Expectations and Challenges in the Labour Market in the Context of Industrial Revolution 4.0. The Agglomeration Method-Based Analysis for Poland and Other EU Member States
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. The Changes in the Labour Market
2.2. New Competences and Skills of Employees
2.3. Continuing Vocational Training and Lifelong Learning
2.4. Flexibility of Employment and Inequalities
2.5. Employment Policy—The Concept of Flexicurity
3. Materials and Methods
- -
- What are the expectations towards employees in the context of technological progress, especially the digitization of social and economic life?
- -
- What is the current situation in the labour market and in terms of the competences of graduates and employees, as well as in terms of improving qualifications of employees in EU Member States?
- -
- Is it possible to distinguish a group of EU countries with similar characteristics and are there differences in the labour market between “old” and “new” EU Member States?
- Isolating and specifying characteristics and qualities important for the labour market in consequence of the Industry 4.0 revolution for 28 Member States of the EU, including Poland.
- The cluster analysis of the EU Member States through the use of the agglomeration method in respect of the similarities while taking into consideration the same variables.
- The comparative analysis on the grounds of the resulting figures.
- —output values for i-th realisation of j-th variable and
- —maximum for i-th realisation of j-th variable.
- —output values for i-th realisation of j-th variable
- —arithmetic average of j-th variable,
- —standard deviation of j-th variable,
- = 1.
- —value of a variable which is segmentation criterion for i-th object,
- —number of objects in a cluster.
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Analysis of Results at the Clusters Level
- Cluster 1 (11 countries): Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom;
- Cluster 2 (9 countries): Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Romania, Slovakia;
- Cluster 3 (8 countries): Croatia, France, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain.
4.1.1. Cluster 1
4.1.2. Cluster 2
4.1.3. Cluster 3
4.2. Extended Analysis Based on Variables and Clusters
4.3. Suggestions for Future Research
5. Conclusions
- The first cluster contains the countries with the highest potential in terms of examined features in comparison with other clusters. They can, in some way, be a model for other EU countries.
- The lowest values of variables referring to the labour market in relation to the process of employees’ education and terms of employment describe the situation in the second cluster which, apart from Greece, contains the “youngest” members of the EU.
- The high increase in the level of productivity across the span of eight years has been primarily observed among the new members of the EU. Such a situation should be met with approval as it indicates that accessing the EU allowed the economies of these countries to develop faster and the work productivity to improve. This is the goal of providing support to the “new” Member States under the financial instruments and other forms of aid—to level and mitigate the differences between regions and Member States. Romania and Poland (and from the “old” EU Member States—Ireland) are at the forefront of countries where the increase of the work productivity indicator between 2010 and 2018 has been the highest for the entire EU. To this extent, Greece places last and is the sole country to record the decrease in productivity in comparison to the year 2010. It should be definitely perceived as a negative phenomenon and a confirmation of the economic collapse of that country.
- The highest percentage of workers aged 20–64 employed under fixed period work contracts exceeding the level of 20% has been recorded in Spain and Poland, where every fourth and every fifth worker, respectively, is employed under such contracts. Persistence of the rate of fixed term and short-term employment for a period of up to three months remaining at a high level is not beneficial from the perspective of an employee and his professional stability. However, it should be considered that the currently growing model of employment covering non-standard forms of employment is based on the decreasing share of indefinite work contracts in favour of other forms.
- The employment rate of women in the entire European Union is lower by 12 percentile points than the employment rate of men. The greatest disproportions have been recorded in Malta, Greece and Italy.
- The best situation in terms of administering budget for vocational training in companies has been noted among the companies located in Spain, France and the Czech Republic. The lowest percentage of economic operators declaring to have a special budget for CVT of their employees has been noted in Romania, Bulgaria, Latvia and Poland. Considering the division of countries in terms of seniority in the EU, this aspect has been clearly dominated by the “old” Member States in which company owners actively operate for the benefit of CVT and significantly outpace the representatives of companies from the “new” EU Member States. The fact of employers becoming engaged in activity of this type for the benefit of employees is largely not appreciated among the younger Member States.
- Across the entirety of the EU, three out of four employees aged 25–34 (75%) on average, can declare to possess basic or advanced digital literacy skills. Workers from this age group will be to, the largest degree, participants of the constant changes in the labour market, and to meet this challenge, they will be forced to display a high level of digital literacy skills.
- The results of the correlation of employee participation in non-formal work-related education combined with labour productivity in the “old” EU Member States are clearly higher than in countries that joined the community in 2004 or later. The statistical significance of diversification of the average values between these two clusters of the Member States, dependent on the seniority in the EU, has been confirmed.
- It cannot be unequivocally stated that belonging to the Eurozone has any influence on one group of countries faring better than the other. However, it can be produced that the members of the so called “old Union” which are primarily grouped in the first cluster display better values of the researched variables. It means that nearly 70 years since the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community, the ideas of its founders advocating equal development in Europe require stronger emphasis on providing aid to those Member States which are coping with problems concerning development and that these problems touch not only the “new” Member States. These problems are plaguing even Greece, which still has problems with returning to levels from before 2009, i.e., the two crises Greece had to deal with (the financial crisis of 2008 and the Eurozone crisis of 2011).
