Specificity of occupational training and occupational mobility: an empirical study based on Lazear’s skill-weights approach
According to standard human capital theory, firm-financed training cannot be explained if the skills obtained are general in nature. Nevertheless, in German-speaking countries, firms invest heavily in apprenticeship training although the skills are assumed to be general. In our paper, we study the extent to which apprenticeship training is general at all and how specificity of training may be defined based on Lazear’s skill-weights approach. We build occupation-specific skill-weights and find that the more specific the skill portfolio in an occupation, the higher the net costs firms have to bear for these apprenticeship training occupations and, at the same time, the smaller the probability of an occupational change during an employee’s entire career. Due to the new definition of occupational specificity, we thus find that apprenticeship training -- previously assessed as general training -- is very heterogeneous in its specificity.
Volume (Year): 19 (2011)
Issue (Month): 5 (January)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/CEDE20|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/CEDE20|
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Thomas J. Kane & Dietmar Harhoff, 1997.
"Is the German apprenticeship system a panacea for the U.S. labor market?,"
Journal of Population Economics,
Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 171-196.
- Harhoff, Dietmar & Kane, Thomas J., 1995. "Is the German apprenticeship system a panacea for the US labour market?," ZEW Discussion Papers 95-19, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
- Harhoff, Dietmar & Kane, Thomas J, 1996. "Is the German Apprenticeship System a Panacea for the US Labour Market?," CEPR Discussion Papers 1311, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Edward P. Lazear, 2003. "Firm-Specific Human Capital: A Skill-Weights Approach," NBER Working Papers 9679, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Euwals, Rob & Winkelmann, Rainer, 2001.
"Why Do Firms Train? Empirical Evidence on the First Labour Market Outcomes of Graduated Apprentices,"
IZA Discussion Papers
319, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
- Euwals, Rob & Winkelmann, Rainer, 2001. "Why do Firms Train? Empirical Evidence on the First Labour Market Outcomes of Graduate Apprentices," CEPR Discussion Papers 2880, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Daron Acemoglu & Jorn-Steffen Pischke, 1996.
"Why Do Firms Train? Theory and Evidence,"
NBER Working Papers
5605, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Acemoglu, Daron & Pischke, Jörn-Steffen, 1996. "Why do Firms Train? Theory and Evidence," CEPR Discussion Papers 1460, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Acemoglu, D. & Pischki, J.S., 1996. "Why Do Firms Train? Theory and Evidence," Working papers 96-7, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics.
- Katz, Eliakim & Ziderman, Adrian, 1990. "Investment in General Training: The Role of Information and Labour Mobility," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 100(403), pages 1147-58, December.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:edecon:v:19:y:2011:i:5:p:519-535. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Michael McNulty)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.