Abstract
The call for the right to Lifelong Learning for all at CONFINTEA VII, backed by several international organisations, indicates a major transition from sector-specific education systems towards Lifelong Learning Ecosystems. In the context of Adult Learning, this indicates weakening or diminishing Adult Education sectors and a move towards Adult Learning within the framework of Lifelong Learning. However, the reality of such a transition is evident from the extent of changes in national policies. This paper analyses and compares the policies of three states: Denmark, Portugal, and Nigeria, to identify the extent of the aforesaid transition. The paper uses the currently implemented policies in all three states as sources for research. It shows that these states reflect different levels of transitions based on political will and futuristic policies that promote or limit equality, social mobility, and the existence or lack of a thoughtful attitude to ensure a sustainable future for everyone. Further, it argues that disadvantaged learners pay the price of a lack of transition or imbalances in transition. The paper highlights the need for a balanced transition towards lifelong learning ecosystems.
Keywords
Introduction
The call for the right to Lifelong Learning for all at CONFINTEA VII indicates two transitions
1
: one, the transition from education systems to Lifelong Learning (LLL) Ecosystems; and two, the transition from Adult Education (AE) as a part of the education systems to Adult Learning and Education (ALE) within the framework of LLL (Singh, 2024a, 2024b). Presuming that societies are becoming increasingly knowledge-driven and more informed ways of living (e.g. awareness about the climate), this transition is perceived to align learning opportunities with the learning needs of individuals and societies sustainably. However, the CONFINTEA VII call is non-binding for states (UNESCO Institute of Lifelong Learning, 2022). A reality check would be evident only if state policies reflect the transitions and relevant stakeholders, including the market, social partners, and civil society, commit resources for the same. The OECD emphasises that the current developments towards LLL systems lack the resilience and agility that characterise Ecosystems (OECD, 2025). This paper contributes to understanding the reality of such transitions by analysing the education and/or LLL policies of three states (cases for the paper): Denmark, Portugal, and Nigeria, to explore: 1) To what extent is the transition from the sectors of Adult Education to Lifelong Learning Ecosystems reflected in the current policies of three states: Denmark, Portugal, and Nigeria? Why so? 2) What are the consequences of this (no) transition for adult learners in the respective contexts?
Methodology
Policy Analysis is used as the primary research method since the objective of the paper is to understand the direction in which states are moving in relation to policy provisions regarding adult learning. Policies determine the direction of macro-level, long-term changes through resource allocation, reflect the agreement among the most influential stakeholders, and guide the implementation process (Singh, 2024a). The Ehlers Box Model (see Figure 1), developed by Søren Ehlers, represents the difference among sources of research: Ehlers Box Model. Source: Singh (2025a: 33)
The model focuses upon the content of various types of sources for research and highlights the unique nature of policy documents. It suggests that policy documents represent compromises among stakeholders, constant struggle and (lack or) prevalence of influence and power among them, and comprise of policy terms. These policy terms can be floating (terms that change meaning according to changing contexts) and/or empty (terms that are not backed by resource allocations like false political promises) signifiers. On the other hand, sources emanating from science are based on the search for truth guided by objectivity and scientific methods, use of facts, data, concepts and theories; sources emanating from profession include philosophical reflections, ethical considerations, proposals and opinions based on ideas, values and beliefs; and sources emanating from practice draw upon psychological or experiential reflections, action, behaviour and practice (Singh, 2025a).
Policy documents explaining the transitions are therefore included in the paper as the primary sources of this research focussing on policy transitions. The paper focusses on the characteristics present in the currently effective policy documents and maps the relevant policy developments from the past that have been shaping them. The focus of the analysis is on the use of terminology, the contextual understanding of LLL as reflected from the documents, resource allocation for the provisions, and implementation fidelity 2 of the provisions.
The three states (cases) are selected because of the diversity in their contexts. They have different social, economic profiles and therefore needs for adult learning; different political structures and therefore decision-making mechanisms; and different trajectories of transition along with different reasons for why transition has (not) taken place. The same is reflected in their policies and captured in the description of each case. Following this, chronologically relevant policy developments (to avoid the distraction of the reader from what is relevant) and currently implemented policies are analysed, and the three cases are compared.
