An Investment Model for the Supply of Training by Employers

Stevens, Margaret

doi:10.2307/2234631

Cited by 113 publications

(90 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In actual fact, training is not totally general or totally particular (Stevens, 1994). Job tenure will become greater if training is particularly connected to the company, than if it is general (in the classroom).…”

Section: Training As a Human Capitalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the employment probability: Men and women in comparative perspective in Attica and Central Macedonia

Rodokanakis¹

2013

JECOSS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Training As a Human Capitalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the employment probability: Men and women in comparative perspective in Attica and Central Macedonia

Rodokanakis¹

2013

JECOSS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…General training, however, is also valuable for other firms and will thus lead to an increase in employees' market wages, limiting the firm's possibilities of appropriating the benefits from training. Becker (1975) argument that firms only benefit from firm-specific training was later modified by various studies, such as Katz and Ziderman (1990), Stevens (1994), Booth and Chatterji (1995), Booth and Snower (1996), Acemoglu andPischke (1998), Lazear (2009). These studies focus on three related arguments.…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Secondly, some studies focus on labour market imperfections that give firms some market power in setting wages. Stevens (1994) argues that when training is transferable between firms with market power in setting wages, the potential benefits from training are not only for the firm providing the training and the employee who has been trained, but also for other firms that can poach the trained employees. In addition, since the poachers acquire some of the benefits from training, there is no way for the employee demanding the training or the firm supplying it to capture all the rewards from this training.…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flexible Contracts and Human Capital Investments

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As suggested by human capital theory, workers with flexible contracts participate less often in training than those with permanent contracts. We find that this is merely due to the fact that flexworkers receive less employer-funded training, a gap they can only partly compensate for by their own training investments. Flexworkers particularly participate less in firm-specific training that is meant to keep up with new skill demands than workers with permanent contracts. However, for those who participate in employer-funded firm-specific training, a temporary contract appears to facilitate the transition to a permanent contract with the same employer. However, this does not hold for participation in self-paid training. This training, which is usually general training, does not help in finding a better job.

show abstract

“…Employers who offer training may therefore have an advantage in recruiting over those who do not because better quality applicants self-select to apply for those jobs (Stevens 1994). …”

Section: Why Employers Support General Skillsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Do Employers Pay For College?

Cappelli

2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Employers routinely provide financial support for their employees who pursue post-secondary education despite the fact that it represents perhaps the classic example of a "general skill" that costs the employer money and raises the market wages of employees who possess it. The analysis below examines why employers provide such support, and the results suggest that employees do not pay for tuition assistance through below market or training wages, the typical arrangement for funding general skills training. Instead, tuition assistance appears to select better quality employees who stay on the job longer, at least in part to keep making use of that benefit. ABSTRACTEmployers routinely provide financial support for their employees who pursue postsecondary education despite the fact that it represents perhaps the classic example of a "general skill" that costs the employer money and raises the market wages of employees who possess it. The analysis below examines why employers provide such support, and the results suggest that employees do not pay for tuition assistance through below market or training wages, the typical arrangement for funding general skills training. Instead, tuition assistance appears to select better quality employees who stay on the job longer, at least in part to keep making use of that benefit.

show abstract

An Investment Model for the Supply of Training by Employers

Cited by 113 publications

References 6 publications

Evaluating the employment probability: Men and women in comparative perspective in Attica and Central Macedonia

Evaluating the employment probability: Men and women in comparative perspective in Attica and Central Macedonia

Flexible Contracts and Human Capital Investments

Why Do Employers Pay For College?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About