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Country | No. of Cluster | EU Members OLD = 1 NEW = 2 | Euro-Zone Yes = 1 No = 2 | Work Producti-vity Per Hour | Employment Rate | Percentage of Individuals Employed for Fixed Period | Companies with Budget for Employees’ Continuing Vocational Training | Expenditures for R&D in HE as a % of GDP | Companies Using Electronic Management Systems | Individuals Possessing Digital Skills | Graduates of HEIs in the STEM Fields | Employees Participating in Informal Education and Work-Related Training | Precarious Employment for a Period of Up to 3 Months |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Unit of Measurement | - | - | - | Euro | % | % | % | % | % | % | No. of Individuals Per 1000 People | % | % |
Austria | 1 | 1 | 1 | 53.3 | 76.2 | 6.8 | 32.2 | 0.71 | 43 | 84 | 22.0 | 60.4 | 0.8 |
Belgium | 1 | 1 | 1 | 60.3 | 69.7 | 8.5 | 35.9 | 0.54 | 53 | 73 | 13.6 | 45.8 | 3.5 |
Czech Republic | 1 | 2 | 2 | 9.7 | 79.9 | 7.9 | 42.2 | 0.41 | 38 | 83 | 16.8 | 48.6 | 0.3 |
Denmark | 1 | 1 | 2 | 17.1 | 77.5 | 8.8 | 25.2 | 0.98 | 50 | 84 | 22.6 | 47.0 | 1.0 |
Estonia | 1 | 2 | 1 | 27.6 | 79.5 | 3.0 | 21.3 | 0.63 | 26 | 86 | 16.5 | 43.7 | 1.2 |
Finland | 1 | 1 | 1 | 21.4 | 76.3 | 15.1 | 30.3 | 0.69 | 43 | 92 | 22.4 | 51.4 | 3.5 |
Germany | 1 | 1 | 1 | 73.6 | 79.9 | 10.8 | 19.2 | 0.56 | 29 | 87 | 20.4 | 50.7 | 0.3 |
Luxembourg | 1 | 1 | 1 | 22.1 | 72.1 | 9.6 | 32.9 | 0.25 | 41 | 79 | 3.8 | 46.2 | 1.4 |
Netherlands | 1 | 1 | 1 | 55.6 | 79.2 | 17.7 | 29.6 | 0.59 | 48 | 89 | 12.0 | 66.1 | 0.8 |
Sweden | 1 | 1 | 2 | 56.0 | 82.4 | 14.0 | 27.9 | 0.84 | 37 | 85 | 15.0 | 57.3 | 2.7 |
United Kingdom | 1 | 1 | 2 | 53.6 | 78.7 | 4.3 | 32.3 | 0.38 | 24 | 87 | 23.6 | 49.8 | 0.3 |
Bulgaria | 2 | 2 | 2 | 57.7 | 72.4 | 3.7 | 8.5 | 0.04 | 23 | 44 | 14.3 | 31.1 | 0.6 |
Cyprus | 2 | 2 | 1 | 15.1 | 73.9 | 13.7 | 20.1 | 0.23 | 33 | 59 | 10.1 | 42.2 | 0.5 |
Greece | 2 | 1 | 1 | 22.3 | 59.5 | 11.2 | 11.5 | 0.33 | 38 | 80 | 17.9 | 16.7 | 1.3 |
Hungary | 2 | 2 | 2 | 13.2 | 74.4 | 7.1 | 10.0 | 0.19 | 14 | 68 | 12.1 | 49.1 | 1.9 |
Latvia | 2 | 2 | 1 | 21.8 | 76.8 | 2.7 | 8.6 | 0.34 | 32 | 63 | 12.7 | 47.4 | 1.1 |
Lithuania | 2 | 2 | 1 | 28.0 | 77.8 | 1.4 | 10.0 | 0.34 | 48 | 85 | 18.9 | 32.7 | 0.7 |
Malta | 2 | 2 | 1 | 35.8 | 75.5 | 7.5 | 25.8 | 0.22 | 32 | 79 | 13.8 | 36.4 | 0.4 |
Romania | 2 | 2 | 2 | 57.1 | 69.9 | 1.1 | 8.5 | 0.05 | 23 | 42 | 15.1 | 5.8 | 0.2 |
Slovakia | 2 | 2 | 1 | 44.9 | 72.4 | 7.8 | 20.6 | 0.20 | 31 | 70 | 14.7 | 53.4 | 1.3 |
Croatia | 3 | 2 | 2 | 21.4 | 65.2 | 19.3 | 14.1 | 0.31 | 26 | 86 | 18.5 | 37.5 | 6.5 |
France | 3 | 1 | 1 | 16.6 | 71.3 | 15.4 | 40.2 | 0.45 | 48 | 75 | 26.0 | 48.8 | 4.7 |
Ireland | 3 | 1 | 1 | 82.0 | 74.1 | 8.6 | 27.7 | 0.24 | 28 | 65 | 32.7 | 56.4 | 1.2 |
Italy | 3 | 1 | 1 | 40.4 | 63.0 | 16.8 | 19.9 | 0.33 | 35 | 56 | 14.5 | 45.8 | 3.7 |
Poland | 3 | 2 | 2 | 17.0 | 72.2 | 23.9 | 8.5 | 0.38 | 29 | 66 | 23.6 | 27.5 | 3.6 |
Portugal | 3 | 1 | 1 | 17.4 | 75.4 | 21.5 | 27.1 | 0.56 | 42 | 80 | 20.6 | 50.8 | 2.6 |
Slovenia | 3 | 2 | 1 | 88.9 | 75.4 | 14.8 | 22.4 | 0.23 | 33 | 72 | 19.4 | 49.3 | 3.7 |
Spain | 3 | 1 | 1 | 27.6 | 67.0 | 25.9 | 47.6 | 0.33 | 43 | 77 | 21.9 | 42.6 | 4.2 |
UE-28 (avg.) | - | - | - | 37.8 | 73.8 | 11.0 | 23.6 | 0.41 | 35 | 75 | 17.7 | 44.3 | 1.9 |
Old-15 (avg.) | - | - | - | 53.5 | 73.5 | 13.0 | 29.3 | 0.52 | 40 | 79 | 19.3 | 49.1 | 2.1 |
New-13 (avg.) | - | - | - | 19.6 | 74.3 | 8.8 | 16.9 | 0.27 | 30 | 69 | 15.9 | 38.8 | 1.7 |
References
- Kagermann, H. Chancen von Industrie 4.0 nutzen. In Industrie 4.0 in Produktion, Automatisierung und Logistik; Bauernhansl, T., ten Hompel, M., Vogel-Heuser, B., Eds.; Springer Vieweg: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2014; pp. 603–614. [Google Scholar]
