The experience of developed countries – particularly member‐states of the OECD – has shown that employers are actively investing in developing the human capital of their employees. According to research conducted by the World Bank, more than half of the companies in developed countries provide their employees with training in one form or another. There is, however, reason to believe that the situation is quite different in Russia. Some studies have shown that the level of investment in training in Russia is much lower. This difference can be explained by the fact that employers do not see the point in such investment because it is much easier to lure employees with the required qualifications than to train their own staff. Moreover, Russia faces a problem with high employee mobility, meaning that companies are not sure that they will get a return on their investment. Given these circumstances, the present study examines whether investments in human capital in Russia are profitable. It investigates the wage return to job‐related training using a difference‐in‐differences estimator to control for unmeasured differences in ability and measured differences in past wages as a proxy for ability and motivation. Estimates use panel data from The Russia Longitudinal Monitoring Survey – Higher School of Economics from 2004 to 2011. As predicted, positive returns to training are identified and the returns increase absolutely with the level of past wages.

PurposeThe paradigm of school-to-work transition is changing, with an increasing number of students combining work and study. Furthermore, there exists some mixed evidence for the impact of student employment on future earnings and employment likelihood. The purpose of the present paper is to examine additional evidence that would shed light on the pros and cons of student work as a function of its type (i.e. whether or not it matches the student's field of study). We also discuss practical implications for specialists who facilitate the transition of graduates to the job market.Design/methodology/approachThis is a quantitative study based on the National Statistical Survey of Graduate Employment (SGE) conducted by the Russian Federal State Statistic Service (Rosstat) in 2016. Statistical methods of data analysis were used (logistic regression, Mincer equations). The analysis is based on two dependent variables as follows: data on graduates' employment and their monthly earnings.FindingsWe show that student work is a predictor of higher employment chances for both university and vocational college graduates. Moreover, the highest employment chances are associated with student work that is well-matched to the field of study. As for earnings, the greatest returns are again associated with work related to education. Jobs unrelated to education significantly correlate with earnings only for university graduates.Research limitations/implicationsAn important limitation of the present research is that it estimates the effects of student employment over a rather short-term period by using data on employment just after graduation and only starting salaries. These findings evoke the need for further study of graduate competencies and the process of their acquisition.Practical implicationsOur findings suggest some directions for education development. The results can be used to analyze governmental and other stakeholders' initiatives in the field of vocational and higher education.Social implicationsThe research results can be used by a wide range of stakeholders interested in the employment of graduates as a source of data for designing measures for improving graduates' employability.Originality/valueOur study obtained data on the impact of student work on later employment. Tertiary graduates get returns from all work experience, while VET graduates earn more only if their student employment was consistent with their field of study.

Purpose This paper aims to determine the influence of various enterprise characteristics on on-the-job training. The paper focuses mainly on identifying the influence of a firm’s innovative activity, technological capacity for manufacturing and product market competition on its likelihood of having a training program and on training intensity. Design/methodology/approach The authors administered a firm-level survey to a sample of 2,000 Russian enterprises. This survey includes questions about on-the-job training and key information about the companies’ activities. Probit and ordered probit estimates are used in the statistical analyses. Findings The results indicate that an enterprise’s provision of training is determined largely by firm-specific factors, such as its innovative activity, technical and technological state of manufacturing and product market competition. The authors adopt two widely used measures of training: incidence and intensity. Innovative activity and the technical and technological state of manufacturing are decisive factors in explaining a firm’s provision of training, as they have a strictly positive effect on both the incidence and the intensity of training. Product market competition has a positive effect on the incidence of training and a negative effect on the intensity of training. Originality/value This paper is original because it assumes that the process of deciding whether to implement a training program at an enterprise and the corresponding proportion of employees involved in training is built on the presupposition that the training intensity decision is made in two stages. This paper is the first to present estimates of on-the-job training intensity based on data from Russian enterprises.

No abstract

В информационном бюллетене анализируются основные стратегии поступления в вуз студентов бакалавриата, специалитета и магистратуры. Представлены портреты студентов первой ступени высшего образования и магистрантов. Исследованы барьеры на пути к получению высшего образования и причины их возникновения.