The returns to training in Russia: a difference‐in‐differences analysis

Abstract

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.

Training programs’ return on investment in the Portuguese railway company: a fuzzy‐set Qualitative Comparative Analysis

“…Compared to previous studies (Chochard & Davoine, 2011;Fregonese et al, 2018;Grohmann & Kauffeld, 2013;Guerci et al, 2010;Percival et al, 2013;Travkin & Sharunina, 2016), our study simultaneously considers four factors that influence ROI: the program's topic, its number of participants, its duration and its cost. Further, we apply an fsQCA to better address the complex causation for ROI.…”

“…There are many ways to isolate the effects of training: performance monitoring (Brahmana et al, 2018;Mehra et al, 2014;Percival et al, 2013;Phillips, 1996;Travkin & Sharunina, 2016), surveys (Asadullah et al, 2015;Chochard & Davoine, 2017;Dmitry & Manokhina, 2017;Fregonese et al, 2018;Grohmann & Kauffeld, 2013;Guerci & Vinante, 2011;Phillips, 1996), management estimation (Phillips, 1996) and information directly from the program participants (Subramanian et al, 2012).…”

“…As managers and academics have to focus on a limited number of evaluation aspects (Grossman & Salas, 2011), firms should focus on critical programs, such as the monitoring of costs that are recognizable, available and easy to calculate. The literature offers plenty of characteristics of individuals that influence ROI, such as the employee's age (Grohmann & Kauffeld, 2013;Travkin & Sharunina, 2016), gender (Travkin & Sharunina, 2016), tenure (Grohmann & Kauffeld, 2013;Travkin & Sharunina, 2016) and hierarchical level in the firm (Chochard & Davoine, 2011;Dmitry & Manokhina, 2017;Pasek & Stephens, 2010). There are also organizational factors that influence ROI: the type of firm (Asadullah et al, 2015;Chochard & Davoine, 2011) or its size (Asadullah et al, 2015;Mehra et al, 2014;Travkin & Sharunina, 2016).…”

Time distributed difference-in-differences estimates of return to training

“…9. See, for example, well known Ashenfelters "dip" (Heckman, Lalonde, & Smith, 1999), and different abilities effect by Travkin (2014).…”

Wpływ kształcenia pozaformalnego na płace osób z wykształceniem wyższym

“…Obciążenie estymatora premii płacowej ze szkolenia jest więc eliminowane, o ile zdolności i motywacja nie zmieniają się w czasie oraz stopa wzrostu płac, warunkowo względem cech obserwowalnych, nie jest zależna od zdolności i motywacji. Wyniki badań wykorzystujących tę metodę wskazują na ogół na niższą premię ze szkolenia niż w przypadku użycia MNK (Barron, Black i Loewenstein, 1989;Barron i in., 1999;Bartel, 1995;Brown, 1989;Blundell i in., 1996;Lengermann, 1999;Loewenstein i Spletzer 1996;1999b;Parent, 1999;Travkin i Sharunina, 2016) lub na całkowity jej brak (Albert i in., 2010;Berger, Earle i Sabirianova, 2001;Booth, 1993;Loewenstein i Spletzer 1999a;Lynch, 1992;Pischke 2001). Sugeruje to, że obciążenie wynikające z endogeniczności udziału w szkoleniu jest przynajmniej w pewnym stopniu redukowane.…”