- Dean, M.; Spoehr, J. The fourth industrial revolution and the future of manufacturing work in Australia: Challenges and opportunities. Labour Ind. J. Soc. Econ. Relat. Work 2018, 28, 166–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bercovici, E.G.; Bercovici, A. Israeli labor market and the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Amfiteatru Econ. 2019, 21, 884–895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whysall, Z.; Owtram, M.; Brittain, S. The new talent management challenges of Industry 4.0. J. Manag. Dev. 2019, 38, 118–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Piwowar-Sulej, K. Human resource management in the context of Industry 4.0. Organ. Manag. Sci. Q. 2020, 1, 103–113. [Google Scholar]
- Da Silva, V.L.; Kovaleski, J.L.; Pagani, R.N.; Silva, J.D.M.; Corsi, A. Implementation of Industry 4.0 concept in companies: Empirical evidences. Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 2020, 33, 325–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, K.; Liu, T.; Zhou, L. Industry 4.0: Towards future industrial opportunities and challenges. In Proceedings of the 2015 12th International Conference on Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery (FSKD), Zhangjiajie, China, 10 February 2015; pp. 2147–2152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ślusarczyk, B. Selected results of introducing the Industry 4.0 concept in enterprises. Organ. Rev. 2019, 1, 4–10. [Google Scholar]
- Rao, S.K.; Prasad, R. Impact of 5G technologies on smart city implementation. Wirel. Pers. Commun. 2018, 100, 161–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niedbał, R.; Wrzalik, A.; Sokołowski, A. Fourth Industrial revolution as a challenge to maintain enterprise competitiveness. J. Mark. Mark. Stud. 2017, 7, 557–570. [Google Scholar]
- Piątkowski, M.J. The role of IT management systems in enterprise development and building a competitive position (Rola informatycznych systemów do zarządzania w rozwoju przedsiębiorstwa i budowaniu pozycji konkurencyjnej). In Problems of Increasing the Competitiveness of Enterprises (Problemy Wzrostu Konkurencyjności Przedsiębiorstw); Zieliński, K., Ed.; PWN: Warszawa, Poland, 2015; pp. 79–86. [Google Scholar]
- Gracel, J.; Makowiec, M. Core competencies of managers in the fourth industrial revolution (Industry 4.0). Acta Univ. Nicolai Copernici Zarządzanie 2017, 44, 105–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Olender-Skorek, M. The fourth industrial revolution and some economic theories. Soc. Inequal. Econ. Growth 2017, 51, 38–49. [Google Scholar]
- Pereira, A.C.; Romero, F. A review of the meanings and the implications of the Industry 4.0 concept. Procedia Manuf. 2017, 13, 1206–1214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bagieńska, A. Measurement and analysis of the efficiency of human capital in a small enterprise in Poland. Financ. Internet Q. 2015, 11, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Firlej, K.A. Objectives and directions of employment restructuring in the company. J. Manag. Financ. 2013, 1, 195–208. [Google Scholar]
- Kurz, C. Industrie 4.0 verändert die arbeitswelt. gewerkschaftliche gestaltungsimpulse für “bessere” arbeit. In Identität in der Virtualität. Einblicke in Neue Arbeitswelten und “Industrie 4.0”; Schröter, W., Ed.; Talheimer Verlag: Mössingen, Germany, 2014; pp. 106–111. [Google Scholar]
- Windelband, L. Zukunft der facharbeit im zeitalter: Industrie 4.0. J. Tech. Educ. 2014, 2, 138–160. [Google Scholar]
- Bendkowski, J. The impact of industry 4.0 on production work. Sci. Pap. Sil. Univ. Technol. Organ. Manag. Ser. 2017, 112, 21–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arntz, M.; Gregory, T.; Zierahn, U. The risk of automation for jobs in OECD countries: A comparative analysis. OECD Soc. Employ. Migr. Work. Pap. 2016, 189, 1–34. [Google Scholar]
