Apprenticeship training: for investment or substitution?
Author:
Mohrenweiser Jens,Backes‐Gellner Uschi
Abstract
PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to derive an empirical method to identify different types of training strategies of companies based on publicly available company data.Design/methodology/approachUsing a ten‐year panel, the within‐firm retention rate, defined as the average proportion of apprentices staying in a company in relation to all apprenticeship graduates of a company over several years, was analyzed. The within‐firm retention rate is used to identify these companies' training strategies.FindingsIt was shown that companies' motivation for apprenticeship training in Germany is not homogeneous: 19 percent of all companies follow a substitution strategy and 44 percent follow an investment strategy. The determinants of the substitution strategy were estimated and, for example, sizeable differences were found between sectors with different skill requirements and between firms' coverage of industrial relations.Research limitations/implicationsThe method is well suited to classify substitution‐motivated training firms but it is less precise in identifying the investment motivation. Moreover, very small firms which train only one apprentice need longer panel duration for precise results and therefore the classification results are less precise for very small firms.Practical implicationsThe classification can be used to identify determinants of company participation in apprenticeship training and to predict changes in demand for apprentices.Originality/valueA simple and innovative method of identifying different types of training motivation with publicly available company data was derived, which has so far been possible only with very detailed company‐specific apprenticeship surveys.
Subject
Management of Technology and Innovation,Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management,Strategy and Management
Reference27 articles.
1. Acemoglu, D. and Pischke, J.‐S. (1998), “Why do firms train? Theory and evidence”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 113 No. 1, pp. 79‐119. 2. Acemoglu, D. and Pischke, J.‐S. (1999), “The structure of wages and investment in general training”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 107 No. 3, pp. 539‐72. 3. Beicht, U., Walden, G. and Herget, H. (2004), Kosten und Nutzen der betrieblichen Berufsausbildung in Deutschland, Bertelsmann, Bielefeld. 4. Büchel, F. and Neubäumer, R. (2001), “Ausbildungsinadäquate Beschäftigung als Folge branchenspezifischer Ausbildungsstrategien”, Mitteilungen aus der Arbeitsmarkt‐ und Berufsforschung, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 269‐85. 5. Dionisius, R., Muehlemann, S., Pfeifer, H.U., Walden, G., Wenzelmann, F. and Wolter, S.C. (2009), “Cost and benefit of apprenticeship training – a comparison of Germany and Switzerland”, Applied Economics Quarterly, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 7‐37.
Cited by
37 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|