reconocimiento de titulaciones de ingeniería en el extranjero - engineering credential recognition

SkillS, ProfeSSional regulation, and international Mobility in the engineering Workforce

By Matthew Dixon

THIS PROJECT IS FUNDED BY THE EUROPEAN UNION

MPI INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM

Skills, Professional Regulation, and International Mobility in the Engineering Workforce

Matthew Dixon

July 2013

1400 16th Street NWSuite 300

Washington, DC 20036

Tel: 001 202-266-1940Fax: 001 202-266-1900

The Migration Policy Institute is a nonprof it , nonpartisan think tank dedicated to the study of the movement of people worldwide. MPI provides analysis, development, and evaluation of migration and refugee policies at the local, national, and international levels. It aims to meet the rising demand for pragmatic and thoughtful responses to the challenges and opportunities that large-scale migration, whether voluntary or forced, presents to communities and institutions in an increasingly integrated world.

www.migrationpolicy.org

THIS PROJECT IS FUNDED BY THE EUROPEAN UNION

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) for the invitation to write this report, which it is hoped may prove a useful reference source for those interested in the international mobility of people working in engineering. The contributions of Madeleine Sumption and Susan Fratzke of MPI in helping sharpen the initial draft are particularly appreciated. Thanks also go to Katy Turff and Jim Birch, the relevant officials of the Engineering Council, for their valuable help in the report’s preparation, and to Ken Mayhew, of the Economic and Social Re-search Council’s Center on Skills, Knowledge and Organizational Performance (SKOPE), for feedback on an early draft.

This report was produced for MPI’s project on Immigration, Skills, and Mobility in the Transatlantic Labor Market, which was conducted in partnership with Migration Policy Institute Europe. MPI would like to acknowledge Milica Petrovic and Sarah Flamm for their contributions to the research and to organizing the roundtable discussions in Europe and the United States respec-tively.

The project and this report were funded by the European Union. The report’s contents are the sole responsibility of the author and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union

© 2013 Migration Policy Institute. All Rights Reserved.

Cover Design: Danielle Tinker Typesetting: Erin Perkins, LeafDev

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the Migration Policy Institute. A full-text PDF of this document is available for free download from www.migrationpolicy.org.

Information for reproducing excerpts from this report can be found at www.migrationpolicy.org/about/copy.php. Inquiries can also be directed to: Permissions Department, Migration Policy Institute, 1400 16th Street, NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20036, or by contacting [email protected].

Suggested citation: Dixon, Matthew. 2012. Skills, Professional Regulation, and International Mobility in the Engineering Workforce. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.

Table of Contents

Glossary ...................................................................................................................................vi

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... 1

I. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 2

II. Engineering Skills and Structure of the Workforce ........................................ 3

III. TheRoleofQualificationsinEngineeringCareers ........................................ 5

IV. Safety and the Role of Professional Regulation ................................................ 6Types of Regulation .........................................................................................................................................7

V. When Engineers Move Across Jurisdictions ..................................................... 10A. Assessing and Addressing Regulatory Differences Across Borders ..........................................11B. Engineering Activity and Scope of Competence ............................................................................12C. Mobility of Engineers in the United States .....................................................................................13

VI. Engineers’ Own Approaches: Mutual Recognition Agreements ............... 13A. Arrangements among European Countries ....................................................................................14B. Beyond Europe ......................................................................................................................................15C. Evaluating Mutual Recognition Initiatives in Engineering .............................................................16D. Reasons Behind Slow Progress ..........................................................................................................17

VII. Conclusion: Assessing Barriers to Mobility ....................................................... 20The Future: Virtual Mobility ..........................................................................................................................20

Works Cited ......................................................................................................................... 21

Appendices ........................................................................................................................... 22

About the Author ............................................................................................................... 31

Glossary

ABET (US) Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology

APEC Asia-PacificEconomicCooperation

DBIS (UK)DepartmentforBusiness,InnovationandSkills

EMF Engineers’MobilityForum

ENAEE EuropeanNetworkforAccreditationofEngineeringEducation

EU EuropeanUnion

EUR-ACE EURopeanACcreditedEngineer,theEuropeanaccreditationlabelforengineeringdegreeprograms

FEANI EuropeanFederationofNationalEngineeringAssociations(FédérationEuropéened’AssociationsNationalsd’Ingenieurs)(www.feani.org/site/index.php?id=228)

IEA International Engineering Alliance (www.washingtonaccord.org/)

IPD Initialprofessionaldevelopment

MAC (UKHomeOffice)MigrationAdvisoryCommittee

MEA Mutualexemptionagreement

MRA Mutualrecognitionagreement

MRPQ Mutualrecognitionofprofessionalqualifications

NAFTA NorthAmericanFreeTradeAgreement

NCEES (US)NationalCouncilofExaminersofEngineeringandSurveying

NSB (US) National Science Board

OECD OrganizationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment

SKOPE (TheEconomicandSocialResearchCouncil’s)centeronSkills,KnowledgeandOrganisa-tionalPerformance,UniversitiesofOxfordandCardiff

SOC (UK)StandardOccupationalClassification

TEP TransatlanticEconomicPartnership

UKLFS UKLabourForceSurvey(OfficeforNationalStatistics)

UNESCO UnitedNationsEducational,ScientificandCulturalOrganization

1

MIGRATION POLICY INSTITUTE


Executive Summary

Engineersarerecognizedasavaluableassetfortheeconomiesinwhichtheywork,inparticularbecauseoftheircontributionstoinnovationandproductivity.Engineeringisalsoanimportantfieldforinternationalmobility,inpartbecauseofthescaleofcross-borderworking,trade,andcooperationininternationallyactiveindustriessuchaspetroleum,engineeringservices,andinformationtechnology(IT).

Becausesomeengineeringactivitiescarrypotentialriskstosociety—resulting,forexample,frompoordesign,construction,operation,ormaintenance—theyareoftenregulated.Engineersmayberequiredtomeetcertainofficialcompetencestandardsbeforetheycancarryoutspecificactivities,useaprofes-sionaltitle,orselltheirservicestothepublic.Withinthewholegamutofengineeringactivity,acom-parativelysmallnumberofsafety-criticalareasexist.Insomecountriesonlytheseareasareregulateddirectly,whileinothersengineerswhotacklethesafety-criticaltasksareregulatedforallareasoftheirwork.

Suchregulationresultsbothinbarrierstoenteringwork(whichmaybringeconomicdisadvantages)andbarrierstointernationalmobility.Forexample,aworkerwhohasbeenadmittedtotheprofessioninonecountrymaynothavetheformalcredentialstobeadmittedinanother.Currentarrangementsforinternationalrecognitionofengineeringcredentialsareverycomplex,involvingawiderangeofregulationpracticesbetweencountriesandarangeofregulatingauthoritieswithdifferentpowersandrelationshipswithgovernment.Theengineeringworkforceisalsohighlycomplex:itinvolvesarangeofengineeringoccupationsoperatingacrosstheeconomyinvariousindustrysectors,withinanumberofdifferentengineeringdisciplines,eachofwhichincludesanumberofbroadworkareas.Againstthisbackdrop,effortstoallowforeign-trainedengineerstobequickly“recertified”whentheymoveabroadfacevariousobstacles:

� Thedegreeofregulationdiffersbetweencountries,makingitharderforengineerstomovefromjurisdictionswithlowlevelsofoccupationalregulationtothosewithhigherlevels(forexample,fromNortherntoSouthernEurope)

� Thescopeoftasksthatdifferenttypesofengineersareexpectedtofulfill(andthustheknowl-edgeandcompetencestheyareexpectedtodemonstrate)variesbycountry,anditisoftennotpossibleforanindividualtobelicensedorregisteredonlyforthespecificactivitiesheorshewillactuallycarryout

� Educationandtrainingtraditionsdiffer,withsomecountriesascribingmoreimportancetofor-maleducationandothersmoretopracticalexperience.Significantscrutinyisgenerallyrequiredbeforeauthoritiescanunderstandandrecognizethesubstantiveequivalenceofdifferentlystructuredinitialprofessionaldevelopment1arrangementsinothercountries.

1 Initialprofessionaldevelopment(IPD)isoftenusedwithintheengineeringprofessiontocoverallaspectsofpreparatorylearningandexperiencethatbringanewprofessionaltothestagewheres/hecanbeadmittedtotheprofessionorachievealevelofcompetencenecessaryinordertooperateasanautonomousprofessional.Insomecountriesthiscoversthe education base,structured training and validated experience,inothersjusttherelevant(tertiary)education.After“admission”totheprofession,theprofessional’scompetenceandcommitmentareupdatedthroughcontinuing professional development(CPD).

Current arrangements for international recognition of engineering credentials are very complex.

2



Engineersthemselveshavedevotedmuchtimeandeffortoverrecentdecadestoinitiativesaimedatreducinginternationalbarrierstotherecognitionofengineeringqualifications.ThishasbeendonebothwithinEurope,throughtheEuropeanFederationofNationalEngineeringAssociations(FEANI),andbeyond,undertheauspicesoftheInternationalEngineeringAlliance(IEA).Bothhaveproposedcommonstandardsforaccreditedengineeringtertiaryeducationprogramsinparticipatingcountries.TheyhavealsoestablishedinternationalregisterssuchasthosefortheEuropeanengineer(EURING)andinternationalprofessionalengineer(IntPE),withthegoalofcreatinginternationallytransferableprofessionaltitlesdespitenationaldifferencesinprofessionaleducationandtrainingrequirements.Inaddition,theEuropeanUnion’sProfessionalQualificationsDirectivehasattemptedtotackleunreason-ablebarrierstothemovementofengineers—andotherprofessionals—withintheEuropeansinglemarket.

Progressinmuchofthisworkhasbeenslow.Sincenationalengineeringbodieshaveeachalready“fought”withintheirowncountriestonegotiatecommonstandards,theirabilitytoagreetochangesinordertoaccommodatethestandardsofotherjurisdictionsislimited.Asaresult,agreementsbetweenprofessionalbodiesareoftennotbindingontheauthoritiesthatmakedecisionsonforeignprofession-als’righttopractice,andthusdonotguaranteetheimmediaterecognitionofprofessionalscoveredbyanagreement.Theseinitiativesmaywellhavemorevalueasaninternationallyrecognizablebench-markratherthanasatickettoimmediaterecognitionbyregulatoryauthorities.Encouragingly,theWashingtonAccord,whichsetsoutacommonstandardforengineeringeducation,isnowofficiallyrec-ognizedasamarkofqualityintheadmissionsprocessforemployment-basedimmigrantstoAustralia.

Evaluatingthedirectimpactofinitiativesinthisfieldisdifficultintheabsenceofdataontheinter-nationalmobilityofengineerswhohavetakenadvantageofthem.Thebarrierstomobilitycanseemdauntingandunhelpfultotheindividual,buttherearevariouspracticalwaysaroundthem,particularlyforlargecompanies.Itwouldbehelpfultohavemoreevidenceonthenatureoftheeconomiclossesthatregulatorybarriersimpose.Ifthepoliticalcommitmentandtheperceivedeconomicgainsofreduc-ingbarrierstomobilityweresufficient,policymakerscouldputtheirweightbehindtheeffortsoftheengineeringprofession,andevenacceleratetheestablishmentofcommoninternationalstandardsforregulatingsafety-criticalactivitiesdirectly,thusreducingtheneedforoccupationalregulationbeyondthem.

I. Introduction

“The critical roles of engineering in addressing the large-scale pressing challenges facing our societies worldwide are widely recognized... tackling the coupled issues of energy, transportation and climate change; providing more equitable access to information for our populations, clean drinking water; natural and man-made disaster mitigation, environmental protection and natural resource management, among numerous others.

“Engineering is one of the most diverse professions in terms of fields of engineering, types and levels of engi-neer, where and how they are employed as well as the status of engineers and engineering, and this diversity is reflected around the world; engineering is both global and local. Most political leaders and policy-makers appear to agree that the development and application of knowledge in engineering and technology under-pins and drives sustainable social and economic development…”

--UnitedNationsEducational,Scientific,andCulturalOrganization

Progress in much of this work has been slow.

3



Engineersareuseful:they“makethingswork.”Theskillstheybringarefundamentalforoursocietiesandcontributesignificantlytoinnovation,economicgrowth,nationalwell-being,andprosperity.Manyoftheinnovationsofthepast50yearshavearisenfromthecreativeapplicationofengineeringskills,andtheengineeringworld,influencedbywavesofnewdiscoveriesfromwithinthescienceworldandcreativetacklingofpracticalproblems,isoneofalmostconstantchange.