The transitions are identified, described, and compared using various indicators described in the Conceptual Framework on Comparison between Sectorial Approach of Education (and (AE) Sector) and LLL Ecosystems (and ALE within the Framework of LLL) (Singh, 2024c) followed by a reflection about why transitions are (not) taking place and what are the consequences for adult learners in the three contexts. The case study method and comparative approach are used to complement the Policy Analysis.
Conceptual Framework: The Meaning and Indicators of the Transition From Sectors of Adult Education to Lifelong Learning Ecosystems
The period during the late 1960s–70s was characterised by the institutionalisation and thereby development or strengthening of sectors of AE as the fourth sector (after primary, secondary, and tertiary) in most parts of the world (Singh, 2023; 2025a). During the mid-1990s, most OECD countries started channelling the resources towards LLL, thereby leading to a decline of AE sectors (Singh, 2023). In low- and middle-income countries, despite a decline in AE sectors in the post-2000s, LLL did not necessarily take over, except for a few fast-growing knowledge economies, countries highly dependent on external resources, and microstates needing high economic flexibility for survival (Singh, 2024a).
Global bibliometric analyses for the number of research publications over the last decade (2014–25) show a decline in AE, while an increase in ALE and LLL (Ehlers, 2024). A limited number of countries (around 46) have dedicated LLL policies and strategies, while most mention the term LLL in their policy documents (UIL, nd). Apart from several domestic factors, international influences like Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) commitments nudge states to formulate policies in this direction or at least pretend to do so (Singh, 2024b).
This is reflected to a great extent by the way AE and/or ALE is organised in these states (Singh, 2024a; Singh & Ehlers, 2024). While the ones that are closer to the sectorial approach have a clearly defined AE sector (see Figure 2), the ones that are moving towards LLL Ecosystems have fading AE structures (see Figure 3), while ALE opportunities become more diversified and integrated everywhere (Singh, 2024a). The basic structure of a standard education system with sectors of education having autonomy in varying degrees (some variations might occur depending on the context). Source: (Singh, 2024a: 23) Evolving lifelong learning ecosystems. Source: (Singh, 2024a: 24)
Comparison between policy characteristics reflecting a Sectorial Approach of Education (and the AE Sector) and a move towards LLL Ecosystems (and ALE within the Framework of LLL)
Source: Singh (2024c).
In the paper, Figures 2 and 3 and Table 1 are used to analyse how far the transitions have taken place in each case.
Case Descriptions
Case 1: Denmark
Socio-Economic and Political Context Relevant for (No) Transition
Denmark is a high-income Nordic, EU, and OECD country with a small population of about 6 Mio. Its small economy, ageing (median age of 41.3 years) population, minuscule population growth (Worldometer, 2026), and lack of labour create conditions for Denmark to strive for capital-intensive, knowledge-based growth. Denmark is a leading Knowledge Economy with very high Human Development and one of the highest participation rates in Adult Learning (Knowledge4All, 2024). The Danish society, like the other Nordic societies, highly values equality, individualism, opportunities for social mobility for everyone, and possibilities for a sustainable future (World Values Survey, 2023). Social partners play a major role in decision-making regarding adult learning, and the state’s role is limited to regulation and affirmative action for the marginalised (Singh et al., 2022). Policies are usually consistent and do not necessarily change fundamentally due to changes in governments, as a major thrust of decision-making is in accordance with long-term agreements among stakeholders and parliamentary committees.
The most relevant Danish policies for this paper include the Globalisation Strategy of Denmark, 2006, and the Danish LLL Strategy from 2007. The Danish LLL Strategy highlights the core components related to LLL and is embedded in the Globalisation Strategy, which is Denmark’s policy to prepare for economic competition and a long-term strategy for a sustainable future, encompassing all policy areas. Several AL documents released afterwards, including the most recent agreement among stakeholders for shared investments in ALE, especially focussing on vocational education from 2023 (Eurydice, nd), are implementation documents which indicate step-by-step transitions towards developing LLL Ecosystems.
The commonly used terms in the current policy documents include LLL, AL, and ALE within the framework of LLL. The terms AE and Andragogy are no longer used.