- Rüßmann, M.; Lorenz, M.; Gerbert, P.; Waldner, M.; Justus, J.; Engel, P.; Harnisch, M. Industry 4.0: The future of productivity and growth in manufacturing industries. Boston Consult. Group 2015, 9, 54–89. [Google Scholar]
- Hirsch-Kreinsen, H. Wandel von Produktionsarbeit—Industrie 4.0; Technische Universität Dortmund: Dortmund, Germany, 2014; Volume 38. [Google Scholar]
- Hawksworth, J.; Berriman, R.; Cameron, E. Will Robots Really Steal our Jobs? An International Analysis of the Potential Long Term Impact of Automation; PricewaterhouseCoopers: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Ganschar, O.; Gerlach, S.; Hämmerle, M.; Krause, T.; Schlund, S. Produktionsarbeit der Zukunft—Industrie 4.0; Spath, D., Ed.; Fraunhofer Verlag IAO: Stuttgart, Germany, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Frey, C.B.; Osborne, M.A. The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2017, 114, 254–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jagannathan, S.; Ra, S.; Maclean, R. Dominant recent trends impacting on jobs and labor markets—An Overview. Int. J. Train. Res. 2019, 17, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pietrulewicz, B.; Łosyk, H. Social and education problems at the working space in the fourth-generation industry context. Probl. Prof. 2018, 2, 69–77. [Google Scholar]
- Kergroach, S. Industry 4.0: New challenges and opportunities for the labour market. Foresight STI Gov. 2017, 11, 6–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Infuture Hatalska Foresight Institute. Employee of the Future; Infuture Hatalska Foresight Institute: Gdańsk, Poland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Vuorikari, R.; Punie, Y.; Gomez, S.C.; Van Den Brande, G. DigComp 2.0: The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens. Update Phase 1: The Conceptual Reference Model; Joint Research Centre: Luxembourg, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Annunziata, M.; Bourgeois, H. The future of work: How G20 countries can leverage digital-industrial innovations into stronger high-quality jobs growth. Econ. Open Access Open Assess. E J. 2018, 12, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ministry of Technology and Entrepreneurship/Simens. Smart Industry Poland 2019. Engineers in the Era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Research Report; Ministry of Technology and Entrepreneurship/Simens: Warszawa, Poland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Chovancova, B.; Dorocakova, M.; Malacka, V. Changes in industrial structure of GDP and stock indices also with regard to the Industry 4.0. Bus. Econ. Horiz. 2018, 14, 402–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- World Economic Forum. The Future of Jobs. Employment, Skills and Workforce Strategy for the Fourth Industrial Revolution; OECD Employment Outlook; World Economic Forum: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Wolter, M.I.; Mönnig, A.; Hummel, M.; Schneemann, C.; Weber, E.; Zika, G.; Helmrich, R.; Maier, T.; Neuber-Pohl, C. Industry 4.0 and the Consequences for Labour Market and Economy. Scenario Calculations in Line with the BIBB-IAB Qualifications and Occupational Field Projections; Institute for Employment Research: Nuremberg, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Bughin, J.; Hazan, E.; Lund, S.; Dahlström, P.; Wiesinger, A.; Subramaniam, A. Skill Shift: Automation and the Future of the Workforce; McKinsey Global Institute: Brussels, Belgium, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Noonan, R. STEM Jobs: 2017 Update; US Department of Commerce: Washington, WA, USA, 2017.