ForecastsoffuturegrowthshowthateconomicactivityinEuropeandotherdevelopedregionscontinuestoshiftawayfromtheprimarysectorandtowardknowledge-basedindustries,manyofwhichrelyonengineeringskills.2Governmentsindevelopingeconomies,particularlyinAsia,arealsorecognizingtheimportanceofscienceandtechnologytogrowthandhaveinvestedheavilyintechnologyandknowledge-basedindustries.AsnewleadersinAsiaandelsewhereincreasetheircapabilities,traditionalindustryleaders—suchastheUnitedStatesandsomeEuropeancountries—arelosingsomeoftheirdominance.

InEurope,thecreationofacommonmarketandcurrencyisthoughttohavehelpedtosupporttheposi-tionoftheEUeconomiesinscienceandtechnologyfields.AsamajorportionofEuropeantechnologicaltradeoccurswithinthebordersoftheEuropeanUnion,theabilityofpeopleandgoodstoflowfreelyacrossbordershasasignificantroletoplayinfutureeconomicgrowthinthisarea.3Theshifttoaknowl-edge-basedeconomyhasnotonlyinfluencedthedomesticlabormarket,butalsohasimplicationsforthemovementoflaboracrossinternationalborders.

Thisreportattemptstoexplainthebasicstructureoftheengineeringworkforce,aswellasthekeyele-mentsthatinfluencetherealitiesofconstraintsoninternationalmigrationofthosewithengineeringqualificationsandexpertise.Itexamineseffortsmadeoverrecentdecadestoaddressandcopewithdif-ferencesinnationalarrangementsforbothtertiaryeducationandtherequirementsforadmissiontotheprofession,andconsidershowseriousbarrierstointernationalmigrationareinpractice.

II. Engineering Skills and Structure of the Workforce

Generallyspeaking,nationalbodiesrepresentingtheengineeringworkforceatalllevelsrecognizethreemajorcategoriesofengineeringprofessional:thetheoretical engineer,theapplied engineer(insomecountriestermedengineering technologist),andtheengineering technician.Whilethetermsusedforthesecategoriesandtherequirementsforadmissiontotheprofessionvaryconsiderablyacrosscountries,therecognitionofthesethreecategoriesseemsfairlyuniversalindevelopedeconomies.Althoughthecategoriesaregenerallythoughtofasdifferent levelsonahierarchicalscale,itismorehelpfultothinkofthemintermsoftypesofwork.So,asanexample,theUKEngineeringCouncilsummarizesthebroadremitofthethreecategoriesasfollows:

� Engineering techniciansapplyproventechniquesandprocedurestothesolutionofpracticalengineeringproblems.Theycarrysupervisoryortechnicalresponsibility,andarecompetenttoexercisecreativeaptitudesandskillswithindefinedfieldsoftechnology.Professionalengineer-ingtechnicianscontributetothedesign,development,manufacture,commissioning,decommis-sioning,operation,ormaintenanceofproducts,equipment,processes,orservices.

2 EuropeanCentrefortheDevelopmentofVocationalTraining(CEDEFOP),Future Skill Needs in Europe: Medium-Term Forecast,Synthesisreport(Luxembourg:CEDEFOP,2008),www.cedefop.europa.eu/EN/Files/4078_en.pdf.

3 SeeNationalScienceBoard(NSB),Science and Engineering Indicators 2012(Arlington,VA:NSBandNationalCenterforScienceandEngineeringStatistics[NCSES],2012),www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/.

Many of the innovations of the past 50 years have arisen from the creative application of engineering skills.

4



� Applied engineers4 (or engineering technologists)maintainandmanageapplicationsofcurrentanddevelopingtechnology,andmayundertakeengineeringdesign,development,manufacture,construction,andoperation.Suchengineersarevariouslyengagedintechnicalandcommercialmanagementandmust,therefore,possesseffectiveinterpersonalskills.

� Theoretical engineers5mustbeabletodevelopappropriatesolutionstoengineeringproblems,usingneworexistingtechnologies,throughinnovation,creativity,andchange.Theymightdevelopandapplynewtechnologies;promoteadvanceddesignsanddesignmethods;intro-ducenewandmoreefficientproductiontechniques,marketing,andconstructionconcepts;orpioneernewengineeringservicesandmanagementmethods.Becausetheoreticalengineersarevariouslyengagedintechnicalandcommercialleadership,theymustalsopossesseffectiveinterpersonalskills.

Inadditiontotheprofessionalcategoriesdescribedabove,asignificantnumberofpeoplealsoworkinother,lower-skill-level,occupationalcategories,suchasskilledtrades andengineeringoperatives.Thoseintheskilledtradesgenerallyexperience—becauseofthelesstechnicallysophisticatedtypeofworktheydo—fewerbarrierstomobilitythanengineeringprofessionals.

Forecastsofemploymentdistributionswithintheengineeringworkforceinthecomingyearsconsistentlyanticipatebothagrowingdemandforhigh-levelengineeringskills,suchasthoseofengineersandtechni-cians,andafalling—thoughnotdisappearing—demandforlower-levelengineeringskills,suchasthoseusedintheskilledtrades.Ofcourse,cautionshouldbeexercisedwhenrelyinguponanyforecastsofasystemascomplexastheengineeringlabormarket.

Aswellasthesecategoriesofengineeringprofessionals,engineersandtechniciansworkinawiderangeof disciplines or branches of engineering,forexample,civilengineering,mechanicalengineering,electri-calengineering,andproductionengineering.6Withineachdiscipline,engineeringprofessionalsmaybeemployedinanumberofdifferentindustrialsectors.So,forexample,civilengineerswork(inter alia) bothforconstructioncompaniesandlocalauthorityhighwaysandbuildingcontroldepartments.Aero-nauticalengineersmaybeemployedbyeitheraerospacemanufacturingcompanies(a“supplier”sector)orairlines(a“user”sector).Withinthecourseofacareer,anengineeringprofessionalmaywellmovebetweenasupplierandausersector.Acivilengineermightnaturallymovefromalocalauthoritytoanengineeringconsultancythathasdonealotofworkforthatauthority(orviceversa),forexample,whileanITprofessionalmightspendhalfhisorhercareerinasoftwareorITservicescompanyandthesecondhalfworkingforanITusercompanythatwasoneofthepreviousemployer’scustomers.

AnanalysisofrecentLaborForceSurveydatafromtheUnitedKingdom(seeAppendix2)providesaquantitativeexampleofhowtheengineeringworkforcecanbestbeunderstood,andillustratesthedistri-butionofprofessionalemploymentacrossbothoccupationsandindustrysectors.7ThesectorsemployingthehighestnumbersofprofessionalengineersandtechniciansintheUnitedKingdomareconstructionandbuildingservicesandengineeringmanufacturing;however,thechemical,pharmaceutical,petroleum,energy,andgovernment(includingdefense)industriesalsoemploysignificantnumbersofengineersandtechnicians.Itisimportanttonotethatwhilesomeofthesectorswithsubstantialengineeringworkforcesareactiveinternationally(likepetroleumandconstruction),others(likegovernmentanddefense)areratherlessso.This,ofcourse,hasimplicationsfortheneedofengineersandtechnicianstomoveacrossnationalbordersthemselves.Whilethedistributionofemploymentacrosssectorsandengineeringoccu-pationswillvarybetweencountries,thestructureshownintheAppendix2ispresentinallcases.

4 Termed“IncorporatedEngineers”bytheUKEngineeringCouncil.5 Termed“CharteredEngineers”bytheUKEngineeringCouncil.6 Amoredetailed—andillustrative—listofengineeringdisciplinesisprovidedinAppendix1.7 Author’sanalysisoftheUKLabourForceSurvey.NotethattheLabourForceSurveydatareflectonlyemploymentwithinthe

UnitedKingdom.

5



III. TheRoleofQualificationsinEngineeringCareers

Howdoemployersassessthequalificationsofprospectiverecruits?Engineeringis,ofcourse,asupremelypracticalactivity,butalsodependsonspecialists’underlyingknowledgeandunderstanding.Engineer-ingworkincludesasignificanttechnicalelementand,atthehigherlevels,theapplicationofbothfun-damentalscientificprinciplesandoftencomparativelycomplexengineeringtheory.Thus,thetechnicalcontentoftheinitialprofessionaldevelopment(IPD)foranengineeringcareercanbeparticularlyhighincomparisonwithsomeotherprofessions.Engineeringprofessionalsoftenneedtounderstandcom-parativelycomplextheoreticalmodelsandapplythemintelligentlyandsensibly.Whilemuchofengi-neeringdependsonasound,basicunderstandingofscienceandmathematics,whichmustbeacquiredduringsecondaryeducation,itisthetertiary educationthatprovidestheknowledgebaserequiredinanengineeringcareer.Attheskilledtradesandtechnicianlevels,thetertiaryeducationoftenconsistsofvocationalengineeringcoursesandapprenticeships,whileatprofessionallevelsavocationaluniver-sitydegreeinabranchofengineeringoralliedsubjects(e.g.materialsorappliedphysics)isboththenormand,usually,aformalrequirementforsubsequentadmissiontotheprofession.Itis,therefore,notsurprisingthatwhenaprofessionalengineermovesfromonecountrytoanother,theassessmentofhisorhercapabilitiescandepend—atleastinpart—ontheperceivedqualityoftheengineeringdegreesawardedinthecountryoforigin.Thishaslednationalengineeringbodiestotakeconsiderableinterestintheengineeringdegreesofothercountries,asdiscussedbelow.

Althoughagoodengineeringdegreewilloftenbeviewedasessentialintheearlyyearsofacareer,aswithmostotherprofessions,employersrecruitingexperiencedengineersaregenerallymoreinterestedinpastprofessionalachievementthanformalqualifications.Ofcoursenotallrecruitingemployerswillassesstrackrecordsidentically:aswellastheperceivedqualityofdegrees(oftenthroughtheassumedstatusoftheuniversityfromwhichtheywereawarded),theywillalsogaugethe“quality”andrelevanceofprevi-ous(orcurrent)employers,inparticularwhenanapplicantisstayinginthesamesector.8Ofcoursearecruitingemployerwillbeabletoassessandvaluepastexperiencemoremeaningfullyifthatexperiencewaswithanemployerit(1)knowsand(2)respects.

Foroverseascandidates,recruitingemployerswilloftenknowcorrespondinglylessaboutpreviousemployers,andofcoursethequestionofemployersizewillplayarole.However,theapplicant’spreviousexperience,asrevealedbothinwrittendocumentationandininterviews,will—particularlyinengi-neering—generallybegivenconsiderablymoreweightthaneitheracademicqualificationsor,indeed,anythingthatthecandidateachievedbeforeage25.9Inaddition,mostevidencefromtherecruitingandhiringprocessintheUnitedKingdomsuggeststhat,moregenerally,qualificationsdonotweighparticu-larlyheavilyamongthecriteriaonwhichnewrecruitsareselected.10Thisraisesquestionsabouttheactualcareerimportanceofqualificationsofanykind.Therearelikelytobetwomainunderlyingreasonsforthis:

� Thefocusofqualificationsachievedwithintheformaleducationsystemisalmostentirelyon

8 Notethatforcareermovesbetweensectors—forexample,betweensupplieranduserorganizations—relevance does not alwaysmeanthatacandidatemustcomefromthesamesector.

9 Ontheotherhand,itisalsolikelythatinternationalmovesoccurearlierthanlaterinacareer.10 EwartKeepandSusanJames,“RecruitmentandSelection—TheGreatNeglectedTopic” (SKOPEResearchPaperNo.88,

CenteronSkills,KnowledgeandOrganizationalPerformance,UniversitiesofOxfordandCardiff,February2012, www.skope.ox.ac.uk/publications/recruitment-and-selection-%E2%80%93-great-neglected-topic.

Employers recruiting experienced engineers are generally more interested in past professional

achievement than formal qualifications.

6



knowledge,whileaperson’soverallcontributiontohisorheremployerdependsonanumberofkeycapabilitiesbeyondspecificknowledgeorunderstanding(e.g.,motivation,interpersonalskills,andtheabilitytoapplyappropriatetheoreticalprinciplesinnewsituations).

