The return to firm investments in human capital

In this paper we estimate the rate of return to firm investments in human capital in the form of formal job training. We use a panel of large firms with detailed information on the duration of training, the direct costs of training, and several firm characteristics. Our estimates of the return to training are substantial (8.6%) for those providing training. Results suggest that formal job training is a good investment for these firms possibly yielding comparable returns to either investments in physical capital or investments in schooling

The return to firm investment in human capital

In this paper we estimate the rate of return to firm investments in human capital in the form of formal job training. We use a panel of large firms with unusually detailed information on the duration of training, the direct costs of training, and several firm characteristics such as their output, workforce characteristics and capital stock. Our estimates of the return to training vary substantially across firms. On average it is -7% for firms not providing training and 24% for those providing training. Formal job training is a good investment for many firms and the economy, possibly yielding higher returns than either investments in physical capital or investments in schooling. In spite of this, observed amounts of formal training are very small

The return to firm investment in human capital

In this paper we estimate the rate of return to firm investments in human capital in the form of formal job training. We use a panel of large firms withun usually detailed information on the duration of training, the direct costs of training, and several firm characteristics such as their output,workforce characteristics and capital stock. Our estimates of the return to training vary substantially across firms. On average it is - 7% for firms not providing training and 24% for those providing training. Formal job training is a good investment for many firms and the economy, possibly yielding higher returns than either investments in physical capitalor investments in schooling. In spite of this, observed amounts of formal training are very small.On-the-Job Training, Panel Data, Production Function, Rate of Return

The return to firm investments in human capital

In this paper the authors estimate the rate of return to firm investments in human capital in the form of formal job training. The authors use a panel of large firms with detailed information on the duration of training, the direct costs of training, and several firm characteristics. The authors estimate of the return to training are substantial (8.6 percent) for those providing training. Results suggest that formal job training is a good investment for these firms possibly yielding comparable returns to either investments in physical capital or investments in schooling. The paper proceeds as follows. Section two describes the data the authors use. In section three, the authors present basic framework for estimating the production function and the cost function. In section fourth the authors present empirical estimates of the costs and benefits of training and compute the marginal internal rate of return for investments in training. Finally, section fifth concludes.,LaborPolicies,Primary Education,Education For All,Access&Equity in Basic Education

Investment in General Training with Consensual Layoffs

We study non-contractible firms' investment in general training in a model of frictional unemployment. Since training is vested in workers, firms' return to training is zero when a match ends. Consensual layoff provisions or large severance payments oblige firms to bargain efficiently over the joint payoff from separation. This increases employers' incentives to train as they share workers' outside return to general human capital. The result generalizes to all types of general investment that are vested in the non-investing party on separation. We also show that, independently from underinvestment in training, the laissez-faire equilibrium is always inefficient for any given level of investment.Consensual layoffs, General training, Matching

Productivity, wages, and the returns to firm-provided training: fair shared capitalism?

In this study, we develop an alternative modelling that examines a) the determinants of firm productivity and wages and b) the internal rate of return (IRR) to firm training for both firms and workers. Using a six-year linked employer-employee dataset, our estimates indicate that an additional hour of training per worker results in an increase of 0.12% in productivity and 0.04% in wages, or an increase of 0.16% and 0.08%, respectively, if one uses firm training as a stock variable. We then find that 82% of the gains in productivity are captured by firms and 18% by workers. Given the training costs, we finally obtain an IRR of 13% for firms and 33% for workers at sample means. Firms are heterogeneous, and we do find that dispersion in the rates of return across firms is high.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Return to Training and Establishment Size: A Reexamination of the Size-Wage Puzzle

The paper reexamines the employer size-wage puzzle using NLSY79 data. The empirical results show that even for those who never receive any training from their employers, size-wage premium still exists and is quantitatively important. Wage increases associated with receiving on-the-job training are less in large establishments than in small ones. In addition, there is no evidence that starting wages in large establishments are lower than in small establishments. Theories that explain the size-wage puzzle using training and other endogenous productivity differences are not consistent with these new findings.size-wage premium, return to training, establishment size

The return to firm investment in human capital

In this paper the authors estimate the rate of return to firm investments in human capital in the form of formal job training. They use a panel of large firms with unusually detailed information on the duration of training, the direct costs of training, and several firm characteristics such as their output, workforce characteristics, and capital stock. Their estimates of the return to training vary substantially across firms. On average it is -7 percent for firms not providing training and 24 percent for those providing training. Formal job trainingis a good investment for many firms and the economy, possibly yielding higher returns than either investments in physical capital or investments in schooling. In spite of this, observed amounts of formal training are small.Primary Education,Education For All,Access&Equity in Basic Education,Tertiary Education,Economic Theory&Research

Cascading training down into the classroom: The need for parallel planning

Cascade models of in-service training are widely considered to be a cost effective means of introducing educational change to large numbers of teachers. Data from 511 teachers completing a cascade training programme that introduced current ideas about and procedures for teaching English to young learners, suggests that provision of training alone is no guarantee that cascade training aims will actually be applied in classrooms. The paper considers implications for cascade projects, suggesting that planning needs to be a parallel process if an adequate return on outlay, in the sense of teachers applying skills introduced in training in their classrooms, is to be achieved

Job Training: Costs, Returns, and Wage Profiles

Using information on time costs of training and gains in wages attributable to training I computed rates of return on training investments. The range of estimates based on several data sets generally exceeds the magnitudes of rates of return usually observed for schooling investments. It is not clear, however, that the difference represents underinvestment in job training. Two methods were used to estimate total annual costs of job training in the U.S. economy, for 1958, 1976, and 1987. The "direct' calculation uses information on time spent in training and on wages. For 1976 so calculated costs amounted to 11.2% of Total Employee Compensation and a half of costs of school education. In the "indirect" method training costs were estimated from wage functions fitted to PSID data. In 1976 the direct estimate amounted to between 65% and 80% of the indirect estimate based on the wage profile. This result represents strong support for the human capital interpretation of wage profiles. The estimates indicate a slower growth of training than of school expenditures in the past decades. Substitution of schooling for job training is a likely cause.