大學(xué)生就業(yè)壓力的研究外文翻譯-其他專(zhuān)業(yè)-展示頁(yè)
2025-01-31 10:28本頁(yè)面
【正文】 勵(lì)自我就業(yè)和企業(yè)輔助，而其他兩個(gè)培訓(xùn)和就業(yè)在 20 世紀(jì) 90 年代推出的主要措施。 1985 年的白皮書(shū)“就業(yè)的國(guó)家面臨的挑戰(zhàn)”，介紹了湯姆金“適應(yīng)變化”的主題，描述了英國(guó)勞工市場(chǎng)的優(yōu)勢(shì)和劣勢(shì)。在 1983 年，青年培訓(xùn)計(jì)劃取代了 YOP 和 1984 年的白皮書(shū)“培訓(xùn)工作”，重視職業(yè)培訓(xùn)的需要。因此，專(zhuān)項(xiàng)訓(xùn)練手段（ 19751979），統(tǒng)一職業(yè)準(zhǔn)備（ 1976 年），“技能培訓(xùn)：行動(dòng)計(jì)劃”（ 1979/80）和青年機(jī)遇計(jì)劃（ 19781983 年）在 20 世紀(jì) 80 年代早期之前都發(fā)生重大變化。人力事務(wù)委員會(huì)的成立，促使了更大的專(zhuān)業(yè)培訓(xùn)需求評(píng)估和培訓(xùn)的管理和執(zhí)行。 在英國(guó)工業(yè)培訓(xùn)政策的歷史可以追溯到 20 世紀(jì) 60 年代與 1962 年的白皮書(shū)，標(biāo)志著一個(gè)新的時(shí)代政府干預(yù)培訓(xùn)的“工業(yè)培訓(xùn)：政府的建議”，與工業(yè)訓(xùn)練委員會(huì)（ ITBS）成立后在 1964 年制定的“工業(yè)訓(xùn)練法”。僵化的勞動(dòng)力市場(chǎng)被視為主要原因，培訓(xùn)方案被認(rèn)為是促進(jìn)中小企業(yè)和創(chuàng)業(yè)必要政策，并且稅收福利制度的改革和工會(huì)立法，能抑制失業(yè)人員再失業(yè)。因此，新古典宏觀經(jīng)濟(jì)的經(jīng)濟(jì)政策，專(zhuān)注于供應(yīng)方，而不是需求方的，這導(dǎo)致了政策界在培訓(xùn)和就業(yè)兩方面的革命從根本上改變態(tài)度。同時(shí)，培訓(xùn)政策在漸進(jìn)制定中，在這時(shí)期政府根據(jù)培養(yǎng)的優(yōu)點(diǎn)采用缺乏可信的特殊方法，幫助解決英國(guó)的微觀和宏 觀經(jīng)濟(jì)目標(biāo)。因此，在 20 世紀(jì) 60 年代和 70 年代，就業(yè)政策主要包括凱恩斯主義需求方面的措施，主要通過(guò)政府赤字財(cái)政下特別扶助措施，如就業(yè)補(bǔ)貼和區(qū)域援助。s diagnosis of the problem is correct, there still remain two key areas for dispute regarding the role of training in employment generation. The first regards the causal relationship between training and employment. Is it training which leads to employment or could it be the other way round? In which case, as Ryan believes, training policy should be secondary to employment policy. The second area concerns the quality and delivery of training in the UK. There is no doubt, there is much improvement to be made in the quality of UK training vis 224。 but that a sound expanding training policy is a necessary precondition for achieving higher employment, especially among youths and the longterm unemployed. Hence the diagnosis of the UK39。 1 外文翻譯 原文 1 Training Policy and Employment Generation For many years, in the postwar UK economy, training policy and employment policy were considered to be loosely related aspects of government economic policy as a whole, but each had its own separately identifiable characteristics and objectives. Hence, in the 1960s and 1970s, employment policy consisted mainly of Keynesian demandside measures, chiefly via government deficit financing buttressed by special support measures such as employment subsidies and regional assistance. Even the emergence of youth and longterm unemployment in the 1970s did not deflect government from its belief that the underlying causal factor was a lack of effective demand in the economy. In the meantime, training policy had developed in a piecemeal, ad hoc way with a lack of conviction by governments in this period as to the merits of training in helping to tackle the UK39。s microand macro economic objectives. Only in the 1980s has government recognised the possible linkages between having a highly trained skilled workforce and achieving a high level of employment. Hence the New Classical revolution in macroeconomics, with its focus on supplyside rather than demandside economic policy, has led to a fundamental change of attitude in policy circles towards training and employment. These are now seen as not only being significantly linked。s unemployment problem has changed from a macro economic base to a microeconomic base, where the rigidities in the labour market are seen as the main cause and where training schemes are seen to be needed alongside policies to promote small firms and entrepreneurship, and with reform of the taxbenefit system and trade union legisla
環(huán)評(píng)公示相關(guān)推薦
鄂ICP備17016276號(hào)-1