Considerations and Reflections by Hatto Fischer

In looking at the 'Executive Summary' of the Report by the Commission of the European Communities with regards to "Skills for a Competitive Europe - a Human Resources Outlook for the 1990's", there is something deeply disturbing. It is not only the ease by which "competitiveness, job creation and cohesion" is put on one and the same level, but how promotion of possible programmes for creating employment opportunities is put "at the same time" in relation to the need by "the labour force...to adopt to restructuring in the Community's industrial fabric and production systems". Even before going as far as to reflect the consequence drawn by the authors of this report, and presented as an official position by the European Commission, there is a need to mediate between cynicism and realism as only two possible ways of focusing upon issues of the labour market and the employment situation in Europe. That this situation is by all means not very spectacular, nor even receiving serious theoretical consideration, is an admission of failure by the European Community, and now the European Union, that the 'sectoral policy' to head off unemployment has failed. The failure is drastic since there are more than 15 % of the potential working force of Europe unemployed, and this not only on a short-term basis, but indeed as a long-term structural deficit described in different terms. The odd thing about the "Executive Summary" is, however, the usage of "people" capable of exploiting the advantages of the internal market as created by the European Union on the one hand, while on the other there is this reference to a cold fact: "the labour force has to adapt to restructuring in the Community's industrial fabric and production systems". With the emphasis upon 'has to adapt', there is not so much a sense for the possibilities to elongate life on earth prevailing in that sentence, but rather an 'above look' saying and implying these people have to, for otherwise they will not be able to keep up with the competition at international level. In other words, the Commission's report reproduces here the old fashioned fallacy of master-slave, or the illusionary distinction between the doctor describing the disease of the patient while claiming that he is not himself infected by it. The core of employment or unemployment is, therefore, an ancient method of approaching capital/labour relationships in such terms as they are not compatible with democratic demands, namely the right for equal opportunities. Emphasis given to 'competitiveness' is but an excuse to cover up the real substantial difference between abilities to work together in a free, co-operative manner and adapting economic ideologies of competition under very specific political conditions. In particular, the latter are interesting to examine since they usually end up in a free-for-all competition for the most lucrative business orders and hence jobs, while in fact the subtle interrelationships of state programs and entrepreneurial responsibilities ends up in favouring tendencies towards monopolization (i.e. see the development of Daimler-Benz in Germany since 1945) having nothing more to do with free markets defined by 'open' competition. It is known that even requirements to participate in a call for tenders can influence already the competitiveness; the tricks of the trade are well known, but not so a language to counter arguments which pretend to give to Europe a flavour of dynamism when in fact it is quite of the contrary nature.

If job creation, competitiveness and cohesion are not only dominant, but equally contradictory terms, then this must be brought out into the open and discussed in such a way, as to inform all participating members about the intentions of the Commission. There must be formulated a clearer stand as to how 'unemployment' can be resolved beyond Delors' emotional appeal that something must be done about it.
There has been a one-sided technological orientation within all European programmes, hence the neglect of the 'human resources'. While there is a concern for having a 'prosperous economy' in Europe, the exploitation of 'human resources' means really increasing health and social costs due to more and more people no longer able to integrate themselves in a society determined by abstract models of competitiveness and resource allocations. This is the case especially when decisions affecting future developments go beyond individual possibilities to influence that process even if called 'cultural adaptability'. Hence an alienating economic form is being pressed upon life substances, or the ability of individuals to conceive meaningful interactions with others. Perhaps the neglect of these basic premises by the European Commission is in part an explanation of the failure to cope with unemployment situations. Policy measures, distributions of money, evaluations of programmes, steering of further activities have been until now too much on a level of simple pretence rather than of substantial contribution to the opening up of Europe to its potentialities. This includes an agreement about basic values, namely that it is a shame for every society to have unemployment (and not like the United States accepting at least 4 % of unemployment as non-employed people really moving about) and that 'unemployment' as a concept in need of further definition is not merely someone no longer working, hence not contributing to the increase in economic wealth, but also someone who is no longer active and thus unable to integrate him- or herself into society.

The difficulty seems to be to bridge this fine dividing line between individual concern and economically feasible plans to continue and to build up something called nowadays 'self-sustainable economies'. The latter is a vague term, but it reflects a tendency within Europe to rejuvenate some basic principles of self-sufficiency, only now not only physical or natural resources are included, but also emphasis is given to 'human resources'.

Learning Organizations - learning Regions

The truly innovative, indeed revolutionary idea emerging out of this workshop is to conceive mangement, organizations, enterprises, labour market, forms and types of qualifications, state programmes, EU- programmes etc. as derivates of one and the same culture, namely that of learning. This requires a special kind of mobility, namely that of the employed between companies of different countries, that is cultures, including that of qualification and professional know-how at the work place. That is something different from what has been discussed in workshop 7 "Education for Cultural Diversity" (i.e. mobility of students at all levels of learning, from primary schools to universities), and poses immediately questions for what has been discussed in workshop 5 under the title of "Culture Driven Economy". The latter is concerned with a regionally oriented, self-sustainable type of economy requiring a new management culture. It links up with the overall discussion about a specific European management culture. In reflection of the Commission's White Paper on "Skills for a Competitive Europe", that means efforts must be undertaken to create conditions of competitiveness within Europe, while bringing about such economic conditions so that Europe as a whole can assume more international responsibilities in the immediate future. The implications of that aim are quite clear, for international peace keeping requires sustainable forces, if examples such as Yugoslavia, Gulf-war, engagements in Africa, etc. can be considered as fields of activities by Europe. It must be said right away at this point, however, that the Fifth Seminar recommends quite a different, that is cultural engagement when it comes to extending Europe's role in foreign affairs. This, in turn, goes back to conceiving such 'learning organizations' that enable inter-cultural experiences and thus transnational programmes making international qualification into a viable job asset. In part, that is an extension of the basic idea of networking which is at the core of the philosophy behind European integration. On the other hand, labour markets and respective cultural anchorages of regionally oriented economies should not lead to excluding the international factor, but rather secure an intermediate basis for mediating between local and international needs. Such a culture would seek to merge various qualification possibilities ranging from practical experiences to formal educational certifications. Common in all recommendations is that team and group work, specialization in relation to generalists or flexible specialization, etc. are needed if Europeans are going to be able to cope and to shape industrial changes based on technological options leading to even more radical innovations, information and communication means. The point was made by Peter Gut in Athens, that the Fifth Seminar can already be considered partly as a model of such a 'learning organization', since the bringing together of experts within very specific thematic fields while integrated through the concern for maintaining cultural diversity within Europe has shown to what results 'diversity in practice' and 'interaction with cultural factors' can lead to. In that sense, 'learning organizations' will become more and more a relevant theme as management cultures adopt such a concept and learn through such a 'learning organization' to enhance and to encourage the mobility of their employees, so as to gain 'inter cultural' qualifications by working and training abroad, that is, in other EU countries and their entrepreneurial cultures. The networking of European enterprises will be an organizational and a socio-cultural challenge for all participants.

^ Top

« Transnational Learning Organizations | Beyond Mere Employment Schemes - Interregional Activities to safeguard Employment - what Migrant workers in Europe are asking for »

Ποιειν Και Πραττειν - create and do

Navigation

Considerations and Reflections by Hatto Fischer

Learning Organizations - learning Regions