� Forothersortsofqualifications—e.g.,professionalqualificationsorcompetence-basedvoca-tionalqualifications—employers’abilitytounderstandwhatsuchassessmentsactuallymeanabouttheindividual’slikelyperformanceinnewsituationsisgenerallylimited.Thisisofcourseevenmoretrueforcandidatesfromoverseas.(Ifemployersarenot100percentclearabouttherelevanceandmeaningofprofessional/vocationalqualificationswithintheirowncountries,howmuchmoreuncertainwilltheybeofsuchqualificationsfromotherjurisdictions?).11

Afterrecruitment,thebestemployersoperatetraininganddevelopmentschemesfortheiremployees,andengineeringprofessionalbodiescanhelpthemwiththedevelopment,refinement,andqualityassur-anceofsuchprograms,althoughthereisconsiderablevariationamongemployers,aswellasamongnationaltraditions.Ingeneral,largeremployersmanagetoprovidemoretrainingfortheirstaffthansmallerones.Althoughemployersoftenpaylimitedattentiontoprofessionalengineeringqualifications,theinherentvalueofsuchtitlesremains,andengineeringprofessionalbodiescontinuetopromoteandmarketthemtoemployers.Insomelocations,employerawarenessofsuchqualificationsandtheiruseinrecruitmenthasgrown,albeitslowly.12

Insum,employersgenerallyattributelessweighttoformalqualificationsthanmightbeexpected.While,inprinciple,qualificationsareperceivedtobeagoodthinginacandidate,itissimplynotclearwhattheyrevealaboutanindividualcandidate’slikelycontributioninaspecificworkingcontext.(Notethatformalqualificationsareequallyimperfectasanindicatorofaperson’seconomiccontributionmorebroadly.Whileformalqualificationsmaybethebest available proxy forsomeone’s“levelofskill,”policymakersmayattributetoomuchimportancetothespecificqualificationanindividualhas,includingwhenformu-latingemployment-basedimmigrationpolicies.)

IV. Safety and the Role of Professional Regulation

Thenewartifactsengineerscreateareintendedtobebeneficial,butsometimessuchcreationscanoper-ateinwaysthatcauserisks,whetherasaresultofpoordesignandconstruction,carelessuse,orunex-pectedbehaviorofsomekind.Certainobjects(e.g.,thoseinvolvinghigh-voltageelectricalsuppliesanddevices)andprocesses(involvinghazardouschemicalsorflammableorexplosivesubstances)containinherentlydangerouselements.Itisthusnotsurprisingthatensuringthesafetyoftheuserisanimpor-tantelementoftheworkofengineers.

While,inprinciple,thepublicinterestseeksconfidencethatallengineeringactivitiesarecarriedoutsafely,certaintasksinvolveconsiderablygreaterelementsofrisktousersandthepublicthanothers.Inbuildingservicesengineering,forexample,thereliableinstallationandcommissioningofgas-firedappli-ancesisgenerallyacceptedashigherriskthantheplumbingofcoldwatersystems.Inmarineengineer-ing,ensuringthataship’shullisstableandwatertightwouldbeviewedasmoreimportanttosafetythantheinstallationofapublicaddresssystemonthevessel,usefulthoughthelatteris(andpotentiallycrucialinanemergencysituation).Thedangersofhigh-voltageelectricalsystemsalsonecessitatearangeofprotectivemeasuresforworkingonthem.

Itisnatural,therefore,thattheauthoritiesresponsibleforthesafetyofpotentialusersofengineeredproductsandsystemsfocusoncertainengineeringtasksandactivitiestoensure—throughregulationofsomekind—thatthesetasksarereliablyandsafelycarriedout.However,thethresholdbetweenregu-

11 Ingeneral,thereismuchgreaterdiversity(atleastwithinEurope)inthedifferent—mostlyvocational—qualificationsavailableatthesubdegreelevel.Thismakesspecifyingmutualrecognitionstandardsfortechnologists,and(particularly)technicians,evenmorechallengingthanforprofessionalengineers.

12 Asevidenced,forexample,bymorementionofsuchtitlesinrecruitmentadvertisements.

7



latedandunregulatedactivities,andthemodeofregulation,canvarybetweencountriesorjurisdictionsandisdeterminedbyanumberoffactors,suchas:

� Publicattitudesfollowingspecificseriousincidents,suchasarailormarinetransportdisaster,whichmayresultincallsforstrongerregulation

� Culturalattitudestoriskarisingfromthenatureandtraditionsofthesociety

� Thewayinwhichdamageliabilityandinsurancearehandledinnationallegalsystems(insomecasescompanies’operatingsystemsandservicesareresponsiblebylawforaccidents,inothersliabilitycanbepinnedontoindividualdesignersoroperators)

Whilegovernmentsareoftenthearbitersofregulation,onlythosewiththedeeptechnicalunderstand-ingoftheproductsandsystemsinvolvedcanadequatelyassessriskandspecifythemeasuresrequiredtoreduceittoreasonablelevelsforsociety.Thisfacthasledtheengineeringprofessiontodevelopandrefineitsownviewabouttherequirementsforthecompetenceandcommitmentofindividualprofession-alswhoseworkinvolvessafety-criticalactivities.

Types of Regulation

Therangeandbreadthofengineeringdisciplinesissuchthatnosingleindividualprofessionalengineercanbeexpectedtohavecompetence(orevensignificantknowledge)inallareas.13Evenwithinaparticu-larengineeringdiscipline(e.g.civilengineering,marineengineering)thereareanumberofdistinctbroad technical areasofworkspecialization.Mostindividualengineersspendthemajorityoftheircareerswithinone(oratmosttwoorthree)oftheseareas.Thetasksandactivitieswiththegreatestrisktosocietygenerallyconstituteonlyaverysmallpartofanyonearea(seeTable1).14Inaddition,high-riskengineeringactivitiesaregenerallyhandleddirectlybyaparticularcategoryofengineeringoccupa-tion—typically,thedesignanddevelopmentelementsbyprofessionalengineersandtechnologists,andimplementationandmaintenanceaspectsbyengineeringtechniciansorevenskilledengineeringtrades-people.Therealityofthishierarchicalstructureraisesfundamentalquestionsabouthowsafety-critical(s-c)tasksshouldberegulatedandhow precisetheregulationofs-cactivityshouldbe.

13 Twelve disciplines,includingeightforprofessionalengineersandfourfortechnicians,areindicatedintheoccupationalcategoriesinAppendix2;theEuropeanFederationofNationalEngineeringAssociations(FEANI)focuseson15,and28arelistedinAppendix1.

14 Table1isintendedtobeonlyillustrative—notdefinitiveorcomprehensive—anditshouldbenotedthatthereareoftencrossoverpointsamongthedifferentdisciplines(forexample,railsignallingworkisdirectlyrelevanttotherailengineeringelement in transport, but itwouldgenerallybe carriedoutbya telecommunicationsengineeror technician). Inpractice,effectivemanagementoflargeengineeringprojectsgenerallyinvolvesexpertiseinawiderangeofengineeringdisciplines.

8



Table 1. Examples of Safety-Critical/Regulated Activities within the Broad Work Areas of Selected Engineering Disciplines

Civil Engineering

Con

stru

ctio

n

Eart

hqua

ke

Engi

neer

ing

Envi

ronm

enta

l En

gine

erin

g

Geo

phys

ics

Geo

tech

nica

l En

gine

erin

g

Wat

er

Res

ourc

es

Stru

ctur

al

Engi

neer

ing

Tran

spor

t En

gine

erin

g

Surv

eyin

g

Professional Engineer (theoretical)

(sign-off on new structure safety in earthquake-prone areas)

(Dam/reservoir design)

(Tall building/ bridge design sign-off)

Professional Engineer (applied)/Engineering Technologist

(reservoir inspection)

(Rail signaling)

Professional EngineeringTechnician

(Rail signaling)

“Skilled Trades”

Mechanical Engineering

Flui

ds

Prod

uct D

esig

n

Hyd

raul

ics

& P

neum

atic

s

Man

ufac

turin

g En

gine

erin

g

Com

bust

ion,

Eng

ines

, Fue

ls

Stre

ngth

of M

ater

ials

Com

pute

r-A

ided

Des

ign/

Com

pute

r-A

ided

Man

ufac

turin

g

Ener

gy C

onve

rsio

n

Mec

ha-tr

onic

s/C

ontr

ol


(Gaining regulatory approval for aircraft safety)

(Pressure vessel design)

Professional Engineer (applied)/Engineering Technologist

(Compliance with product regulatory requirements)

(Pressure vessel design/manu-facture)

Professional EngineeringTechnician

(Aircraft maintenance)

(Pressure vessel welding)

“Skilled Trades” (Aircraft maintenance)

9



Electrical/Electronic Engineering

Pow

er

Con

trol

Elec

tron

ics

Mic

ro-e

lect

roni

cs

Sign

al P

roce

ssin

g

Tele

com

mun

icat

ions

Inst

rum

enta

tion

Com

pute

rs

Net

wor

k A

naly

sis


Professional Engineer (applied)/Engineering Technologist (Rail signaling)

Professional Engineering Technician(Air traffic control system monitoring/ maintenance)

“Skilled Trades”

Itis,inprinciple,possibletoregulate: � (just)specificsafety-criticalactivities;or

� thespecializedbroadworkareawithinthediscipline;or

� theengineeringdisciplinesthatincludeeachsuchactivity;or

� thepracticeofprofessionalengineersortechniciansinalldisciplines.

Forexample,insomecountriesrailsignalingworkisspecificallyregulated,whileinotherstheoverarch-ingregulationofalltelecommunicationsworkwouldensurethesafetyofrailsignals.Inyetothercoun-tries allelectrical/electronicsengineersmightberegulated(intheprocesscoveringanyworkonrailsignals)and—ultimately—incountrieswiththestrongestregulationtraditions,access to all engineer-ingworkisregulated.Inreality,regulationoftencombineselementsofallfourapproaches.

Theprecisionwithwhichregulationisappliedtoensuresatisfactoryworkins-careasiskeytoquestionsofjobaccessandmobility.Regulatinganactivitythatdoesn’treallyneeditisinprincipleundesirable:thebroaderthescopeofoccupationalregulationaroundessentialareas,thegreatertheunnecessarybarrierstoaccessingjobs.Table1confirmsthatfewareasofengineeringworkasawholeares-c;mostengineer-ingactivitydoesnotrequireformalregulation.

Additionalcomplexitiesexist.AstudybytheEuropean Federation of National Engineering Associations (FEANI)ontheregulationofengineeringinEuropetentativelyclassifiesnationalapproachesintofourcategories:15

� Thosethatwerenotregulated

� Thosethatprotectedonlyprofessionaltitles(withoutanyassociatedreservedtasks)16

� Thosethatbothprotectedprofessionaltitlesandreservedtasksinselectareas

15 EuropeanFederationofNationalEngineeringAssociations(FEANI),“SurveyontheRegulationoftheEngineeringProfessioninEurope,”Special FEANI News 10/2005,www.feani.org/site/index.php?eID=tx_nawsecuredl&u=0&file=fileadmin/PDF_Documents/FEANI_News/FEANI_NEWS_Special_October_2005_in_PDF_format.pdf&t=1349192364&hash=ecc6ccc55c19e0e5d08e4e7a1ae19c1b4704bc10.

16 Reservedtasksarethosethat,withinaparticularjurisdiction,canbecarriedoutbyonlythosewithspecifiedtrainingand—mostoften—relevantprofessionalqualifications,acquiredthroughmembershipinanationalprofessionalassociation.

10



� Thosethatweretotallyregulated,reservingtasksinallareas(withprotectedtitlesandfulllicensure).

WhiletherehavebeencertainadjustmentssincetheFEANIsurveywascarriedoutin2005,allfourtypesofregulationstillexistacrossEurope.Inanumberofcountries,thetertiaryeducationqualification—evenifacademicandthusincludinglittlepracticalactivity—istheprofessionalqualification.

Whileacertainamountofregulationisneededtomitigateengineeringrisk,itcanhaveaneconomicdownside,especiallyforworkersmovingacrossjurisdictionswithdifferentregulatoryregimes.Inprin-ciple,regulationcan:

� Restrictthesupplyoflabortoaprofession,andkeepremunerationathigherlevelsthanmightbe necessary

� Provideapretextforjustifyingrestrictivepractices,includingunnecessarybarrierstoentryintoanoccupationorprofession(oftentobenefit“thosealreadyintheclub”).

V. When Engineers Move Across Jurisdictions

Occupationalregulationhashistoricallydevelopedwithinparticularspatialjurisdictions—oftenthoseofthenation-stateandinsomecasessmallergeographicalunits,suchasUSstates.Thisregulationcaninhibitmobilitywherethescopeofthelabormarketisnotthesameasthescopeofaparticularregula-toryauthority.(Forexample,considerasinglecountrywithmultiplesubnationalregulatorybodies,oraregionwhereworkersfrequentlymovebetweencountrieswithdifferentregulations.)Ingeneral,thegreaterthemobilitywithinalabormarket,themoreefficientlythecorrespondingeconomiesarethoughttoperform.

