Correlates of Training: An Analysis Using Both Employer and Employee Characteristics

Abstract

Although a number of surveys now measure employee training, serious gaps remain in our knowledge of such fundamental matters as how much training takes place, who provides it, and who gets it. The authors explore these questions using the 1995 Survey of Employer-Provided Training, which, because it collected data from employers as well as employees, enables a more complete analysis of the correlates of training than has been possible before. While there are some differences across the measures of training incidence and intensity, the authors find that establishments that provided generous benefits to their employees and used innovative workplace practices also provided more training.

Firm Size and Work-Related Training: New Evidence on Incidence, Intensity, and Training Type from Australia

“…Similarly, Frazis et al (2000) report positive size-training effects. Using a combined individual-establishment level data set, which focused on firms with 50 or more workers operating in the U.S. during 1995, their findings show that 70% of firms offered their workers some kind of structured training.…”

“…1 One source of the deficiency is that research focusing specifically on the size-training effect generally has been conducted using data from firm-or establishment-level surveys, which generally exclude smaller firms altogether from their sampling frames. Lynch and Black (1998) for example, explored the size-training issue with data that limited its sample to firms with 20 or more employees, which is typical of such research (also see Frazis et al 2000 andOsterman 1995). To the extent that training behavior differs in very small firms compared to their larger counterparts, research using this kind of data will fail to fully capture the economy's training experience, and thus will not observe a potentially significant source of a training deficit that may exist.…”

On-the-job training and rigidity of employment protection in the developing world: Evidence from differential enforcement

“…On the one hand, it relates to the work linking firm characteristics with the incidence of job training. In the context of developed countries, the empirical findings suggest that larger, capital-intensive and more productive firms tend to train more (e.g., Black andLynch, 2001 andFrazis et al, 2000). The incidence of job training also tends to be higher for a more skilled workforce (e.g., Bassanini et al, 2005).…”

“…Even though these coefficients are not the main focus of this paper three facts are worth highlighting. First, larger and younger firms are more likely to offer training (e.g., Frazis et al, 2000). One explanation for this is that there are economies of scale in training provision that only larger firms can exploit.…”

The Impact of Product Market Competition on Employers’ Training Investments. Evidence from German Establishment Panel Data

“…Empirical studies confirm a strong and positive association between firms' investment activity and employer-provided training (Kuckulenz and Meyer 2006). Characteristics of the workforce such as the skill level of the workforce and the fraction of part-time workers were found to be correlated with company training (Lynch and Black 1998;Frazis et al 2000). Therefore, we introduce the fraction of skilled white collar workers (employees with apprenticeship or university degree), the fraction of skilled blue collar workers (workers with apprenticeship degree) and the fraction of part-time employees.…”