The ESI measures countries’ “distance to the ideal” performance. This ideal performance is chosen as the highest achieved by any country over a period of 7 years. The ideal performance is scaled to be 100 and the scores of all countries are then computed and compared to that. Basis of the ESI are 15 individual indicators from various international datasets. The scores are calculated across countries at the indicators’ level. The scores are then averaged at the various layers and finally the Index score is formed. To illustrate, an Index (or pillar, sub-pillar etc.) score of 65 suggests that the country has reached 65% of the ideal performance. Thus, there is still 35% (100-65) room for improvement. A score of 100 corresponds to achieving the ‘frontier’, that is an aspirational target performance for that indicator. A score of 0 corresponds to a lowest-case performance. This page shows specific information on the scores achieved by the chosen country across pillars, sub-pillars and indicators. Below, you can find a short commentary on country’s skills system performance.
2020 scores and progress since 2018
For the index as a whole, Austria ranks 14th in the 2020 release compared to the 13th position in 2018. Austria has a good performance in skills development and skills activation (ranks 8th and 5th respectively) counterbalanced by a relatively poor performance in skills matching (rank 22nd). It belongs to the “middle-achieving” group.
Austria ranks 8th in skills development, ranking 6th in “VET students”, 8th in “high computer skills” and below 10th in four other indicators. It does however have an average “reading, maths & science score” (rank 16th) and “pre-primary pupil-to-teacher-ratio” (rank 18th).
Austria performs very well in skills activation, ranking 5th. Indeed, it has a good performance in both activity rates (rank 8th and 9th in 20-24 and 25-54 cohorts, respectively) and ranks 7th in “recent graduate in employment”.
The relatively poor performance in skills matching (rank 22nd) is due to a poor “overqualification rate” (rank 25th), which is only partially compensated by a low level of “long-term unemployment” (rank 10th). In the other indicators in this pillar it ranks above 17th.