Peopleinevitablyfindwaysaroundregulatorybarriers.Themostobviousisthelast-minuteuse—oftenonthebasisofashortconsultancyassignment—ofaprofessional,localengineertocarryoutthefor-malitiesrequiredtocomplywithprevailinglocalregulations.So,anengineeringcompanymightemployengineersandtechniciansrecruitedfromabroadtoperformalltasksrightuptotheformalsign-off(forexample,certifyingthesafetyofalargestructure),andthenbuyadayortwoofalocalstructuralengi-neer’stimeforthesign-offitself.Ingeneral,whentheengineerisanemployee—whethermovingwithinaninternationalcompanyorswitchingtoanewoneinadifferentcountry—thereisnopressingneedtobecomeregisteredorlicensedinthenewcountry.

Overall,therefore,itisnotcleartowhatextentlawsandregulationsmightimpedethemobilityofengi-neersacrossborders.Theymayimpacttheindividual,however.Negotiatingtherecognitionofaprofes-sionalqualificationcandragonforyearsinsomecountries,butduringthattimethe“unrecognized”foreignengineercanneverthelessbeinengineeringemployment.Inthissituation,theconcernisthattheengineerreceivetheformalrecognitionheorshedeserves;withoutit,employmentmightnotbeasdesir-ableorlucrativeastheengineermightwish.

Economistshavearguedthatreducingbarrierswithinregionalgroupings,suchastheEuropeanUnionorthesignatoriesoftheNorthAmericanFreeTradeAgreement(NAFTA),couldultimately“leveltheplayingfield”inthegloballabormarketandcapturetheeconomicbenefitsofgreaterinternationaltrade.ItisnocoincidencethatcurrentargumentsforactiontostimulategrowthattheEuropeanlevelincludepres-

It is not clear to what extent laws and regulations might impede the mobility of engineers across borders.

11



suretoreducebarrierstomobility.Infact,thisargumentisplayingaroleinthecurrentfinalizationoftheReviewoftheProfessionalQualificationsDirective(PQD)17(2005/36/EC)anditsimplementation.18 Engineersthemselveshavealsodevotedsubstantialenergytoinitiativesdesignedtoreducebarriers,asdescribedinthenextsection.

A. Assessing and Addressing Regulatory Differences Across Borders

Oneofthemostfar-reachingattemptstoreduceregulatorybarrierstomobilityforengineershastakenplacewithintheEuropeanUnion.MovementamongEUMemberStates,whoseprofessionalregula-tionvariesconsiderablyintypeandstrength,isgoverned(inprinciple)bytheEuropeanCommission’sDirectiveonMutualRecognitionofProfessionalQualifications,knownastheProfessionalQualificationsDirective,orPQD.19Underthedirective,regulatorybodiesmustrecognizeanEUcitizen’sapplicationforprofessionalregistrationorlicensureinengineeringifthecourseofeducationandtrainingheorshehasundertakenisofasimilarlengthtotherequiredstandardinthedestinationcountry.Insomecircum-stances,thedestinationcountrymayrequiretheapplicanttotakeanaptitudetestor undergoaperiodofsupervisedworkexperience(“adaptationperiod”).However,therearedifferencesinhowMemberStatesdefinea“regulatedprofession”andtherecontinuetobeinconsistenciesintheimplementationofthedirective.Amajorreviewexercisetookplaceoverthecourseof2011,followingwhichtheEUCommissionputforwardproposalsforcertainsignificantrevisionstothePQD.20

ExperienceoveranumberofyearswiththePQDanditspredecessorsisofparticularvalueinconsideringissuesofengineeringskillsandcredentials.Thechallengeoffacilitatingmobilityacrossagroupofcoun-tries—inthiscase,theEuropeanUnion—thatexhibitaremarkableamountofvariationintheirregula-tionoftheprofessionraisesquestionsaboutthemutualequivalenceofengineeringpractice,skills,andqualifications.21

Ofthe31Europeancountriessurveyedinthe2005FEANIstudy,fivehadnoregulationofengineeringpractice,14operatedonlysomeactivitiesinoneormoreengineeringdisciplines,eightprotectedprofes-sionaltitles(andsevenoftheseregulatedsomeactivitiesinoneormoredisciplines),andfourregulatedallmodesofpracticeinmostengineeringdisciplines.22Acleargeographicalpatternemerged:overall,regulationwasleastinthenortherncountriesandmostinthesoutherncountries.ThemajordifferenceshavehadanasymmetriceffectonworkersmovingwithinEurope.Inverybroadterms,engineerstrainedinthesouthmovingtothenorthwouldbeexpectedtoencounterfewerbarrierstopractice,whilethosemovingintheoppositedirectionmightnotbeeligibleforemploymentasengineersforquiteawhile.Asaresult,theEuropeanCommissionhas,inanumberofcases,proceededagainstgovernmentsandcompe-tentauthoritiesin(particularly)southernEuropeancountriesfornoncompliancewiththedirective,andinsomecaseshaspursuedMemberStatesvigorously.

17 AndindeedthereviewoftherelatedServicesDirective,and“SingleMarket”policymoregenerally.18 Forexample,theUKresponsetotheEuropeanCommission’sconsultationonthereviewstatedthat,“recentevidence

suggeststhatthereissignificantuntappedpotentialinEUservices,bothintermsofproductivityandemployment…ReformingtheprocessformutualrecognitionofprofessionalqualificationsintheEUisakeyachievablepriorityinimprovingthesinglemarketinservices,andcreatinggrowth.”SeeDepartmentforBusiness,InnovationandSkills(DBIS),“UKGovernmentResponsetoEuropeanCommissionPublicConsultationontheMutualRecognitionofProfessionalQualificationsDirective,”March2011,www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/europe/docs/u/11-794-uk-government-response-mutual-recognition-professional-qualifications.

19 Thecurrentdirective(2005/36/EC)wasdesignedinthelightofconsiderablepreviousexperiencewith“generalsystems”directives,whichcoverallprofessionaloccupations.

20 AtthetimeofwritingthesearewiththeEuropeanParliamentandtheCouncilofMinistersforconsideration.21 Thefirst“generalsystems”directive,goingbeyondarrangementsagreedforindividualprofessions,andcovering

engineeringforthefirsttime,datesbackto1989.22 AtleastonesouthernEuropeancountryregulated“subdisciplines”aswell.Notethatcertainchangesaretobeexpected

arisingfromadjustmentssincethesurvey.

12



B. Engineering Activity and Scope of Competence

AkeywayinwhichEuropeanregulationsonprofessionscandifferbycountryrelatestothe scope of the technicalprofessionalactivitybeingregulated.Becauseengineeringpracticeinthevariousfieldsdevel-opeddifferentlyindifferentcountries,“adjacent”professions(bothwithinengineeringandbeyond)oftencarryoutdifferentelementsofrelatedwork.Forexample,thesplitoflegalresponsibilitiesbetweenarchitectsandcivil orstructural engineersindifferentcountriesmayvary.Insomecases,formalsign-offons-celementsmightliewiththearchitect,insomeitmightliewiththeengineer.Suchvariationsincompetencecoveragehaveledtoarrangementsthathavesometimespresentedrealchallengestoindi-vidualengineers.ToillustrateitsconcernsaboutPQDimplementationinaeronauticalengineering,theUKgovernmentusedamuch-citedexample:

A UK aeronautical engineer working on jet engines in another (EU) Member State was required to have training in building runways in order to be registered, so he could sign off his repairs. The UK Competent Authority intervened on his behalf, and the Member State allowed him to register on the condition that he did not work on runways.23

EUMemberStatesare,intheory,obligedtoallowapplicantsaccesstotheactivitiesforwhichtheyarequalified—withoutrequiringthemtoqualifyforactivitiestheydonotintendtopractice—solongasthereisnopublicsafetyhazardinvolved.AccordingtoarecentEUevaluation,however,regulatorybodiesareoftenreluctanttodothis.24

Thechallengefacedbythehostnation’scompetentauthority(whichmaybeagovernmentdepartment,anongovernmentalbodyspecifiedbythenationalgovernment,anentityhandlingindividualprofessions,oranorganizationwithrepresentativesfromawiderangeofprofessions)istoestablishwhethertheapplicant’sprofessionalbackgroundisadequatetoallowhimorhertopracticesafelyinthehostcountrystraightaway,orwhetheranyadditionalcompetenceorexpertisemustbeacquiredbeforeheorshecanbeallowedtostartworkorofferservicesunsupervised.Inprinciple,thisjudgmentisinfluencedbothbytheregulationarrangementsinthedesiredhost(ordestination)EUMemberStateandthegeneralinter-estofprotectingpublicsafety.Insomecases,thedesiretoprotecttheresidentlabormarketfromcompe-titionwithimmigrantsmayintrudeuponsuchdecisions. Inpolicyterms,EUMemberStates’pressureto“reasonablyprotect”thenationallabormarket25clashwithemployers’needsforskilledlabor(whereitmightnotbeavailablefromtheresidentlabormarket)andthedesiretoconformwithboththePQDandbroadereconomicprinciples.Inpractice,withasmallnumberofexceptions,EUMemberStatescanonlylimitadmissionofeconomicmigrantsfromcountriesbeyondtheEuropeanEconomicArea(EEA)26 and Switzerland.

Individualjudgmentsaremadebycomparingrelevantcredentials—includingeducationandinitialtrainingarrangements—ofsimilarlyskilledengineersinthesendingandreceivingcountries.Sincethereisaverywiderangeoftrainingapproaches(oftendesignedbyindividualemployers),comparisonsofprovisionmustgenerallybemadeonanindividualbasis(ratherthanbycomparingnationalnorms).Theformaltertiaryeducationsystems,andinparticulartheengineeringdegrees,ofdifferentcountriesnaturallyformthestartingpointfortheassessment.Itisnotsurprisingthateducationsystems,which

23 DBIS,“UKGovernmentResponsetoEuropeanCommissionPublicConsultation.”24 EuropeanCommission,“EvaluationoftheProfessionalQualificationsDirective,”2011,http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/

qualifications/docs/news/20110706-evaluation-directive-200536ec_en.pdf.25 Forexample,wheretheremightbesignificantnumbersofpeoplewithsuchskillsunemployed.26 TheEuropeanUnioncountries,plusNorway,Iceland,andLiechtenstein.

The formal tertiary education systems, and in particular the engineering degrees, of different countries naturally

form the starting point for the assessment.

13



reflectamajorelementofnationalculture,arealsorichlydiversewithinEurope;inparticular,differ-encesexistbetweentheAnglo-Saxonhighereducationtraditionsandthoseofcontinentaluniversities.27 Inshort,whilepost-graduationlearningandassessmentrequirementswithintheAnglo-Saxonsystemaresignificant—andmuchmoresothanonthecontinent—continentaluniversityprogramsaretradi-tionallylonger,byoneormoreyears,thanthoseintheUnitedKingdomandIreland.Sincethedurationoftertiaryeducationcoursesisoftenusedasaproxyforthelevel—orquality—oftraining,thisdifferencehasposedrealchallengesforperceptionsandcomparisons.28

C. Mobility of Engineers in the United States

AlthoughtheculturaltraditionsandeconomicrealitiesoftheUSstates(andCanadianprovinces)areconsiderablylessheterogeneousthanthoseinEuropeancountries,thereare,nevertheless,labormarketbarriersbetweenthem,notleastinrelationtoprofessionalengineeringpractice.AvaluableoverviewofprofessionalcredentialrecognitionintheUnitedStatesisprovidedbyLindaRabben.29Regulationsandthelicensingofprofessionalpracticeinengineeringandsomeotherprofessionsaredeterminedbystateandprovincialbodies,andmutualrecognitionbetweenthesejurisdictionsisbynomeansautomatic.

WithintheUnitedStates,afederal-levelauthority,theAccreditationBoardforEngineeringandTechnol-ogy(ABET),develops,refines,andappliestheengineeringtertiaryeducationstandards—inparticularbyaccreditingengineeringandtechnologydegreeprograms—whileprofessionallicensingineachstateiscontrolledbystate(professionallicensing)boards.Afederalbody,theNationalCouncilofExaminersforEngineeringandSurveying(NCEES),develops,administers,andscorestheexaminationsusedforengineeringandsurveyinglicensureintheUnitedStates.ItalsoworkstofacilitateprofessionalmobilityandpromotesuniformityoftheUSlicensureprocessesthroughservicesforitsmemberlicensingboardsandlicensees.Inpractice,however,theNCEESisessentiallyagroupingofstateboards and is only able to initiateuniversalchangestolabormarketaccessarrangementswhereallstateboardsagree.