Chronological Description of Relevant policy Changes for Identifying (No) Transition
Since 1814, the state has supported the education of adults – predominantly non-formal, in the 20th century (evening classes, folk high schools), and predominantly formal, in the 21st century (AE beyond Higher Education) (Ehlers, 2009). Andragogical training and professionalisation of adult educators took off in the 1960s – inspired by recommendations published by the Council of Europe and the Nordic Council of Ministers to support the process of heavy industrialisation after the post-war reconstruction period, the accompanying structural changes in the economy, and the following socio-political changes (Singh et al., 2021; 2025b).
The UNESCO CONFINTEA III Conference held in Tokyo in 1972 was a major turning point for Danish AE. Following the conference, Denmark aimed at developing an innovative and flexible sector for the education of adults and youth (apart from the primary, secondary, and higher education sectors) to meet the individual learning needs of the adults and of the labour market (Ehlers, 2009). However, the international oil crisis stalled the process until 1984, when the Parliament adopted a 10-Point Program for the development of Folkeoplysning and AE (Folketinget, 1984). The Program provided generous funds for large-scale experiments for the entire population (the folk), followed by well-structured evaluations, explicitly differentiating between vocational and general offers (Ehlers, 2009).
In 1995, a 10-Point Plan for Recurrent (formal) Education followed, in response to the establishment of an Internal Market in the EU. Unlike the previous Program, this Plan was inspired by the OECD (Singh, 2025b). Predominated by economic considerations, new terms, and new ideas, the Plan aimed at vertical integration (across target groups of various ages) and horizontal integration (across disciplines and policy areas like health, labour, and communication) of AL opportunities. AE was mentioned, but the overall approach was to roll back the AE sector and integrate all AL opportunities beyond the education system, for instance, in workplaces, since AL was considered too important to be left to a single sector (Ehlers, 2013).
The 1995 Plan provisioned to inculcate a culture of LLL among children and youth to develop them as self-directed lifelong learners; flexibility across disciplines, work, and learning; choice and mix among general, vocational, and Folkeoplysning offers; special privileges for the low-skilled; diverse methodologies for facilitating learning and demand-driven, practice-oriented offers; collaboration between employers and providers of learning; updated curricula and use of information technology; digitalised overview of offers so that learners could rationally select the offers from everywhere in the country; and integration of all types of learning offers under a national System with the learner as the primary decision-maker, backed by public resources (Undervisningsministeriet, 1995). The outcome of the 1995 Plan was a complete Further Education System for Adults adopted by the Danish Parliament in 2000, integrated with the system for children and youth.
The policy implementation faced challenges till an Economist was finally appointed as the education minister in 1998, and the AE Sector started withering away due to gradual but fundamental changes (Ehlers, 2009, 2013). In 2006, the Globalisation Strategy was adopted to prepare Denmark as a leading economy in the global economic competition with learning, research, and innovation as crucial components (Regeringen, 2006). It was a national plan for addressing Globalisation and economic development, formulated by bureaucrats, primarily economists, at the Prime Minister’s Office, and the bureaucrats at the Ministry of Education were kept away (Ehlers, 2013).
A Globalisation Council was appointed to engage the relevant stakeholders, and the strategy was finally signed by stakeholders representing big enterprises, agricultural associations, academic institutions, civil servants’ association, and the like. Traditional policy terms like AE, Andragogy, and Folkeoplysning were not included. The Strategy focussed on global quality standards in publicly funded research, innovation and development, and in learning offers for all target groups; inculcating a culture of LLL across the population to make everyone a lifelong learner; providing formal education to all youngsters (16–19-year-olds) and higher education to at least half of them. It aimed at a well-aware, educated, and competent knowledge society. Further, it encouraged various stakeholders like enterprises to focus on research, development, and innovation; promote workplace learning; internationalisation; and partnerships across all policy areas to enhance the overall economic competitiveness (Regeringen, 2006). The Danish LLL Strategy from 2006 was embedded in the Globalisation Strategy, was inspired by the OECD, and exhibited Denmark as a frontrunner in transitioning towards LLL (Ehlers, 2013).