- Dolot, A. The characteristics of Generation Z. E Mentor 2018, 2, 44–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burksaitiene, D.; Jegelavičiūtė, R.; Grenčíková, A.; Krajčo, K.; Sokol, J. Economic indicators paradigm on the labour market in Lithuania and Slovakia. Eng. Econ. 2019, 30, 612–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez-Morales, I.; Marhuenda-Fluixá, F. Vocational education and training in Spain: Steady improvement and increasing value. J. Vocat. Educ. Train. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weber, E. Industry 4.0: Job-Producer or Employment-Destroyer? Aktuelle Berichte: Nuremberg, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Kenney, M.; Zysman, J. The rise of the platform economy. Issues Sci. Technol. 2016, 32, 61–69. [Google Scholar]
- Manyika, J.; Lund, S.; Robinson, K.; Valentino, J.; Dobbs, R. A Labor Market That Works: Connecting Talent with Opportunity in the Digital Age; McKinsey Global Institute: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Bombiak, E. Flexibility and stabilization—Employment policy dilemmas in contemporary organizations. J. Mark. Mark. Stud. 2016, 3, 50–59. [Google Scholar]
- Piątkowski, M.J. Flexible forms of employment in achieving the objectives of the company. Manag. Financ. Mark. Probl. 2011, 22, 127–134. [Google Scholar]
- Baron-Puda, M. The paradigm of functional flexibility in personnel policy of a company with unit production. Enterp. Manag. 2019, 22, 2–10. [Google Scholar]
- Piórkowska-Wojciechowska, K. The employment flexibility in the context of employee loyalty creation. Res. Pap. Wrocław Univ. Econ. 2006, 1141, 265–271. [Google Scholar]
- Górska, J. Alternative forms of employment—Possibilities and limitations. Res. Pap. Pozn. Univ. Econ. 2001, 6, 169–181. [Google Scholar]
- Piątkowski, M.J. The importance of employment forms in the functioning of the enterprises. Econ. Probl. Serv. 2011, 73, 431–442. [Google Scholar]
- Brzeziński, A. Flexible forms of employment and their frequency range. Res. Rev. Czest. Univ. Technol. Manag. 2017, 28, 194–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guzikowski, M. Advisability of implementing flexicurity in Poland. Optim. Econ. Stud. 2016, 1, 135–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- OECD. Going Digital: The Future of Work for Women. Policy Brief on The Future of Work; OECD: Paris, France, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Ćwiek, M. Digital divide in Poland and in the European Union. Econ. Probl. Serv. 2018, 2, 217–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prieto, J.S.; Torres, J.M.T.; García, M.G.; García, G.G. Gender and digital teaching competence in dual vocational education and training. Educ. Sci. 2020, 10, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. Towards Common Principles of Flexicurity: More and Better Jobs through Flexibility and Security; Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Auer, P.; Chatani, K. Flexicurity: Still going strong or a victim of crisis? In Research Handbook on the Future of Work and Employment Relations; Townsend, K., Wilkinson, A., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Northampton, UK, 2011; pp. 253–278. [Google Scholar]
- Ciuca, V.; Pasnicu, D.; Son, L.; Sipos, C.; Iordan, M. The Romanian flexicurity—A response to the European labour market needs. Rom. J. Econ. Forecast. 2009, 10, 161–183. [Google Scholar]
- Laporšek, S.; Dolenc, P. The analysis of flexicurity in the EU members states. Transylv. Rev. Adm. Sci. 2011, 7, 125–145. [Google Scholar]
- Storey, J.; Quintas, P.; Taylor, P.; Fowle, W. Flexible employment contracts and their implications for product and process innovation. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2002, 13, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. Regional Innovation Scoreboard 2019; Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- UNDP. Human Development Report 2019; UNDP: New York, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- IMD. IMD World Digital Competitiveness Ranking 2019; IMD: Lausanne, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Cedefop. Skills Supply and Demand in Europe; Cedefop: Luxembourg, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- UNESCO. 