ArrangementsinCanadaarerathersimilar,inthatprovincialandterritorialengineeringbodieshandlelicensing,whileafederallevelorganization,EngineersCanada,handlestertiarycourseaccreditation.WhileEngineersCanada(byanalogywithNCEES)alsoworkson“moderating”thediscussionamongthedifferentprovincialorterritoriallicensingassociations(particularlyoverrecentyearswithfederalgovernmentsupport),itdoesnotrunitsownexaminationsorhavedirectauthoritytofacilitateindividualengineermovementbetweenprovincialorterritorialjurisdictions.

VI. Engineers’ Own Approaches: Mutual Recognition Agreements

Engineersthemselves,desirousperhapsofseekingsolutionstoperceivedmobilityproblemsbeforeoth-ers(inparticular,governments)enforcetheirsolutionsontheengineeringcommunity,haveexploredthechallengesanddevelopedanumberofpracticalapproachestotheissueofmutualrecognitionofengi-neeringqualifications.Theseinclude,mostnotably,arrangementsdevelopedbytwocollaborativegroup-ingsofnationalengineeringbodies—oneinEuropeandonebeyond.Suchnationalbodiesgenerallyregulateengineering-relatedactivitywithinagivencountry,andareoftwokinds:(1)thosethatregulatestandardsoftertiaryeducationcourses(theseareoftencalledaccreditingbodies;they“assure”thequal-ityofacountry’sengineeringdegreesfromtheperspectiveoftheprofession);and(2)thosethatregulate

27 Onthecontinent,somedegreecoursesleadingtoprofessionalpracticeareenshrinedinlaw.28 The1999BolognaDeclarationofMinistersofEUMemberStates,establishinggovernmentalcommitmenttothecreationof

aEuropeanHigherEducationArea(EHEA)hasaddressedsomeofthedifferencesbetweenMemberStates,buthasbroughtadditionalcomparisoncomplexitiesinitswake.

29 LindaRabben, Credential Recognition in the United States for Foreign Professionals (Washington,DC:MigrationPolicyInstitute,2013),www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/UScredentialrecognition.pdf.

14



admissiontotheprofession,whetherintermsofprofessionalengineeringtitleorprofessionalengineer-ing practice.

A. Arrangements among European Countries

TheEuropeanFederationofNationalEngineeringAssociations(FEANI)30wasfoundedin1951,afewyearsaftertheendofWorldWarII,byagroupofFrenchandGermanengineerswhobelievedthatthroughtechnology,theircommonfieldofactivity,itwouldbepossibletocreateconstructivelinksbetweenformeradversaries,andthusfacilitatetheprosperousandpeacefuldevelopmentofEuropeansociety.AssociationsfromsevenEuropeancountriesimmediatelyjoinedtheinitiative.Todayassociationsfrom32EuropeancountriesarerepresentedinFEANI31(bringingtogethermorethan350national-levelengineeringbodiesofdifferentkinds),allofwhicharerecognizedintheircountriesastherepresenta-tivesoftheengineeringprofessionatthenationallevel(althoughtheirrolesvarybynation). Throughthesenationalassociations,FEANIrepresentstheinterestsofapproximately3.5millionprofessionalengineersinEurope.32

Atthebeginningofthe1960s,FEANIwasconvincedthattheengineeringprofessioninEuropecouldnotbestrengthenedwithoutmutualrecognitionoftheprofessionalqualificationsprovidedbythenumer-ousanddiversifiednationalsystems.FEANIhas,therefore,workedtosetupstructurestofacilitatesuchrecognition.Twomainregistershavebeenestablishedtoadvancethisgoal:theFEANIIndex(whichliststheengineeringdegreesthatarerecognizedineachmembercountrybythenationalassociation),andtheEuropeanEngineer(EURING)Register.Allprofessionalengineerswhohavesubmittedtheircredentialsforadmissiontotheprofessionviatheirnationalmonitoringcommittees(NMCs),andwhosecredentialsareapprovedbytheFEANIEuropeanMonitoringCommittee(EMC),areregisteredwiththeEURINGtitle,whichtheymaythenuseintheirwork.

Inaddition,FEANIhasbeenactiveintheestablishmentoftheEuropeanNetworkforAccreditationofEngineeringEducation (ENAEE),whichhasdevelopedtheEuropeanAccreditedEngineer(EUR-ACE®) frameworkstandards.NationaldegreeaccreditationagenciesintheEuropeanhighereducationareathathavedemonstratedthattheircriteriaandproceduresareinlinewiththeEUR-ACE®frameworkstandardsandtheENAEEstandardsandguidelinesforaccreditationagenciesareauthorizedbyENAEEtoawardtheEUR-ACE®label.33Wheredesiredbyauniversity(andonpaymentofthecorrespondingfee),programsaccreditedbyauthorizedagenciescanbeawardedthelabelandenteredintotheEUR-ACE®database,whichcontains engineeringdegreeprogramsattheBologna“firstcycle”(bachelor’s)and“secondcycle”(master’s)levels.SomeFEANImembersarealsoENAEEmembers,butmembersofENAEEare,ingeneral,degree-accreditingbodiesratherthannationalassociationsofengineers.

FEANIcontinuestoworkonarrangementstohelpmutualunderstandingofnationaltertiaryeducationarrangementsandtosupportmobilityofengineersbetweenmemberassociationcountries.Itisimpor-tanttorecognizethatFEANIhasfocusedonsupportingmutualrecognitionofbothnationalengineeringtertiaryeducation(andsoofnationalengineeringqualifications,inparticularengineeringdegrees)andnationalrequirementsforlicensingasprofessionalengineers.

30 SeeEuropeanFederationofNationalEngineeringAssociations(FEANI),“WelcometoFEANI,”www.feani.org/site/.31 NationalengineeringbodiesfromalltheEUcountriesexceptLatviaandLithuania,plusthosefromCroatia,Iceland,

Macedonia,Norway,Russia,Serbia,andSwitzerland.32 SeeFEANI,“WelcometoFEANI.”33 TherecanbemorethanoneEuropeanNetworkforAccreditationofEngineeringEducation(ENAEE)memberfromeach

country,andfewerEuropeancountrieshaveENAEEmembersthanFEANImembers.

15



Whileagoodengineeringdegreeisakeyrequirementtobeabletopracticeasanengineer,itsroleinrelationtofullprofessionallicensingvariesacrossEuropeancountries.Insomecountries,thedegreeistheonlyqualificationrequiredforpractice,whileinothersitrepresentsthefirststep—andsubsequentstructuredtrainingandvalidatedexperiencearerequired.Thisdifferenceintroducesasignificantasym-metrytocomparisonsofengineeringformationamongEuropeancountries.WhentherequirementsforaccesstotheEURINGtitlewerenegotiated,itbecameclearthataflexiblemodelwasneededforthedif-ferentnationalprofessionalformations.

Astheresultofanagreed-uponcompromise,theEURINGtitleisawardedonthebasisofevidenceofsevenyearsofinitialprofessionaldevelopment(IPD),ofwhichatleastthreeyearsmustbespentincompletionofaFEANI-recognizedformaleducationprogram(orequivalent);twoyearsmustbepre-liminaryprofessionalexperience;andtwoadditionalyearsmustbeeither(additional)formaleducation,professionalexperience,orformaltrainingmonitoredbyanapprovedengineeringinstitution.Thisflex-ibilityenabledbothAnglo-Saxonthree-yearprograms(withsubsequentadditionalIPD)andthelongerprogramscustomaryincontinentalEuropetobeaccommodated.

B. Beyond Europe

Thesametwo-tierstructureformutualrecognition—addressingengineeringtertiaryeducationandrequirementsforadmissiontotheprofession—isusedbythenationalengineeringbodiesworkingtogetherintheInternationalEngineeringAlliance(IEA).34 An alliance of the national degree-accrediting orpractice-regulatingbodiesofsome19signatoriestothesixmultilateralagreementsitadministers,IEAgrewfromtheWashingtonAccord,whichwassignedin1989bytheengineering(accreditation)bodiesofsixEnglish-speakingcountries(seeAppendix3).Theaccordisaninternationalagreementamongbod-iesresponsibleforaccreditingengineeringdegreeprograms.Itrecognizesthesubstantialequivalence35 ofprogramsaccreditedbythosebodiesandrecommendsthatgraduatesofprogramsaccreditedbyanyofthesignatorybodiesberecognizedbytheotherbodiesashavingmettheacademicrequirementsforentrytothepracticeofengineering.OfthesixagreementsadministeredbytheIEA,threerelatetothetertiaryeducationbaseoftheprofessionalengineerortechnician:

� The Washington Accord,signedin1989,recognizessubstantialequivalenceintheaccredita-tionofqualificationsinprofessional engineering,normallyforprogramsoffouryears’duration

� The Sydney Accord commencedin2001andrecognizessubstantialequivalenceintheaccredi-tationofqualificationsinengineering technology,normallyforprogramsofthreeyears’duration

� The Dublin Accordisanagreementforsubstantialequivalenceintheaccreditationoftertiaryqualificationsintechnician engineering,normallyforprogramsoftwoyears’duration.Itcom-mencedin2002.

Theotherthreeagreementscoverrecognitionofindividualprofessionaldevelopment,ratherthanter-tiaryqualifications.Inprinciple,apersonrecognizedinonecountryasreachingtheagreedinternationalstandardofcompetenceshouldonlybeminimallyassessed(primarilyforlocalknowledge)priortoobtainingregistrationinanothercountrythatispartytotheagreement.

� The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) engineer agreementcommencedin1999withsupportfromAPECmembergovernments.Theagreementfunctionsvianationalregistries,administeredbyengineeringbodies,whichlistthoseengineerswhowishtohavetheircompe-tencerecognizedinothermembereconomiesatthegenericinternationalstandard.

� The Engineers Mobility Forum (EMF) agreementcommencedin2001.ItoperatesthesamecompetencestandardastheAPECengineeragreementbutallowsengineeringbodiesofanycountryoreconomytojoin.

34 See www.washingtonaccord.org/.35 Necessarybecauseexact(100percent)equivalenceisrarely—ifever—possible.

16



� The Engineering Technologist Mobility Forum (ETMF) agreementwassignedbyengineeringrepresentativesofparticipatingeconomiesandcountriesin2003.

Theseagreementsarepossiblebecauseoftheconceptofsubstantial equivalence:Whiletherearedetaileddifferencesamongbothtertiaryeducationsystemsandnationalpracticerequirements,inmostcases,suchdifferenceswillnotresultinsignificantlimitationsonthecapabilitiesoftheindividualswhohavepassedthroughthem.Mostdifferencesintrainingwillnotevenbedetectableafteranumberofyearsofprofessionalexperienceinaninternationalengineeringteam(suchasthatofalargemultinationalengi-neeringcompany).

C. Evaluating Mutual Recognition Initiatives in Engineering

Linksbetweennationalengineeringbodieshavedevelopedovertheyears,andmoreactivelythaninsomeotherprofessions.Thisisperhapsbecauseengineersareoftenaskedtoworkabroadorbecausetheyareusedtoworkingincollaborativeteamsinordertosolvecommonproblems.ThemultilateralmutualrecognitionarrangementsestablishedbothwithinEurope(throughFEANI)andbeyond(undertheauspicesofIEA)havenowbeeninplaceforanumberofyears.Howwelldotheywork?

Thefirstthingtonoteisthatcooperationinbothgroupingshasprovedvaluableandinterestingtothebodiesthemselves.Theprocessesinvolvedinthemultilateralgroupingsinvolvearangeofpeer-reviewelementsthatprovidethoseinfluentialinnationalengineeringactivitybothwithnewinsightsintohowthingscanbedonedifferently,andagrowingbodyofevidenceaboutdifferencesbetweennationalsys-temsthat(1)helpclarifyunderstandingofbothperceivedstrengthsandweaknessesofvarioussystems,and(2)resultinadjustmentsinnationalsystemsthatcanlead,incrementally,togreaterconvergenceofapproaches.

Second,therehasbeenprogressinsomecountriestowardusingagreed-uponinternationalstandardstodetermineimmigrationeligibilityforengineers.TheimmigrationauthoritiesinAustralia,forexample,useEngineersAustralia,thenationalengineeringassociation,astheauthoritytodetermineanapplicant’seligibilitytoworkinthecountryasaprofessionalengineer(ortechnologist).Thisprocessallowsfast-trackrecognitionofdegreesaccreditedundertheWashingtonAccord(orSydneyAccord,fortechnolo-gists).MostIEAmembersworkwiththeirinteriorministriestoseekrecognitionoftheirprofessionalqualificationsinassessmentsforvisas,andwheresuchlobbyingissuccessful,benefitstothosecomingwithappropriatecredentialsfromotherIEAmembercountriescouldaccrueovertime.