Since 2006-07, Denmark has been progressively developing learning offers for adults, inculcating a culture of LLL among the entire population through radical reforms and effective engagement of stakeholders. Since 2006, providers of general and vocational education have been merged and reorganised (continuing to date). In 2009, Denmark developed a structure (National Qualifications Framework of Denmark, see Figure 4) for the implementation of LLL. National Qualifications Framework of Denmark. Various providers across disciplines and settings can provide the learning opportunities. The core integrating element is learning outcomes at each level of the Qualification Framework, irrespective of the type of providers, the variety of learning opportunities, and the nature of settings (formal, non-formal, informal). Source: OECD (2023a)
In 2011, the non-formal learning provisions were moved under the Ministry of Culture; the provisions for the low-skilled, low-qualified adults were moved under the Ministry of Children and Education; and the provisions for the high-skilled, highly qualified adults were moved under the Ministry of Higher Education and Research (Singh, 2025b).
The state has been gradually withdrawing from decision-making in terms of resource allocation and is being replaced by an increasing role of social partners (Singh et al., 2022). This is followed by a tri-partite agreement among the state and social partners regarding investments and returns regarding ALE within the framework of LLL in 2023 (Regeringen, 2023).
The existing provisions provide learning opportunities beyond structured, institutionalised education systems, which are flexible and organic in terms of content, settings, and access, with diminishing control of the state.
Despite the transition and the constant encouragement from the EU for Denmark’s high performance in LLL, an increasing Matthew Effect is visible due to the difference between the high- and the low-skilled learners (Singh & Ehlers, 2024). With the withdrawal of the Danish state to a secondary position, its replacement by the social partners (associations of employers and trade unions) over the competence funds (collective pool of resources for AL) and the short-cycled tangible economic rate of returns on investments in the high-skilled, the high-skilled adults receive more and better-quality offers. The education of low-skilled, unemployed, older (more than 40 years old) adults, and otherwise disadvantaged learners, remains underfunded despite the state’s affirmative attempts (Singh & Ehlers, 2024).
Case 2: Portugal 1
Socio-Economic and Political Context Relevant for (No) Transition
Portugal is an EU and OECD member state with a fast-growing knowledge economy. It ranks 27th out of 133 on the Global Knowledge Index (Knowledge4All, 2024) with an ageing population (median age 46.6 years) and low qualification levels in general (52.4% of the unemployed and 35.2% of the employed have at most compulsory secondary education) (European Commission, 2024a, 2024b; Instituto Nacional de Estatística, nd). Driven by the OECD, EU, and UNESCO policies, Portugal embraced LLL since the 1990s (Guimarães & Mikulec, 2020). Despite being led by the EU-inspired agenda of enhancing economic competitiveness (Guimarães, 2019), only 38.5% of non-formal learning activities are employment-related, mostly sponsored by employers (European Commission, 2024b). Recent policy changes indicate the broadening of policy priorities towards a UNESCO-inspired humanistic agenda, even though the economic benefits of Leaving No One Behind cannot be denied, especially in an ageing society (Barros, 2024; Singh, 2024a). Despite valuing individual identity, Portuguese society gives much importance to tradition, family, hierarchy, nationalism, and religious (especially Catholic) norms (World Values Survey, 2023).
Chronological Description of Relevant policy Changes for Identifying (No) Transition
After the end of the dictatorship and the advent of democracy in 1974, Portugal focussed on literacy campaigns and basic education (second-chance education), characterised by community initiatives. While Portugal joined the EU, AE was mentioned in a law for the first time in 1986, and Portugal aimed at developing a structure for AE, focussing on provisions through night schools (Barros, 2013).
In 1996, a leap towards LLL started when the government created a working group to expand AE beyond second-chance provisions. In 1999, the S@ber+ programme was introduced to align the Portuguese education system with the EU policy (Guimarães, 2019). The programme was aimed at dealing with the structural changes in the economy in relation to digitalisation and employability (Guimarães, 2019).
Since 2001, Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) has been introduced and further developed in 2005 through the New Opportunities Program (Barros, 2013). Following the financial crisis of 2007-08 in Europe, austerity measures slowed down the process, but since 2016, the Qualifica Program reinstated the implementation process once again (Barros, 2024; Guimarães, 2019).
