Overview of funding for construction craft skills training in Sub‐Saharan Africa: a case study of Zambia

Abstract

The wealth of any nation is ultimately based on its human resource or social capital. Education and training are the primary vehicles of developing this resource. Funding of formal construction craft skills training at trade institutions in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) is examined, using Zambia as a country case study. The data in the research were collected via semi-structured questionnaire interviews directed at government financed trades training schools offering construction programmes in Zambia. Results of the research show that formal construction craft skills training in Zambia has not been adequately funded over the years resulting in: illqualified low numbers of poorly remunerated teaching staff; poorly maintained infrastructure and workshop facilities not well equipped for teaching purposes; and out-dated curricula of construction craft programmes. A wide range of measures is required to improve funding for construction craft skills training. These include: increased training regulation and co-ordination by government, development of efficient and effective funding mechanisms that involve employers of crafts-persons, and training provision frameworks that encourage increased involvement of private training providers.

Apprenticeship for craftspeople in the construction industry: a state-of-the-art review

“…Funding is of the many factors that help to improve the outcome of apprenticeship programmes for construction craftspeople. Researchers have argued that the provision of funds for training is the solution to the current skill shortage faced in the construction industry (Dainty et al, 2004;Muya et al, 2006b). It includes provision of funding by government (Hogarth and Gambin, 2014;Morgan et al, 2008); provision of allowance for the trainees (Abdul-Aziz et al, 2008;Thwala, 2008); provision of scholarship to trainees (Glover and Bilginsoy, 2005); and provision of funding by the employer (Muya et al, 2006b).…”

“…Researchers have argued that the provision of funds for training is the solution to the current skill shortage faced in the construction industry (Dainty et al, 2004;Muya et al, 2006b). It includes provision of funding by government (Hogarth and Gambin, 2014;Morgan et al, 2008); provision of allowance for the trainees (Abdul-Aziz et al, 2008;Thwala, 2008); provision of scholarship to trainees (Glover and Bilginsoy, 2005); and provision of funding by the employer (Muya et al, 2006b). The last-mentioned factor shows that funding for craftspeople training should not be the duty of the government alone.…”

“…A policy and a regulatory framework are essential for improving the success of apprentice training for construction craftspeople. As reported by different scholars, this entails the government putting forward a policy that supports the training programme (O'Connor, 2006;Simon and Clarke, 2016); having a system in place to regulate the training providers (Anderson, 2014;Muya et al, 2006b); and active support from the regulatory agencies (Anderson, 2014;O'Connor, 2006). Developing the right policy sets the wheels in progress for the sustainable growth of any training programme, including those for craftspeople apprentices.…”

“…Simon and Clarke, 2016); having a system in place to regulate the training providers (Anderson, 2014;Muya et al, 2006b) and active support from the regulatory agencies (Anderson, 2014;O'Connor, 2006). Developing the right policy sets the wheels in progress for the sustainable growth of any training programme, including those for craftspeople apprentices.…”

Informal Construction Practices as Knowledge Incubators: A Conceptual Framework

“…The rationale for this analysis is grounded on inability of many developing countries to finance through public resources, formal training in construction craft skills (Muya, Price, & Edum-Fotwe, 2006;Roy & Koehn, 2006), thus the evaluation and recognition of informal learning practice could offer a leeway out of this hurdle. Although the two concepts are different, recent studies have shifted away from focusing on conventional incubators towards recognition of entrepreneurs as incubators.…”