However,thevariousmultilateralarrangementshavetheirlimitations,sincethenationalengineeringbodiesinvolveddonotinallcasesdirectlycontrolallaspectsofregulationofengineeringpractice.ItisnotyetthecasethatengineersandtechniciansfromanyonecountryinvolvedinFEANIorIEAcanbeguaranteed,byvirtueofthesearrangements,thattheycanmovetoanothermembercountryandimme-diatelystarttopracticejustastheydidintheircountryoforigin.Indeed,constraintsonmembers’abili-tiestoremoveallbarrierstomobilityhavelimitedthevalueoftheseagreementsfortheindividual.Forexample,theEURINGtitleisnotdirectlyrecognizedbytherelevantauthoritiesinFEANImembercoun-tries(aseriousdisappointment,giveninitialaspirations),andsotheFederationcontinuestoworkonotherapproachestoreducingbarriers,(e.g.,bycontributingtoENAEEandexploringtheengineering card approach).36

36 ThisisofparticularimportancesincetheEuropeanCommissionexpressedinterestthataprofessional cardmodelbeexploredinthecontextofPQDrevision.

Links between national engineering bodies have developed over the years, and more actively than in some other professions.

17



AndwhileIEA’saspirationsindevelopingprofessionallicensing/registrationagreementsmirroredFEANI’soriginalbarrier-reducingaspirationsforEURING,thealliancehas,inreviewingtheEMF/ETMFapproach,decidedthatchangeisneededfortheagreementstomakemoreimpact.TheconstitutionsoftheEMF,APECengineer,andETMFagreementshaverecentlybeenrevisedinordertochangetheempha-sisfrommobility facilitation as a result of a schedule of benefits,toastandards setting and assessment regime.Thenewconstitutionsfortheagreementsaredesignedtoincreasemobilitybyachieving—andassessingagainst—anewlyagreed-uponsetofgraduateattributes,competencies,andexperientialrequirements,aswellasabetterunderstandingofstandardsonthepartofallmemberjurisdictions.

D. Reasons Behind Slow Progress

Dothesedevelopmentsimplythatengineers’owneffortstoachievethebarrier-reductiongoalhavefailed?Itisprobablytooearlytosay,butfuturesuccesswilldependonthebuildingofmutualconfidenceamongauthoritiesindifferentcountries.Itisworthreflectingthatthebodiesengagedinthesemultilat-eralrelationshipsareessentiallyallregulatory authorities,whosebroadobjectives,culture,andnaturalinstinctsarethoseof“gatekeepers.”Institutionsresponsibleformaintainingstandardsaregood—withintheirnationaljurisdictions—atsaying“no”tothingsthatdon’tmeetthosestandards.

Itisthereforeinevitablethatprogresstowardfullconfidenceinthetertiaryeducationandregistration/licensingpracticesofothercountries,andultimatelyfullmutualrecognition,willbeslow.Andtoomuchspeedcouldberisky:thedesiretocooperateconstructivelywithpartnersfromothercountriesandtheneedto(beseento)succeedindeliveringstructuresandsystemsmaycausesomeofthemorecomplexandsubtlechallengesofmutualequivalencetobebrushedover,sowingtheseedsoflaterproblems.

Oneexampleofthecomplexitythatcanariseistheuse,withineachmultilateralgroup,ofcertainbilateral mutualrecognition—ormutualexemption—agreements(MRAsandMEAs).Theseoccurbetweenpairsofauthorities37whohavebecomefamiliarwithothers’systemsthroughthemultilateralforums, andwho,asaresult,haverealizedthattheirtwosystemsareconsiderablymoresimilarthanmanyothers,andcanthereforejustifyamoresubstantiveagreement—i.e.onethatprovidesgreater exemptionsfromassess-mentrequirementsforthemigratingengineer. 38Inprinciple,if“bilaterals”steadilyincreasewithinamultilateralgrouping,thenultimatelyitcouldbearguedthatthereisnopointinhavingthemultilateralagreement.Butthefactthatbilateralagreementsdoarisereflectsarealityabouttheheterogeneityofnationalstandardswithinthemultilateralgroupthatshouldnotbeignored.

Themoreheterogeneoustheindividualnationalstandardswithinamultilateralgroup,thehigherthecommonbarmustbeset,andthegreatertheneededconfidencethatallotherpartieswillimplementanyagreed-uponstandardsinarobustfashion.Thisunderlinestheimportanceandvalueofthemutuallearn-ingprocessand,perhaps,theacceptancethatstructuresarelikelytobemoreeffectivewhenarisingfromanextended,andparticularlycareful,familiarizationprocess.

Evidenceofthenumbersofengineersandtechnicianswhohavemadeuseof(orbenefitedfrom)multilat-eralagreementssuggeststhatconsiderablymoreusehasbeenmadeofthetertiaryeducationagreementsthantheprofessionallicensingagreements.Intermsofthedirectoutcomesofthemultilateralagree-ments,whilemorethan6,000engineeringprogramshavebeenaccreditedundertheWashingtonAccord(themajorityintheUnitedStatesandtheUnitedKingdom),fewerthan5,000individuals are on the IEA’s International Professional Engineer (IntPE) register. FEANI’sEURINGregisterhasbeenmorepopular,withjustover30,000membersasofMay2011,butstillrepresentsasmallshareofEuropeanengineers(seeAppendix4).Unfortunately,whiletheseareencouragingachievements,theirimpactonovercomingmobilitybarriersislesssignificant.

37 Forexample,the(UK)InstitutionofCivilEngineersandEngineersAustralia.38 Itshouldberecognizedthatsomebilateralmutualrecognitionagreements(MRAs)ormutualexemptionagreements(MEAs)

(e.g.,betweenUKdisciplinaryengineeringprofessionalbodiesandthenationalauthoritiesinotherIEAcountries)wereinitiated beforethecorrespondingmultilateralagreements.

18



Overall,averyconsiderableamountofworkhasbeenundertaken,withinbothEuropeanandmultilat-eralgroups,includingtheUnitedStates,tofacilitatetherecognitionofengineeringcredentials.However,challengesremainthatlimitthepracticalvalueofsomeoftheagreements.Substantialequivalence39 as anapproximate—even,insomecases,a“rough-and-ready”—measurebringschallenges,andeffectiveimplementationoftheseagreementsinevitablyvariesacrosscountries.

Asindicated,thenumbersinvolvedinthevariousarrangementsdevelopedbytheengineeringprofessionarecomparativelysmall(seeAppendix4).However,withoutdataoninternationalflowsofengineerswhobenefitfromthesearrangements—andindeedgiventhelimitedavailabledataonsuchflowsofanykind—itisdifficulttoknowwhatfractionofthoseflowsareaffectedbythearrangements(intowhichconsid-erableefforthasbeeninvested).Overall,theconclusionisthatanysuchmutualactivitymust,overtime,leadtogreatermutualunderstandingand(ultimately)convergence,andmustthereforebeconsideredbeneficialevenifsignificantresultsarenotimmediate.

39 Inordertomakesuchagreementspossible,itisnecessarytousesubstantial—ratherthanexact—equivalence,whichresultsintrickyjudgementsaboutwhetherdifferencesbetweenperceived“levelsofdegrees”betweenanytwocountriesaresufficientlysmallornot.Ifsubstantialequivalenceisacceptedwherethedifferenceistoolarge,subsequentproblemscouldoccur.

Overall, a very considerable amount of work has been undertaken, to facilitate the

recognition of engineering credentials.

19



Box 1. Case Study: Prospects for Cooperation in the Mobility of Engineers between the European Union and the United States

The United States and the European Union face particular challenges to identifying possible strategies for reduc-ing barriers overall, since both the US federal government and the European Commission have no direct authority over the bodies who control either tertiary engineering education or professional licensing within the labor markets in their economies. This means that change could only come if the two entities were able, and prepared, to enforce reform on the authorities within the individual jurisdictions (i.e., Member States in the case of the European Union and state licensure boards within the United States).

It is worth noting that bilateral EU-US efforts along similar lines in 1999 and 2000, under the auspices of a Trans-atlantic Economic Partnership (TEP) and involving three professions (architects, accountants, and engineers), made limited progress because of these difficulties. The fact that most constraints exist within the engineering authorities of the different jurisdictions might suggest that public policy could, with enough political will, override such bodies and require them to better align their regulatory and accreditation requirements with those of other countries (as is the approach of the EU PDQ).

While that would, in principle, be an option, the authority of the European Commission to override national authori-ties is limited and the US federal government is generally careful about trying to intervene in policy areas that have traditionally been the preserve of state governments. Even at the level of individual European Member States such action is not always effective: a recent example of attempted recognition of other countries’ professional engineer-ing qualifications in a southern European country found the national engineering body able, constitutionally, to ignore instructions from the national government.

Currently, there is no formal (intergovernmental) bilateral arrangement concerning the movement of engineers or technicians between jurisdictions in any European country and any US state. Variations exist within both sets of juris-dictions in relation to both the nature and degree of regulation of professional engineering practice and the arrange-ments relating to tertiary education in engineering. As described, there are, however, multilateral agreements for both tertiary education and professional registration or licensing involving engineering (accreditation and regulatory) bodies from the United States and from two European countries (Ireland and the United Kingdom).

If progress is to be achieved at this very high bilateral jurisdictional level, then it will be necessary to distil, and build any strategy on, experience from the arrangements that have been tried thus far, in particular, in this case, that of the European PQD and the IEA agreements. Although progress could not be expected to be fast, the first step might well be to provide governmental support for existing efforts to improve mutual understanding, with the hope that this would, for example, lead to better alignment between the Washington Accord and ENAEE. Were the political will to be sufficient, official attention on implementation issues with professional licensing arrangements, in both the PQD (with respect to engineers) and the EMF and ETMF agreements could almost certainly make a difference. Such a focus would, in practice, probably need to be greatest on issues within jurisdictions where professional regulation is stron-ger or broader in scope.

Even greater impact could in principle be achieved by a more radical approach: working through national standards bodies (where there is a long tradition of international cooperation) to seek agreement on regulation standards for work in all safety-critical areas (some of which already exists, e.g., for pressure vessel welding). If such agreement could be achieved, the continuation of broader occupational regulation justified on safety grounds would then be dif-ficult to sustain.

However, any significant cooperative policy measures would involve substantial effort, given the great complexity and diversity of current institutional arrangements. In a context of unusually great pressure on public resources in most of the countries involved, such a commitment would probably require more evidence of the scale of the problem (and thus the potential economic benefits of barrier removal) than is currently available, as well as considerable confidence that policy interventions would have a good chance of producing real returns on the public investment involved. Neither point is particularly evident, but that is where the challenge lies for those tasked with implementing top-level agreements in this area.

20



VII. Conclusion: Assessing Barriers to Mobility

Theinitiativespresentedinthisreportconfirmtheconsiderablevarietyandcomplexityofprofessionalengineeringcareers,aswellasthechallengesinclarifyinganysimple,orevensingle,approachtoreducingbarrierstointernationalmovement.Experiencewiththedesign,implementation,andrevisionoftheEuro-peanPQD,inparticular,confirmsboth(1)thegreatdifficultyintacklingthosebarriersthatexist,and(2)thefactthatwaysandmeanstoachievedesiredmobilityhavebeenfoundinspiteofmostsuchbarriers.

Initiativestofacilitatethemobilityofindividualswithengineeringskillshavesomeinevitablelimita-tions.Asmentionedabove,qualificationsarenottakenasseriouslyintherecruitmentprocessasisoftenassumed.Thisistruewithinnationallabormarkets,andalmostcertainlyevenmoretrueininternationallabormarkets,sincetheemployerislikelytohaveevenlessunderstandingofhowaparticulartitleorqualificationrevealswhatacandidatecanactuallydo.Othereffortsoverrecentyearstoclarifyqualifica-tionequivalencebetweencountries—inparticularwithintheEuropeanUnioninrelationtotheemerg-ingEuropeanQualificationsFramework—raiserealquestionsaboutconfidencebothinlevelequivalenceandinthemeaningofsuchequivalenceanditsvaluetoemployers.40Indeed,otherpracticalfactorssuchaslanguageability,transferabilityofpensions,alackofprofessionalcontactsinothercountries,andrecruitingemployers’lackofknowledgeofapplicants’previousemployersmayultimatelyrepresentmoresignificanthurdlestointernationalmobilitythananybarrierstoprofessionalregistrationorofficialrecognitionofformalqualifications.

