Abstract
PurposeThis study evaluates the economic effectiveness of higher education in Lithuania by measuring returns to investment in higher education for both individual university graduates and the state, particularly aiming to discover how higher education investments impact economic returns at both micro (individual) and macro (national) levels.Design/methodology/approachA dual methodological approach has been applied, utilizing both the Mincer earnings equation and the full discounting method, to draw a clear distinction between the returns enjoyed by individuals and those accrued to the country. Calculations for individual economic returns are done using the most recent available Lithuanian Department of Statistics data on the wage structure, while national return on education was based on the State Tax Inspectorate and Lithuanian Public Finance databases.FindingsThe research confirms that Lithuanian investments in education positively influence both individual earnings and society at large, mainly due to the low cost of education and the high returns. For individuals, net present value varies from €126,000 to €224,000, and the internal rate of return is from 7% to 46%, with the highest return being for males working in companies of 50–249 employees and holding a bachelor’s degree. It is also noteworthy that one additional year spent in education increases earnings on average by 4.1%. The financing of first cycle studies costs the state two times less than second and third cycle studies. For this reason, the net present value (NPV) and internal rate of return (IRR) of first cycle studies are higher than those of second and third cycle studies.Originality/valueWhile higher education is generally and globally seen as a way to ensure financial stability and career advancement at the individual level and socioeconomic development at the national one, the question of cost versus benefits at both levels is principal and diachronic. Our research quantifies the NPV and IRR of education investments and highlights the differential economic returns of various education levels, where policymakers can utilize these insights to inform strategic decisions regarding education funding and resource allocation. This study, therefore, provides explicit quantitative answers and presents individuals and policymakers with tangible results and practicable direction in their decision-making. The findings are applicable to the specific country-focus, but also constitute an applicable case study in the international context, particularly for European and other countries of comparable economic structure and developmental stage.
Reference50 articles.
1. Acemoglu, D. and Angrist, J. (2000), “How large are human-capital externalities? Evidence from compulsory schooling laws”. In Bernanke, B. and Rogoff, K. (Eds), NBER Macroeconomics Annual 2000, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, Vol. 15, pp. 9-59, 10.1086/654403.
2. Returns to investment in higher education: is there a difference between distance learning and traditional universities in the fields of physics, mathematics, social studies, computer science and economics?;Creative Education,2018
3. Health, education, and economic well-being in China: how do human capital and social interaction influence economic returns;Behavioral Sciences,2023
4. The effects of advanced degrees on the wage rates, hours, earnings and job satisfaction of women and men,2022
5. E-learning and economic well-being of graduates: applying the human capital earning function to distance education;International Journal of Business, Management and Economics,2022