ALE in Portugal currently implies further and continuing education (termed as recurrent education); second-chance education; RPL; and learning in non-formal and informal settings. Currently implemented policies include the Qualifica Programme (2016), the National Credit System for Vocational Education and Training (2017), the Qualifica Passport (2017), and the Recurrent Education and Recurrent Secondary Distance Education (ESRaD) (Decree-Law No. 14/2017; Ordinance No. 47/2017; Ordinance No. 359/2019; Ordinance No. 62/2022; European Commission, nd). Their focus is to increase adult participation in learning; improve the overall qualification levels of adults; and engage the NEET (Neither in Education, Employment or Training) population, the unemployed, and the dropouts.
LLL and ALE are widely used policy terms. Learners and providers of learning opportunities are the primary stakeholders. Providers are predominated by private enterprises, followed by a national network of publicly sponsored (by the state and the EU) Qualifica Centres (CEDEFOP, 2024; Eurydice, 2024). Public learning costs are shared among the EU (85%), the state, and the private enterprises so that individual learners (except entrepreneurs) do not have to pay direct costs (CEDEFOP, 2024).
Even though the policy agenda for what is offered is determined by the state, learners are free to follow their personal choices to fulfil their professional needs and aspirations through tailor-made interdisciplinary programmes, irrespective of their prior learning pathways. Feedback from learners and facilitators counts in evaluating the functioning and improvement of the Qualifica Centres.
Predominantly learner-oriented, learning outcomes are based on learning parameters, including a diverse range of evaluation instruments, and are not necessarily based on teachers’ discretion. There is a focus on a combination of pedagogy, andragogy, and learning techniques while facilitation (not teaching) is supposed to support learning and promote the achievement of learning outcomes. However, the facilitators are relevant stakeholders, professionally trained, and undergoing quality evaluation with limited influence on the parameters of measurement of learning outcomes. Measurement of learning outcomes is still sector-specific, dependent upon the facilitators to a large extent, and highly diversified, even though it is represented as integrated in the ET Monitors as well as envisioned within an integrated policy framework (National Qualifications Framework aligned with the EQF) since 2010.
The current structure of adult learning in Portugal (corresponding to Figure 3 in the Conceptual Framework) is shown in Figure 5: National Qualifications Framework of Portugal. The core integrating element is learning outcomes at each level of the Qualification Framework, irrespective of the type of providers, the variety of learning opportunities, and the nature of settings (formal, non-formal, informal). Source: OECD (2023b)
While learning opportunities increase, the high skilled gain more as compared to the low skilled and those in urban areas, especially in the northern part of the country, do better than those in rural areas and the southern part of the country owing to lack of adequate information and resources to offset the opportunity costs (such as taking time off work and hiring someone to care for their children or manage other responsibilities) (European Commission, 2024a; Zeferino et al., 2024). The participation rate in AL of those with tertiary education (68.3%) is more than double as compared to those with maximum lower secondary education (27.3%), and for the employed (50.6%) is considerably higher than the unemployed (29.2%) or the inactive (17.8%) ones along with poor gender parity (European Commission, 2024a, 2024b). The independent, active, and sometimes critical (to state policy) community engagement of civil society has gradually declined after Portugal started following the EU model of encouraging social partners that support policy implementation, because of which disadvantaged learners do not get enough support to navigate through learning environments and remain marginalised (European Association for the Education of Adults, 2023). Policies lack affirmative action to bridge this gap, and socio-economic inequalities accentuate (Alves, 2020; Barros, 2024), thus increasing the Matthew Effect.
Case 3: Nigeria
Socio-Economic and Political Context Relevant for (No) Transition
Nigeria is a weak performer on the Global Knowledge Index, with low human capital, a lack of jobs and investments in the market, and more than 92% people employed informally 3 (Knowledge4All, 2021; National Bureau of Statistics, World Bank & International Labour Organisation, 2024; World Bank, 2022, 2025). It is the world’s second-largest poor country with about 87 Mio people living below the poverty line (World Bank, 2022). With a median age of 18.3 years and about 3.54 Mio people unemployed, a young Nigeria struggles with a high crime rate, terrorism, separatism, inequalities, and rampant corruption (Statista, 2023; World Bank, 2022, 2025; Worldometer, 2026).
