult Migrants, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/02199d7f-en.pdf?expires=1698617924&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=4248C2BE91B3D96049F4755A7F13DD85.

[31] OECD (2021), “Make sure all children start school on an equal footing”, in Young People with Migrant Parents, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c31bb753-en.

[14] OECD (2021), OECD Economic Surveys: Austria 2021, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/eaf9ec79-en.

[19] OECD (2020), “Promoting social mobility in Austria”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 251, https://www.oecd.org/austria/promoting-social-mobility-in-austria-1e0efdcc-en.htm.

[37] OECD (2019), Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018), https://gpseducation.oecd.org/CountryProfile?plotter=h5&primaryCountry=AUT&treshold=10&topic=TA.

[42] OECD (2019), Working and Learning Together: Rethinking Human Resource Policies for Schools, OECD Reviews of School Resources, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b7aaf050-en.

[4] OECD (2018), A Broken Social Elevator? How to Promote Social Mobility, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264301085-en.

[23] OECD (2018), Engaging Young Children: Lessons from Research about Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264085145-en.

[52] OECD (2017), Making Integration Work: Assessment and Recognition of Foreign Qualifications, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264278271-en.

[33] OECD (2012), Equity and Quality in Education: Supporting Disadvantaged Students and Schools, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264130852-en.

[41] OECD (2005), Teachers Matter: Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers, Education and Training Policy, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264018044-en.

[3] OECD/European Commission (2023), “Indicators of Immigrant Integration 2023: Settling In”, OECD Publishing, Paris,.

[40] Piopiunik, M. (2014), “The effects of early tracking on student performance: Evidence from a school reform in Bavaria”, Economics of Education Review, Vol. 42, pp. 12-33, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272775714000594.

[32] RH (2021), Frühe sprachliche Förderung in Kindergärten, https://www.rechnungshof.gv.at/rh/home/home/Fru_hsprachliche_Fo_rderung_KIGA.pdf.

[2] Rocha-Akis, S. et al. (2023), Redistribution by the State in Austria 2019 and Developments from 2005 to 2019, Austrian Institute of Economic Research, https://www.wifo.ac.at/jart/prj3/wifo/main.jart?rel=en&content-id=1487278189725&j-cc-node=news&j-cc-id=1697135678186.

[53] Statistics Austria (2023), Gender pay gap remains above EU average in spite of slight decrease, https://www.statistik.at/fileadmin/announcement/2023/03/20230303GenderStatistikEN.pdf.

[47] Statistics Austria (2022), A quarter of migrants with difficulties in finding a, https://www.statistik.at/fileadmin/announcement/2022/12/20221201ArbeitsmarktsituationMigrantinnenEN.pdf.

[12] Statistik Austria (2023), Erwerbstätigkeit, https://www.statistik.at/statistiken/bevoelkerung-und-soziales/gender-statistiken/erwerbstaetigkeit.

[15] Tamm, M. (2019), “Fathers’ parental leave-taking, childcare involvement and labor market participation”, Labour Economics, Vol. 59, pp. 184-197, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2019.04.007.

[50] WIFO (2023), Aktivierbare Arbeitsmarktpotenziale und “Stille Reserven” in Österreich, https://www.wifo.ac.at/jart/prj3/wifo/resources/person_dokument/person_dokument.jart?publikationsid=70889&mime_type=application/pdf.

[43] Ziliana, S. and Z. Samantha (2020), “Digital inequality in Austria: Empirical evidence from the survey of the OECD “Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies”, Technology in Society, Vol. 63, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101397.