4th Global Report on Adult Learning and Education (GRALE); UNESCO: Hamburg, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Cedefop. Vocational Education and Training in Europe, 1995–2035: Scenarios for European Vocational Education and Training in the 21st Century; Cedefop: Luxembourg, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Steczkowski, J. A Representative Method in the Study of Economic and Social Phenomena. (Metoda Reprezentacyjna w Badaniach Zjawisk Ekonomiczno-Społecznych); Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN: Warszawa, Poland, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Serafin, R.; Luściński, S. Normalization of delivery assessment criteria in supply systems (Normalizacja kryteriów oceny dostaw w systemach zaopatrzenia). In Innovations in Production Management and Production Engineering (Innowacje w Zarządzaniu i Inżynierii Produkcji); Knosala, R., Ed.; Oficyna Wydawnicza PTZP: Opole, Poland, 2016; pp. 1010–1021. [Google Scholar]
- Zeliaś, A. (Ed.) Taxonomic Analysis of Spatial Diversity of Living Standards in Poland in a Dynamic Approach (Taksonomiczna Analiza Przestrzennego Zróżnicowania Poziomu Życia w Polsce w Ujęciu Dynamicznym); Wyd. Akademii Ekonomicznej: Kraków, Poland, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Ward, J.H., Jr. Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1963, 58, 236–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zivadinovic, N.K.; Dumicic, K.; Casni, A.C. Cluster and factor analysis of structural economic indicators for selected European countries. WSEAS Trans. Bus. Econ. 2009, 6, 331–341. [Google Scholar]
- Yim, O.; Ramdeen, K.T. Hierarchical cluster analysis: Comparison of three linkage measures and application to psychological data. Quant. Methods Psychol. 2015, 11, 8–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. Europe 2020: The European Union Strategy for Growth and Employment; Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Brussels, Belgium, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Handy, C. Understanding Organizations; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Atkinson, J. Manpower strategies for flexible organisations. Pers. Manag. 1984, 8, 28–31. [Google Scholar]
- Taylor, S. Employment Variability. How to Keep Employees in the Company. (Płynność Zatrudnienia. Jak Zatrzymać Pracowników w Firmie); Wolters Kluwer: Kraków, Poland, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Król, M. Employment forms diversification and the social inequality. Soc. Inequal. Econ. Growth 2015, 2, 367–377. [Google Scholar]
- Czaja, I.; Urbaniec, M. Digital exclusion in the labour market in European countries: Causes and consequences. Eur. J. Sustain. Dev. 2019, 8, 324–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pagani, L.; Argentin, G.; Gui, M.; Stanca, L. The impact of digital skills on educational outcomes: Evidence from performance tests. Educ. Stud. 2016, 42, 137–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- European Commission. DESI 2019—Human Capital—Digital Inclusion and Skills; Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Brussels, Belgium, 2019. [Google Scholar]
No. of a Variable | Name of a Variable | Description of a Variable and a Measuring Unit | Source of Data | Reference Year |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Work productivity per hour | Work productivity calculated as GDP in current prices in euro for a given year divided by the number of work hours (euro). | Eurostat: PORDATA | 2018 |
2 | Employment rate | The number of employed individuals aged 20–64 in population (%). | Eurostat: [lfsi_emp_a] | 2018 |
3 | Individuals employed under fixed-term contracts | The percentage of working individuals aged 20–64 working under fixed-term employment contract (%). | Eurostat: [lfsa_esegt] | 2018 |
4 | Companies with budget for employees’ Continuing Vocational Training | The percentage of companies employing more than 10 individuals with budget for CVT—educational or training activities completely or partially financed by a company. Partial financing may cover devoting working time to training as well as financing training equipment (%). | Eurostat: [trng_cvt_07s] | 2015 |
5 | Expenditures for R&D in higher education | Expenditures for R&D in higher education as % of GDP (%). | Eurostat: [rd_e_gerdtot] | 2018 |