During 2015–22, about 15 Mio people have been pushed to survive on direct cash transfers from the state due to poverty and the situation has only worsened thereafter (World Bank, 2023, 2025). While the top 20% had a national income share of 42%, the bottom 20% subside with about 7%, and more than 52% people live below the poverty line (World Bank, 2022, 2023, 2025). Especially in North Nigeria, basic facilities like electricity, sanitation, and safe drinking water are difficult to access (World Bank, 2022). About 62 Mio non-literates and 20 Mio (the largest in the world) out-of-school children rely on an alternative system of second-chance, non-formal education (Kareem, 2022; UNESCO Institute of Statistics, 2022). Nigeria is a highly hierarchical society, valuing collectivism and survival culture over individuality, and favouring tradition over rationality (World Values Survey, 2023).
Chronological Description of Relevant policy Changes for Identifying (No) Transition
Since its independence in 1960 till the late 1990s, Nigerian AE has been characterised by state-driven literacy and second-chance education initiatives, influenced by foreign players like UNESCO. Despite intermittent political commitment due to political instability, the period between the mid-1960s and the late 1990s has been characterised by the development of an administrative machinery, key institutions, programmes, and initiatives regarding the same. The period is further marked by effective state-led efforts during the 1970s–80s, a rather slow development during the 1990s due to political unrest, and a shift of focus towards primary and basic education after Nigeria committed to the Millennium Development Goals in return for aid.
Nigeria mentioned the provision of free basic and formal education up to the tertiary level in its Constitution in 1999 and has followed the same in its subsequent policies.
With a U-turn in the World Bank policy in 2011 in favour of AE, Nigeria introduced the Revitalisation of Adult and Youth Literacy Program, followed by another overall education policy in 2013 to develop an alternative pathway for second-chance education, and expand the focus to subsistence livelihood generation. Subsequent guidelines were released in 2017 on Mass Literacy, Adult and Non-Formal Education, along with two wider education sector plans for the periods 2018–2022 and 2024–2027, which refer to the 2013 policy (Government of Nigeria, 2018, 2024).
The current policy includes out-of-school children, dropout young adults, and adults (15-year-olds or above) as target groups for a parallel system of compensatory non-formal education that offers an opportunity for second-chance education to everyone (children or adults) unable to access formal basic education or needs to restart after dropping out at some stage (National Commission for Mass Literacy, Adult and Non-Formal Education, 2017).
An equivalency system facilitates equating non-formal education with formal education, but offers are not integrated, which means flexible pathways to move between the two parallel systems do not function smoothly. Further, disciplinary boundaries, prior learning pathways, and settings (formal, non-formal and informal) are relevant to determine entry in the mainstream formal education system from the non-formal system.
The policy mentions the framework of LLL and learning society only once in the vision and mission statements, implying symbolism. The document focusses on teaching and education, not learning. Primary stakeholders include the state and its agencies, international donors and development partners, civil society, adult educators, and recipients or beneficiaries of education. The state (Federal Ministry of Education) formulates the policy and implements it through a concrete top-down administrative structure (see Figure 6). The Nigerian state agency, that is, the Nigerian Commission for Mass Literacy, Adult and Non-Formal Education, collaborates with other state agencies, ministries, etc., in various other policy areas, but remains the key implementing agency. Administrative Structure of the National Commission for Mass Literacy, Adult and Non-Formal Education of Nigeria. Source: National Commission for Mass Literacy, Adult and Non-Formal Education (2017, p. 17)
Resources are mobilised by the state with the support of international and domestic donors, civil society, the private sector, and sometimes individual learners (for instance, in the form of registration fees). Reporting, measurement, and evaluation mechanisms are clearly outlined in the policy, with frequent reporting at various levels necessary for international assistance (see Figure 6). Teaching-oriented parameters like enrolment, participation (attendance), and teaching hours predominate the measurements (Figure 7). Equivalency between Formal and Non-Formal (Mass Literacy, Adult and Non-Formal Education) Framework in Nigeria. Source: National Commission for Mass Literacy, Adult and Non-Formal Education (2017:35)
Learners do not have much say or representation in the formulation or implementation process and are addressed as recipients or beneficiaries of education. The offers are supply-based with limited flexibility, and therefore, depending upon what the state and its agencies assume as relevant, followed by instructional designs by teachers and facilitators with mandatory professional training in Andragogy and specific processes. While the 2017 Guidelines expanded the 2013 agenda beyond literacy, the two subsequent implementation plans revealed that the Guidelines were symbolic, and the focus is still limited to literacy and basic education.