The Future: Virtual Mobility

Aswithmostotheraspectsofourlivesandwork,ITingeneralandtheInternetinparticulararebringingsignificantchangesinhowthingsaredoneandwhatcanbedone.Inparticular,thereisinevitablegrowthintheremoteprovisionofanalyticalandexpertservices.Whilethiswillnotquicklydispensewithactiv-itydirectlyassociatedwithworkonsite,aconsiderableamountofhigher-levelexpertisecanbe(andisalready)deliveredwithouttheneedforphysicalpresence.Thisraisesfundamentalquestionsaboutthedeliveryofengineeringservices,andlargelybypassesthejurisdictionalissuesthatdependonspatialdomains.Asthiskindofservicedeliverydevelops,itmaytestmanyofthebarriersconsideredinthisreport,andraiseanumberofseriousquestions.Mightsomevirtualservicedeliverybreachlocalregula-toryrequirements,orevenbreakthelawinthe“receivingcountry?”Ontheotherhand,mightitnot“callthebluff”oftheregulators—bypassingregulatoryconstraintsthatcannotreallybejustified?Whathap-penswhensomethinggoeswrong?Howwouldtransnationallegalframeworksattributeresponsibility?Ultimately,suchdevelopmentsmaybepoisedtohaveanenormousimpactonthedeploymentofskillsacrossjurisdictionsinthecomingdecades,callingintoquestionregulators’abilitytoimposeunnecessarybarriersand—perhaps—significantlyacceleratingeffortstoreducethem.

40 Matthew Dixon, “The European Qualifications Framework: Important European Enabler or Questionable Diversion forBureaucrats?”(SKOPEIssuesPaper23,CenteronSkills,KnowledgeandOrganizationalPerformance,UniversityofOxford,July2010),www.skope.ox.ac.uk/publications/eqf-important-european-enabler-or-questionable-diversion-bureaucrats.

Initiatives to facilitate the mobility of individuals with engineering skills have some inevitable limitations.

21



Works Cited

DepartmentforBusiness,InnovationandSkills(DBIS).2011.UKGovernmentResponsetoEuropeanCommissionPublicConsultationontheMutualRecognitionofProfessionalQualificationsDirective.DepartmentforBusiness,InnovationandSkills,March2011.www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/europe/docs/u/11-794-uk-government-response-mutual-recognition-professional-qualifications.

Dixon,Matthew.2010.TheEuropeanQualificationsFramework:ImportantEuropeanEnablerorQuestionableDiversionforBureaucrats?SKOPEIssuesPaper23,CenteronSkills,KnowledgeandOrganizationalPerformance,UniversityofOxford,July2010.www.skope.ox.ac.uk/publications/eqf-important-european-enabler-or-questionable-diversion-bureaucrats.

EuropeanCenterfortheDevelopmentofVocationalTraining(CEDEFOP).2008.Future Skill Needs in Europe: Medium-Term ForecastSynthesisreport.Luxembourg:CEDEFOP. www.cedefop.europa.eu/EN/Files/4078_en.pdf.

EuropeanCommission.2011.EvaluationoftheProfessionalQualificationsDirective.http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/qualifications/docs/news/20110706-evaluation-directive-200536ec_en.pdf.

EuropeanFederationofNationalEngineeringAssociations(FEANI).2005.SurveyontheRegulationoftheEngineeringProfessioninEurope.Special FEANI News,October10,2005.www.feani.org/site/index.php?eID=tx_nawsecuredl&u=0&file=fileadmin/PDF_Documents/FEANI_News/FEANI_NEWS_Special_October_2005_in_PDF_format.pdf&t=1362854735&hash=ba5919aedb73a4e49f447e158db528f56e290c56.

Keep,EwartandSusanJames.2010.RecruitmentandSelection—TheGreatNeglectedTopic.SKOPEResearchPaperNo.88,CenteronSkills,KnowledgeandOrganizationalPerformance,UniversitiesofOxfordandCardiff,February2012.www.skope.ox.ac.uk/publications/recruitment-and-selection-%E2%80%93-great-neglected-topic.

NationalScienceBoard(NSB).2012.Science and Engineering Indicators 2012.Arlington,VA:NationalScienceBoard(NSB)andNationalCenterforScienceandEngineeringStatistics(NCSES). www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/.

Rabben,Linda.2013.Credential Recognition in the United States for Foreign Professionals.Washington,DC:MigrationPolicyInstitute.www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/UScredentialrecognition.pdf.

(UK)EngineeringCouncil.2010.UnitedKingdomStandardforProfessionalEngineeringCompetence:EngineeringTechnician,IncorporatedEngineerandCharteredEngineerStandard. www.engc.org.uk/ecukdocuments/internet/document%20library/UK-SPEC.pdf.

UnitedNationsEducational,ScientificandCulturalOrganization(UNESCO).2010.Engineering:Issues,ChallengesandOpportunitiesforDevelopment.http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001897/189753e.pdf.

22



Appendices

Appendix 1. An Overview of Engineering Disciplines

Thislistisintendedtobeillustrative—togiveafeelforthebreadth of engineering activity—ratherthanexhaustiveordefinitive.Notethatdescriptionsanddefinitionsdifferfromcountrytocountry,oftenover-lappingandchangingovertime.41

Agricultural engineering

� Engineeringtheoryandapplicationsinagricultureinsuchfieldsasfarmmachinery,power,bio-energy,farmstructures,andnaturalresourcematerialsprocessing

Chemical engineering

� Analysis,synthesis,andconversionofrawmaterialsintousablecommodities

� Biochemicalengineering—biotechnologicalprocessesonanindustrialscale

Civil engineering

� Designandconstructionofphysicalstructuresandinfrastructure

� Coastalengineering—designandconstructionofcoastlinestructures

� Constructionengineering—design,creation,andmanagementofconstructedstructures

� Geo-engineering—proposedearthclimatecontroltoaddressglobalwarming.

� Geotechnicalengineering—behaviorofearthmaterialsandgeologicalphenomena

� Municipalandpublicworksengineering—forwatersupply,sanitation,wastemanagement,transportationandcommunicationsystems,andhydrology

� Oceanengineering—designandconstructionofoffshorestructures

� Structuralengineering—designofstructurestosupportorresistloads

� Earthquakeengineering—behaviorofstructuressubjecttoseismicloading

� Transportationengineering—efficientandsafetransportationofpeopleandgoods

� Trafficengineering—transportationandplanning

� Windengineering—analysisofwindanditseffectsonthebuiltenvironment

Computer and systems engineering

� Research,design,anddevelopmentofcomputer,computersystems,anddevices

41 UnitedNationsEducational,ScientificandCulturalOrganization(UNESCO),“Engineering:Issues,ChallengesandOpportunitiesforDevelopment,”2010,http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001897/189753e.pdf.

23



Electrical engineering and electronic engineering

� Research,design,anddevelopmentofelectricalsystemsandelectronicdevices

� Powersystemsengineering—bringingelectricitytopeopleandindustry

� Signalprocessing—statisticalanalysisandproductionofsignals(e.g.,formobilephones)

Environmental engineering

� Engineeringforenvironmentalprotectionandenhancement

� Waterengineering—planninganddevelopmentofwaterresourcesandhydrology

Fire protection engineering

� Protectingpeopleandenvironmentsfromfireandsmoke

Genetic engineering

� Engineeringatthebiomolecularlevelforgeneticmanipulation

Industrial engineering

� Analysis,design,development,andmaintenanceofindustrialsystemsandprocesses

Instrumentation engineering

� Designanddevelopmentofinstrumentsusedtomeasureandcontrolsystemsandprocesses

Integrated engineering

� Generalistengineeringfieldincludingcivil,mechanical,electrical,andchemicalengineering

Maintenance engineering and asset management

� Maintenanceofequipment,physicalassets,andinfrastructure

Manufacturing engineering

� Research,design,andplanningofmanufacturingsystemsandprocesses

� Componentengineering—assuringavailabilityofpartsinmanufacturingprocesses

Materials engineering

� Research,design,development,anduseofmaterialssuchasceramics,composites,andnanopar-ticles

� Ceramicengineering—theoryandprocessingofoxideandnon-oxideceramics

� Textileengineering—themanufacturingandprocessingoffabrics

Mechanical engineering

� Research,design,anddevelopmentofphysicalormechanicalsystemssuchasengines

� Automotiveengineering—designandconstructionofterrestrialvehicles

� Aerospaceengineering—designofaircraft,spacecraft,andairvehicles

� Biomechanicalengineering—designofsystemsanddevicessuchasartificiallimbs

24



Mechatronics

� Combinationofmechanical,electrical,andsoftwareengineeringforautomationsystems

Medical and biomedical engineering

� Increasinguseofengineeringandtechnologyinmedicineandthebiologicalsciencesinsuchareasasmonitoring,artificiallimbs,andmedicalrobotics

Military engineering

� Designanddevelopmentofweaponsanddefensesystems

Mining engineering

� Exploration,extraction,andprocessingofrawmaterialsfromtheearth

Naval engineering and architecture

� Research,design,construction,andrepairofmarinevessels

Nanotechnology and nanoengineering

� Newbranchofengineeringonthenanoscale

Nuclear engineering

� Research,design,anddevelopmentofnuclearprocessesandtechnology

Production engineering

� Researchanddesignofproductionsystemsandprocessesrelatedtomanufacturingengineering

Software engineering

� Research,design,anddevelopmentofcomputersoftwaresystemsandprogramming

Sustainable engineering

� Developingbranchofengineeringfocusingonsustainabilityandclimatechangemitigation

Test Engineering

� Engineeringvalidationandverificationofdesign,production,anduseofobjectsundertest

Transport Engineering

� Engineeringrelatingtoroads,railways,waterways,ports,harbors,airports,gastransmissionanddistribution,pipelines,andassociatedworks

Tribology

� Studyofinteractingsurfacesinrelativemotionincludingfriction,lubrication,andwear

25



Appendix 2. Employment Structure of the Professional Engineering Workforce, United Kingdom

Employment level estimates by broad sector and engineering occupation

Sectors Occupations (with SOC 2000 ref.) C

hem

ical

, Pha

rmac

eutic

al,

Nuc

lear

, Pet

role

um, P

olym

ers

and

Life

sci

ence

s

Con

stru

ctio

n an

d B

uild

ing

Serv

ices

Gas

, Pow

er, W

aste

Man

agem

ent

and

Wat

er In

dust

ries

Info

rmat

ion

Tech

nolo

gy a

nd

Tele

com

mun

icat

ions

Pass

enge

r Tra

nspo

rt

Gov

ernm

ent (

inc.

Def

ense

)

Food

and

Drin

k M

anuf

actu

ring

Proc

essi

ng a

nd M

anu-

fact

urin

g42

Engi

neer

ing

Man

ufac

turin

g

Med

ia a

nd C

reat

ive

Indu

strie

s43

Oth

er S

ecto

rs

Tota

l All

Sect

ors

Professional Engineers

2121 Civil Engineers 3,392 63,366 6,473 291 752 2,448 0 265 4,896 0 3,232 85,115

2122 Mechanical Engineers 4,148 15,114 2,833 115 5,330 4,477 1,037 1,849 39,853 0 5,592 80,348

2123 Electrical Engineers 1,780 14,561 4,735 8,630 4,570 479 726 692 13,751 0 4,925 54,849

2124 Electronics Engineers 0 5,113 135 5,135 674 1,047 0 0 13,312 1,843 5,044 32,303

2125 Chemical Engineers 5,878 1,601 1,075 129 0 0 0 0 1,366 0 823 10,872

2126 Design & Development Engineers 2,555 18,378 1,379 2,927 583 1,449 0 813 34,925 707 3,220 66,936

2127 Production & Process Engineers 5,994 3,466 1,443 376 0 845 2,625 1,110 14,627 129 2,840 33,455

2128 Planning & Quality Control Engineers 3,557 2,817 629 1,431 398 533 999 990 15,838 169 6,752 34,113

2129 Engineering Professionals n.e.c. 5,888 27,506 5,964 1,715 1,598 3,115 6,222 1,306 23,860 0 11,531 88,705

Total Professional Engineers 33,191 151,920 24,665 20,749 13,905 14,392 11,610 7,025 162,427 2,848 43,963 486,695

Technicians Working in Engineering

3112 Electrical & Electronics Technicians 1,055 4,464 2,216 1,843 806 2,827 128 0 11,144 914 5,562 30,959

3113 Engineering Technicians 4,076 5,796 2,135 1,829 3,724 7,442 1,041 270 28,785 286 14,973 70,357

3114 Building & Civil Engineering Technicians 379 17,857 961 386 256 542 0 133 1,291 432 2,771 25,008

3115 Quality Assurance Technicians 3,247 780 793 333 108 845 1,574 1,250 6,040 238 3,283 18,491

3119 Science & Engineering Technicians n.e.c. 4,118 3,090 3,108 624 811 4,104 2,710 344 11,562 132 13,323 43,926

Total Technicians Working in Engineering 12,876 31,986 9,212 5,014 5,704 15,760 5,453 1,997 58,822 2,001 39,916 188,741

Source: UK Labor Force Survey (Q4 2008); estimates below 6,000 not statistically reliable — these are shown for illustration only.42

43

42 Buildingproductsandrefractories;coatings;ceramics;extractiveandmineralprocessing;furniture,furnishings,andinteriors;glassandrelatedindustries;paper;printing;wood.