6 | Companies utilising electronic management systems | The percentage of companies employing more than 10 individuals which use ERP systems for electronic management of various aspects of the company (%). | Eurostat: [isoc_eb_iip] | 2019 |
7 | Individuals possessing digital skills | The percentage of individuals aged 25–34 possessing basic or advanced digital skills (%). | Eurostat: [educ_uoe_grad04] | 2019 |
8 | Graduates of HEIs in the STEM fields | The number of graduates of HEIs aged 20–29 graduating in the fields of science, math, IT, engineering, manufacturing, construction per 1000 individuals (number of individuals). | Eurostat: [educ_uoe_grad04] | 2017 |
9 | Employees participating in informal education and work-related training | The percentage of employees aged 25–64 participating in informal institutionalized forms of education related with work and covering: courses, workshops, workplace training courses—tutelage, private lessons (%). | Eurostat: [trng_aes_124] | 2016 |
10 | Precarious employment for a period of up to 3 months | The percentage of employees aged 20–64 employed under short term agreement for a period of up to 3 months (%). | Eurostat: [lfsa_qoe_4ax1r2] | 2018 |
Variable | No. of the Cluster | Average | CI | Median | Min | Max | LQ (Q1) | UQ (Q3) | SD | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
−95% | +95% | |||||||||
(1) Work productivity per hour | 1 | 53.50 | 40.35 | 66.65 | 55.60 | 21.40 | 88.90 | 44.90 | 60.30 | 19.57 |
2 | 19.14 | 14.49 | 23.80 | 17.40 | 9.70 | 27.60 | 16.60 | 21.80 | 6.06 | |
3 | 37.09 | 18.20 | 55.97 | 31.90 | 15.10 | 82.00 | 19.70 | 48.20 | 22.59 | |
EU-28 | 37.77 | 29.08 | 46.45 | 27.80 | 9.70 | 88.90 | 19.40 | 55.80 | 22.40 | |
Old-15 | 53.53 | 42.94 | 64.12 | 55.60 | 21.40 | 88.90 | 40.40 | 60.30 | 19.12 | |
New-13 | 19.58 | 16.10 | 23.07 | 17.40 | 9.70 | 28.00 | 16.60 | 22.10 | 5.77 | |
(2) Employment rate | 1 | 77.40 | 74.91 | 79.89 | 78.70 | 69.70 | 82.40 | 76.20 | 79.90 | 3.70 |
2 | 72.51 | 68.33 | 76.69 | 73.90 | 59.50 | 77.80 | 72.40 | 75.50 | 5.44 | |
3 | 70.45 | 66.44 | 74.46 | 71.75 | 63.00 | 75.40 | 66.10 | 74.75 | 4.80 | |
EU-28 | 73.84 | 71.76 | 75.93 | 74.90 | 59.50 | 82.40 | 71.70 | 77.65 | 5.38 | |
Old-15 | 73.49 | 69.91 | 77.06 | 75.40 | 59.50 | 82.40 | 69.70 | 78.70 | 6.46 | |
New-13 | 74.25 | 71.83 | 76.68 | 74.40 | 65.20 | 79.90 | 72.40 | 76.80 | 4.02 | |
(3) Percentage of individuals employed for fixed period | 1 | 9.68 | 6.67 | 12.69 | 8.80 | 3.00 | 17.70 | 6.80 | 14.00 | 4.48 |
2 | 6.24 | 2.87 | 9.62 | 7.10 | 1.10 | 13.70 | 2.70 | 7.80 | 4.39 | |
3 | 18.28 | 13.62 | 22.93 | 18.05 | 8.60 | 25.90 | 15.10 | 22.70 | 5.57 | |
EU-28 | 11.03 | 8.43 | 13.64 | 9.20 | 1.10 | 25.90 | 6.95 | 15.25 | 6.72 | |
Old-15 | 13.00 | 9.77 | 16.23 | 11.20 | 4.30 | 25.90 | 8.60 | 16.80 | 5.84 | |
New-13 | 8.76 | 4.43 | 13.09 | 7.50 | 1.10 | 23.90 | 3.00 | 13.70 | 7.16 | |
(4) Companies with budget for employees’ Continuing Vocational Training | 1 | 29.91 | 25.54 | 34.27 | 30.30 | 19.20 | 42.20 | 25.20 | 32.90 | 6.50 |
2 | 13.73 | 8.67 | 18.80 | 10.00 | 8.50 | 25.80 | 8.60 | 20.10 | 6.59 | |
3 | 25.94 | 15.13 | 36.75 | 24.75 | 8.50 | 47.60 | 17.00 | 33.95 | 12.93 | |
EU-28 | 23.58 | 19.29 | 27.86 | 23.80 | 8.50 | 47.60 | 12.80 | 31.25 | 11.05 | |
Old-15 | 29.30 | 24.48 | 34.12 | 29.60 | 11.50 | 47.60 | 25.20 | 32.90 | 8.71 | |
New-13 | 16.97 | 10.99 | 22.95 | 14.10 | 8.50 | 42.20 | 8.60 | 21.30 | 9.90 | |
(5) Expenditures for R&D in Higher Education | 1 | 0.60 | 0.46 | 0.74 | 0.59 | 0.25 | 0.98 | 0.41 | 0.71 | 0.21 |
2 | 0.22 | 0.13 | 0.30 | 0.22 | 0.04 | 0.34 | 0.19 | 0.33 | 0.11 | |
3 | 0.35 | 0.26 | 0.45 | 0.33 | 0.23 | 0.56 | 0.28 | 0.42 | 0.11 | |
EU-28 | 0.41 | 0.32 | 0.49 | 0.34 | 0.04 | 0.98 | 0.24 | 0.56 | 0.23 | |
Old-15 | 0.52 | 0.40 | 0.64 | 0.54 | 0.24 | 0.98 | 0.33 | 0.69 | 0.22 | |
New-13 | 0.27 | 0.18 | 0.37 | 0.23 | 0.04 | 0.63 | 0.20 | 0.34 | 0.16 | |
(6) Companies using electronic management systems | 1 | 39.27 | 32.79 | 45.76 | 41.00 | 24.00 | 53.00 | 29.00 | 48.00 | 9.65 |
2 | 30.44 | 22.96 | 37.93 | 32.00 | 14.00 | 48.00 | 23.00 | 33.00 | 9.74 | |
3 | 35.50 | 28.80 | 42.20 | 34.00 | 26.00 | 48.00 | 28.50 | 42.50 | 8.02 | |
EU-28 | 35.36 | 31.61 | 39.11 | 34.00 | 14.00 | 53.00 | 28.50 | 43.00 | 9.67 | |