Inequalities in Nigeria are huge and growing. Lack of political will is a major barrier for the transition towards LLL. Despite the claim about scarce resources that welcome international aid (and thereby advantages to the donors in various ways), the state does not engage other stakeholders for cost-sharing and investments within Nigeria (Singh, 2025c). Consequently, a non-formal, parallel system of compensatory, poor-quality AE exists as a tool for exclusion, keeping the disadvantaged at the bare minimum (with access to literacy and basic education only) and at a distance (Singh, 2025c). This non-formal system manages to limit social mobility, maintain the status quo, and, in fact, accentuate the socio-economic inequalities in the long run (Singh, 2025c). The disadvantaged learners, who avail second-chance education, have the bare minimum and limited chances for progress in the long run as compared to the advantaged ones (Singh, 2025c).
Comparison and Discussion
The Danish policy reflects a clear transition and development of LLL Ecosystems, the Portuguese policies show a considerable EU-driven move towards LLL systems but lack adequate agility and resilience needed for Ecosystems, while the Nigerian policies show a negligible or symbolic transition.
An analysis of policies shows that Denmark is driven by a far-sighted, radical, consistent response to its vulnerability due to its small size, demographic challenges, and international influences. Denmark developed an AE sector (corresponding to Figure 2) between the 1970s and mid-1990s, followed by two consecutive leaps towards LLL Ecosystems. During the first leap between 1995 (10-Point Plan) and 2006 (Globalisation Strategy), Denmark formulated policies that facilitated its transition to become a knowledge economy and extended far beyond education systems, across other policy areas. The second leap, which came 2006 onwards, is marked by implementation decisions in favour of developing an LLL Ecosystem in Denmark. With systematic implementation of long-term strategies over decades, Denmark is a frontrunner in the transition towards LLL Ecosystems. The agreement among stakeholders in 2023 shows how the Danish policy has been implemented, first in terms of developing an LLL infrastructure and after 2023, in terms of sharing the costs and benefits among the stakeholders, thereby promoting their engagement. The periods in between include policy decisions relevant to the implementation of these changes.
ALE within the framework of LLL has been replacing the AE sector in Denmark gradually, and Portugal is following a similar model, pushed by the EU, aiming at enhancing economic competitiveness. The transition of Portuguese policies towards LLL is anchored specifically in the 1999 S@ber+ programme with much EU influence, and since then, Portugal has been introducing implementation strategies (corresponding to Figure 3). In Nigeria, the AE sector appears highly institutionalised and stable, focussing on literacy (corresponding to Figure 2) backed by international support from aid donors. Nigeria has neither managed to solve the literacy challenge nor has it changed its policy fundamentally in favour of LLL. Despite mentioning LLL symbolically, implementation fidelity is low in Nigeria since guidelines remain on paper, unimplemented.
The calculation of individual learning costs is broader in Denmark, and opportunity costs are covered to encourage participation. Denmark has managed this through an effective mobilisation of stakeholders and cost-sharing among them, while Portugal still struggles to manage the costs adequately. In Portugal, opportunity costs are neither completely calculated nor covered. This acts as a barrier for learners with poor socio-economic backgrounds and certain geographical locations. EU supports with resources and encourages the replacement of an independent civil society (highly effective in sector-based contexts) with social partners (relevant for policy implementation in LLL Ecosystems). Nigeria largely depends on voluntary teaching (civil society engagement), claims a lack of resources, and mentions several other challenges, even in managing the AE sector, that have been effectively resolved in many parts of the world.
The availability of information is widespread in Denmark, with the inculcation of an LLL culture among the population since childhood. Portugal, however, struggles to ensure access to information in rural areas and requires a policy to inculcate the culture of LLL among the population. In Portugal, enhancing employability and qualification levels remain the priorities. In Nigeria, supply-based offers do not leave much role for information access, a characteristic feature of LLL Ecosystems, where the learner has the possibility as well as the responsibility to choose among offers.
