Empirical evidence is insufficient to support or refute claims that increased competition in the training market in Australia will produce the benefits proponents claim or the severe drawbacks upon which opponents speculate. Research about strengthening demand suggests competitive processes would be feasible in most areas. Research is conclusive about the need for much better information for the effective operation of the training market, but is limited on the role of intermediaries. The literature on increasing the responsiveness of supply in the training market suggests a range of reforms aimed at promoting a more direct customer/training provider relationship, and greater devolution of responsibility and accountability for training decisions to the actual point of delivery is needed to improve market operation. Economists disagree about the degree to which governments, employers, or individuals should meet training costs. There is widespread agreement that training is a shared responsibility between employers and employees, but significant differences exist about the role of governments in investing in training. Research on the role of technical and further education (TAFE) in a competitive training market consistently points to the need to allow TAFE to compete on a level playing field with private training providers. The predominant theme in the literature regarding regulation is the need for greater simplicity, flexibility, and accountability at the interface between provider and client in administrative and regulatory reforms in the training market. (Contains 65 references.) (YLB)