Old-15 | 40.13 | 35.48 | 44.78 | 42.00 | 24.00 | 53.00 | 35.00 | 48.00 | 8.40 | |
New-13 | 29.85 | 24.91 | 34.79 | 31.00 | 14.00 | 48.00 | 26.00 | 33.00 | 8.17 | |
(7) Individuals possessing digital skills | 1 | 84.45 | 81.05 | 87.86 | 85.00 | 73.00 | 92.00 | 83.00 | 87.00 | 5.07 |
2 | 65.56 | 53.83 | 77.28 | 68.00 | 42.00 | 85.00 | 59.00 | 79.00 | 15.26 | |
3 | 72.13 | 64.16 | 80.09 | 73.50 | 56.00 | 86.00 | 65.50 | 78.50 | 9.52 | |
EU-28 | 74.86 | 69.79 | 79.92 | 79.00 | 42.00 | 92.00 | 67.00 | 85.00 | 13.06 | |
Old-15 | 79.53 | 74.28 | 84.79 | 80.00 | 56.00 | 92.00 | 75.00 | 87.00 | 9.49 | |
New-13 | 69.46 | 60.50 | 78.42 | 70.00 | 42.00 | 86.00 | 63.00 | 83.00 | 14.83 | |
(8) Graduates of HEIs in the STEM fields | 1 | 17.15 | 13.15 | 21.16 | 16.80 | 3.80 | 23.60 | 13.60 | 22.40 | 5.96 |
2 | 14.40 | 12.29 | 16.51 | 14.30 | 10.10 | 18.90 | 12.70 | 15.10 | 2.74 | |
3 | 22.15 | 17.57 | 26.73 | 21.25 | 14.50 | 32.70 | 18.95 | 24.80 | 5.48 | |
EU-28 | 17.70 | 15.48 | 19.92 | 17.35 | 3.80 | 32.70 | 14.05 | 21.95 | 5.73 | |
Old-15 | 19.27 | 15.49 | 23.04 | 20.60 | 3.80 | 32.70 | 14.50 | 22.60 | 6.81 | |
New-13 | 15.88 | 13.71 | 18.06 | 15.10 | 10.10 | 23.60 | 13.80 | 18.50 | 3.60 | |
(9) Employees participating in informal education and work-related training | 1 | 51.55 | 46.89 | 56.20 | 49.80 | 43.70 | 66.10 | 46.20 | 57.30 | 6.93 |
2 | 34.98 | 22.97 | 46.99 | 36.40 | 5.80 | 53.40 | 31.10 | 47.40 | 15.62 | |
3 | 44.84 | 37.33 | 52.35 | 47.30 | 27.50 | 56.40 | 40.05 | 50.05 | 8.99 | |
EU-28 | 44.30 | 39.38 | 49.23 | 47.20 | 5.80 | 66.10 | 39.85 | 50.75 | 12.71 | |
Old-15 | 49.05 | 43.00 | 55.11 | 49.80 | 16.70 | 66.10 | 45.80 | 56.40 | 10.94 | |
New-13 | 38.82 | 31.11 | 46.54 | 42.20 | 5.80 | 53.40 | 32.70 | 48.60 | 12.77 | |
(10) Precarious employment for a period of up to 3 months | 1 | 1.44 | 0.61 | 2.26 | 1.00 | 0.30 | 3.50 | 0.30 | 2.70 | 1.23 |
2 | 0.89 | 0.47 | 1.31 | 0.70 | 0.20 | 1.90 | 0.50 | 1.30 | 0.55 | |
3 | 3.78 | 2.49 | 5.06 | 3.70 | 1.20 | 6.50 | 3.10 | 4.45 | 1.54 | |
EU-28 | 1.93 | 1.29 | 2.57 | 1.25 | 0.20 | 6.50 | 0.65 | 3.50 | 1.65 | |
Old-15 | 2.13 | 1.31 | 2.96 | 1.40 | 0.30 | 4.70 | 0.80 | 3.50 | 1.49 | |
New-13 | 1.69 | 0.58 | 2.81 | 1.10 | 0.20 | 6.50 | 0.50 | 1.90 | 1.85 |
No. of the Variable | Name of the Variable | Statistical Diversity between the Clusters | |
---|---|---|---|
Ward’s Method (3 Clusters) | “Old” (1) and “New” (2) EU Member States (2 Clusters) | ||
1 | Work productivity per hour | 1–2 | 1–2 |
2 | Employment rate | 1–3 | – |
3 | Percentage of individuals employed for fixed period | 1–3, 2–3 | – |
4 | Companies with budget for employees’ Continuing Vocational Training (CVT) | 1–2 | 1–2 |
5 | Expenditures for R&D in Higher Education | 1–2, 1–3 | 1–2 |
6 | Companies using electronic management systems | – | 1–2 |
7 | Individuals possessing digital skills | 1–2, 1–3 | – |
8 | Graduates of HEIs in the STEM fields | 2–3 | – |
9 | Employees participating in informal education and work-related training | 1–2 | – |
10 | Precarious employment for a period of up to 3 months | 1–3, 2–3 | – |
© 2020 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Piątkowski, M.J. Expectations and Challenges in the Labour Market in the Context of Industrial Revolution 4.0. The Agglomeration Method-Based Analysis for Poland and Other EU Member States. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5437. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135437
Piątkowski MJ. Expectations and Challenges in the Labour Market in the Context of Industrial Revolution 4.0. The Agglomeration Method-Based Analysis for Poland and Other EU Member States. Sustainability. 2020; 12(13):5437. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135437
Chicago/Turabian StylePiątkowski, Marcin J. 2020. "Expectations and Challenges in the Labour Market in the Context of Industrial Revolution 4.0. The Agglomeration Method-Based Analysis for Poland and Other EU Member States" Sustainability 12, no. 13: 5437. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135437
APA StylePiątkowski, M. J. (2020). Expectations and Challenges in the Labour Market in the Context of Industrial Revolution 4.0. The Agglomeration Method-Based Analysis for Poland and Other EU Member States. Sustainability, 12(13), 5437. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135437