The changing balance of power among the social partners and state in Denmark has, however, accentuated the Matthew Effect among the high-skilled vs. the low-skilled and the otherwise disadvantaged learners in Denmark. Matthew Effect is also visible in Portugal because of the lack of information, resources, and access to offers, especially for the low-skilled and those inhabiting the rural areas, especially in the South of the country. As the social partners (that align with the state policy) gradually replace the comparatively independent acting critical and constructive civil society, the imbalance is growing further in Portugal, with inadequate affirmative action by the state. In Nigeria, the existing system offers the bare minimum (literacy only) in the form of compensatory education, neither entirely including the learners by offering them social mobility nor letting them get completely alienated by just leaving them unattended. Inequalities among the rich and poor are phenomenal, accentuated by decision-makers who put symbolic initiatives in place because of international commitments, political considerations, and the need, as well as the possibility of data manipulation.
Comparison showing transition from sector-based AE to LLL ecosystems in Denmark, Portugal, and Nigeria
Conclusion
The call for the right to Lifelong Learning for all at CONFINTEA VII highlights a gradual transition, evident in varying stages in the policies of states, aspiring to establish and strengthen themselves as knowledge economies and societies. As evident from the Danish case, this requires changes beyond education systems: that is, policy integration across all policy areas for providing learning opportunities that are always available, everywhere, and to all target groups. This implies that the changes to develop LLL Ecosystems should go beyond political, social, and economic reforms, percolating the cultural layers of societies, and shaping individuals to become self-directed lifelong learners while societies support them with conducive conditions and resources.
Developing LLL Ecosystems is therefore costly and needs effective cost-sharing models among stakeholders who should partner through collective investments in achieving sustainable futures for everyone through resilient and agile LLL Ecosystems. While such stakeholders are available in some contexts (like in Denmark), they might not exist or be adequately prepared for such a role in other contexts. The EU is encouraging social partners to play such a role, for instance, as mentioned in the Portuguese case, to replace the current financing model where the EU bears 85% of the costs and the Portuguese state manages the rest, and still, all costs are not covered. In Nigeria, social partners do not exist in such a role. It still relies on the emancipatory role of actors like the civil society and foreign aid, which is unsustainable in the long run and limited to what is available, rather than what is needed.
As evident from the Nigerian case, traditional education policies which presume education as a state cost for welfare are, therefore, inadequate to develop LLL Ecosystems. Policymakers need to develop long-term, sustainable policies for future-preparedness with knowledge, research, and innovation at the core instead of short-term, survival-oriented responses to current challenges. They need to engineer the move from institutionalised education systems and collective approaches of educating the masses to valuing individual learning beyond institutionalised education systems; and shift the focus of initiatives from mere economic outcomes to prioritising self-directed learning for a more holistic perception about sustainable futures.
It is not a coincidence that despite LLL being on the global policy agenda since the 1990s, only 46 countries have managed to formulate dedicated LLL policies to date. The paper highlights that the transition is difficult because it demands major reorganisations in the role of certain stakeholders that have evolved, strengthened, and institutionalised themselves over centuries, especially the AE sector and the state. Denmark, with a strong non-hierarchical tradition, has managed to facilitate this after decades of commitment and is continuing to do so, but in contexts like Nigeria, where hierarchy is a major societal characteristic, such a reorganisation appears unimaginable in the near future. The cues from the existing provisions in Nigeria, for instance, raise serious concerns regarding whether the power balance between the state and other stakeholders would ever change, and if it changes, whether it would favour the disadvantaged or create new types of exclusionary structures.
LLL Ecosystems offer a window of opportunity for addressing several challenges, but at the same time, a balance is necessary because Ecosystems have their own inherent mechanism to grow and flourish, especially without strong structural and institutional frameworks. In that case, several stakeholders may get too much influence, and the advantaged learners may get enormous opportunities. On the contrary, stakeholders willing to engage in affirmative action might lose influence and become weak, unable to support the disadvantaged learners who can be trapped in spirals of further vulnerability and disadvantage.
The paper draws attention towards the emerging challenges for stakeholders (including the state) in shaping resilient, agile and sustainable LLL Ecosystems. These stakeholders need to ensure a balance among the needs, opportunities and capabilities of learners and societies, devise mechanisms that ensure a fair play in favour of the disadvantaged, and generate resources as well as conducive conditions for LLL at the same time. The right to LLL calls for Ecosystems with such characteristics but there is a long way to go before states and societies find mechanisms for this major reorganisation which might dismantle the existing architecture to a large extent.
Footnotes
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.