43 TV,film,radio,interactivemedia,animation,computergames,facilities,photoimaging,publishing,advertising,andfashionandtextiles.

26



Appendix 3. Signatories/Members of IEA Accords and Agreements (as of 2012, with date of joining)

Washington Accord Signatories

� Australia–RepresentedbyEngineerAustralia(1989)

� Canada–RepresentedbyEngineers Canada (1989)

� Chinese Taipei–RepresentedbyInstituteofEngineeringEducationTaiwan(2007)

� Hong Kong China–RepresentedbyTheHongKongInstitutionofEngineers(1995)

� Ireland–RepresentedbyEngineers Ireland (1989)

� Japan–RepresentedbyJapanAccreditationBoardforEngineeringEducation(2005)

� South Korea–RepresentedbyAccreditationBoardforEngineeringEducationofKorea(2007)

� Malaysia–RepresentedbyBoard of Engineers Malaysia (2009)

� New Zealand–RepresentedbyInstitutionofProfessionalEngineersNZ(1989)

� Russia–RepresentedbyAssociationforEngineeringEducationofRussia(2012)

� Singapore–RepresentedbyInstitutionofEngineersSingapore(2006)

� South Africa–RepresentedbyEngineeringCouncilofSouthAfrica(1999)

� Turkey–RepresentedbyMUDEK (2011)

� United Kingdom–RepresentedbyEngineeringCouncilUK(1989)

� United States–RepresentedbyAccreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (1989)

Organizations holding provisional statushavebeenidentifiedashavingqualificationaccreditationorrecognitionproceduresthatarepotentiallysuitableforthepurposesoftheaccord;thoseorganizationsarefurtherdevelopingthoseprocedureswiththegoalofachievingsignatorystatusinduecourse;quali-ficationsaccreditedorrecognizedbyorganizationsholdingprovisionalstatusarenotrecognizedbythesignatories.

� Bangladesh–RepresentedbyBoardofAccreditationforEngineeringandTechnicalEducation

� Germany–RepresentedbyGermanAccreditationAgencyforStudyProgramsinEngineeringandInformatics

� India–RepresentedbyNationalBoardofAccreditationofAllIndiaCouncilforTechnicalEduca-tion

� Pakistan–RepresentedbyPakistanEngineeringCouncil

� Sri Lanka–RepresentedbyInstitutionofEngineersSriLanka

27



Dublin Accord Signatories

� Australia–RepresentedbyEngineersAustralia(2001)

� Canada–RepresentedbyCanadianCouncilofTechniciansandTechnologists(2001)







Organizations holding provisional statushavebeenidentifiedashavingqualificationaccreditationorrecognitionproceduresthatarepotentiallysuitableforthepurposesoftheaccord;thoseorganizationsarefurtherdevelopingthoseprocedureswiththegoalofachievingsignatorystatusinduecourse;quali-ficationsaccreditedorrecognizedbyorganizationsholdingprovisionalstatusarenotrecognizedbythesignatories.

� Chinese Taipei–RepresentedbyInstituteofEngineeringEducationTaiwan

� Korea–RepresentedbyAccreditationBoardforEngineeringEducationofKorea

Sydney Accord Signatories

� Canada–RepresentedbyCanadianCouncilofTechniciansandTechnologists(2002)




Organizations holding provisional statushavebeenidentifiedashavingqualificationaccreditationorrecognitionproceduresthatarepotentiallysuitableforthepurposesoftheAccord;thoseorganizationsarefurtherdevelopingthoseprocedureswiththegoalofachievingsignatorystatusinduecourse;quali-ficationsaccreditedorrecognizedbyorganizationsholdingprovisionalstatusarenotrecognizedbythesignatories

� Australia–RepresentedbyEngineersAustralia(1997)

� Korea–RepresentedbyAccreditationBoardforEngineeringEducationofKorea



28



Engineers Mobility Forum Members � Australia–RepresentedbyEngineersAustralia(1997)

� Canada–RepresentedbyEngineers Canada (1997)

� Chinese Taipei–RepresentedbyChineseInstituteofEngineers(2009)


� India–RepresentedbyInstitutionofEngineersIndia(2009)


� Japan–RepresentedbyInstitutionofProfessionalEngineersJapan(1999)

� South Korea–RepresentedbyKorean Professional Engineers Association (2000)

� Malaysia–RepresentedbyInstitutionofEngineersMalaysia(1999)


� Singapore–RepresentedbyInstitutionofEngineersSingapore(2007)


� Sri Lanka–RepresentedbyInstitutionofEngineersSriLanka(2007)


� United States–RepresentedbyNationalCouncilofExaminersforEngineeringandSurveying(1997)

Provisional membershavebeenidentifiedashavingcompetenceassessmentsystemsdevelopingtowardequivalencetothoseoffullmembers;theydonotcurrentlyoperatenationalsectionsoftheinter-nationalprofessionalengineerregister.

� Bangladesh–RepresentedbyBangladeshProfessionalEngineers,RegistrationBoard

� Pakistan–RepresentedbyPakistanEngineeringCouncil

Engineering Technologists Mobility Forum Members � Canada–RepresentedbyCanadianCouncilofTechniciansandTechnologists(2001)






Provisional membershavebeenidentifiedashavingcompetenceassessmentsystemsdevelopingtowardsequivalencetothoseoffullmembers;theydonotcurrentlyoperatenationalsectionsoftheinter-nationalengineeringtechnologistregister.

� Australia–RepresentedbyEngineersAustralia

29



Appendix 4. Some Data on Scales of Activity Relating to FEANI and IEA Arrangements

COUNTRY WITH FEANI MEMBERSHIP

Number of European Engineers on the FEANI Register

(in nearly all cases as of May 2011)

AUSTRIA 349BELGIUM 313BULGARIA 36CROATIA 0CYPRUS 72CZECH REPUBLIC 101DENMARK 333ESTONIA 34FINLAND 658FRANCE 2,631GERMANY 2,666GREECE 277HUNGARY 649ICELAND 17IRELAND 1,286ITALY 0LUXEMBOURG 32MACEDONIA (FYROM) 0MALTA 184NETHERLANDS 633NORWAY 188POLAND 290PORTUGAL 52ROMANIA 163RUSSIA 3SERBIA 0SLOVAKIA 89SLOVENIA 105SPAIN 3,514SWEDEN 300SWITZERLAND 871UNITED KINGDOM 15,094TOTAL 30,940

Source: National member pages of FEANI website.

30



IEA Accord/AgreementWashington

AccordDublin Accord

Sydney Accord

EMF (Register)

APEC (Register)

ETMF (Register)

Units:# Accredited

Programs# Accredited

Programs# Accredited

Programs #IntPEs# APEC

Engineers # IntETs

Jurisdiction CountryABET USA 1,930 365

Engineers C. Canada 265 17 17

ECUK UK 2,311 215 6 185 29

Engineers A. Australia 248 21 318 318

IPENZ New Zealand 35 13 1,629 1,629 15

Engineers I. Ireland 69 75 48 77 0

HKIE HK, China 128 70 34 33 18

ECSA South Africa 51 96 1 18 7

IES Singapore 28 32

IEET Chinese Taipei 401

ABEEK Korea 526

JABEE Japan 389

CCTT Canada 202 42 0

IPEJ Japan 469 2,004

KPEA Korea 1,166 1,166

NCEES USA 368 368

IESL Sri Lanka 61

IEM Malaysia 307 307

PII Indonesia 36

CoET Thailand 244

PCT Phillipines 45

CIE China 41 92

AEER Russia 62

Total 6,381 1,057 97 4,690 6,353 69

Notes: As can be seen, representation from some countries is different for the Education-base Accords and the “professional licensing” Agreements. For example, in the United States, the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology handles tertiary education program accreditation, while “professional licensing” is handled at individual state levels by licensure boards: NCEES is the federal level grouping of the state boards. The two indicators – numbers of accredited engineering programs and numbers on the relevant international Register – form the basis for the Member Fee contributions. No formal records are yet kept on international flows of people supported by the Accords and Agreements: the numbers of Engineers/Technologists/Technicians who have benefitted from the existence of these arrangements.Source: International Engineering Alliance Secretariat, as of spring 2012.

31



About the Author

Matthew DixonisaSkillsPolicyResearcherandConsultantspecializinginthelabormarketsforengineeringandinformationtechnology(IT)skills.HehasservedinseniorpositionsbothintheUnitedKingdomandinternationally,span-ningthepublicpolicy,research,development,technologytransfer,training,andenterprise-supportareas.AfterearninganengineeringsciencedegreeatSouth-amptonandaPhDincontrolandsystemsengineeringatCambridge,Dr.Dixonspenteightyearsataninternationalpolicyresearchinstitute,finishingasScien-tificSecretary.OnreturningtotheUnitedKingdom,heworkedasBusinessDevel-opmentManagerfortheknowledgemanagementsystemsstreamoftechnologytransferbusinessattheNationalComputingCentre.HewasthenappointedChief

ExecutiveoftheNationalAssociationofITCentres,representingthenationalinterestsofover100ITtechni-ciantrainingcenters.

Dr.DixonlaterservedasInternationalConsultantattheEngineeringCouncil,andsupportedthenego-tiatingofinternationalmultilateralmutualrecognitionagreementsonbehalfofUKprofessionalengi-neersandtechnicians.HecontinuestoserveontheCouncil’sInternationalAdvisoryPanel.In1997hejoinedtheITNationalTrainingOrganisation,ofwhichhewasappointedDirectorofResearchandStrat-egyin2000.Onafreelancebasis,hehascarriedoutassignmentsonITandskillsmattersforarangeofpublic-sectorentities,professionalbodies,andcommercialorganizationsintheUnitedKingdom,attheEuropeanlevel,andbeyond.HecoauthoredaEuropean(CEN)pre-standardonanEU-levele-skillsmetaframework,andled—fortheCouncilofEuropeanProfessionalInformaticsSocieties—astudyfortheEuropeanCommissiontitlede-skills Foresight Scenarios for the ICT Industry in Europe.

Dr.DixonwasactivewithintheBritishComputerSociety(BCS)from1995,chairingitsTrainingandCareerDevelopmentCommitteeforsixyears,andservingonanumberofboardsandworkinggroups.HealsoservedontheInstituteofPhysicsProfessionalStandardsCommitteefrom2003to2011.Dr.Dixonrepre-sentedtheBCSontheHomeOfficeagencyInformationTechnologyCommunicationsandElectronicssectoradvisorypanel(advisingonmigrationpolicy)from2002,andhasmadesignificantcontributionstotwosectorpanels(ITCEandengineering)andtothesubsequentMigrationAdvisoryCommittee,inparticulararoundtheassessmentofseriousskillshortages.

MostrecentlyhehasworkedfortheUKSectorSkillsCouncilforScience,EngineeringandManufacturingTechnologies(Semta)andremainsaFellowattheCenteronSkills,KnowledgeandOrganizationalPerfor-mance(SKOPE)atOxford.

1400 16th Street NWSuite 300

Washington, DC 20036

Tel: 001 202-266-1940Fax: 001 202-266-1900

The Migration Policy Institute is a nonprof it , nonpartisan think tank dedicated to the study of the movement of people worldwide. MPI provides analysis, development, and evaluation of migration and refugee policies at the local, national, and international levels. It aims to meet the rising demand for pragmatic and thoughtful responses to the challenges and opportunities that large-scale migration, whether voluntary or forced, presents to communities and institutions in an increasingly integrated world.

www.migrationpolicy.org

https://www.facebook.com/MigrationPolicyInstitute

twitter.com/MigrationPolicy