IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Persistence in work-related training: evidence from the BHPS, 1991-1998


  • Sousounis, Panos
  • Bladen-Hovell, Robin


In this paper we investigate the role of workers’ training history in determining current training incidence. The analysis is conducted on an unbalanced sample comprising information on approximately 5000 employees from the first seven waves of the BHPS. Our methodology utilizes a two-step dynamic probit model developed by Orme (2001) which allows for unobserved heterogeneity and formal modelling of initial conditions. The results suggest that prior training experience is a significant determinant of a worker’s participation in a current training episode comparable with other formal educational qualifications. State dependence in the model accounts for 53% of the probability of training the current period, conditional on having experienced some form of work-related training in the previous period. For women, however, the corresponding figure is lower at approximately 38% suggesting substantially greater state dependence among male workers.

Suggested Citation

  • Sousounis, Panos & Bladen-Hovell, Robin, 2008. "Persistence in work-related training: evidence from the BHPS, 1991-1998," MPRA Paper 9424, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:9424

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Booth, Alison L, 1991. "Job-Related Formal Training: Who Receives It and What Is It Worth?," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 53(3), pages 281-294, August.
    2. Arulampalam, W., 1998. "A Note on Estimated Coefficients in Random Effects Probit Models," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 520, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    3. Dearden, Lorraine & Reed, Howard & Van Reenen, John, 2000. "Who Gains when Workers Train? Training and Corporate Productivity in a Panel of British Industries," CEPR Discussion Papers 2486, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    4. Richard Blundell & Lorraine Dearden & Costas Meghir & Barbara Sianesi, 1999. "Human capital investment: the returns from education and training to the individual, the firm and the economy," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 20(1), pages 1-23, March.
    5. Filipe Almeida-Santos & Karen Mumford, 2005. "Employee Training And Wage Compression In Britain," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 73(3), pages 321-342, June.
    6. Angel de la Fuente & Antonio Ciccone, 2003. "Human capital in a global and knowledge-based economy," Working Papers 70, Barcelona Graduate School of Economics.
    7. Francis Green & Stephen Machin & David Wilkinson, 1999. "Trade Unions and Training Practices in British Workplaces," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 52(2), pages 179-195, January.
    8. Chamberlain, Gary, 1984. "Panel data," Handbook of Econometrics,in: Z. Griliches† & M. D. Intriligator (ed.), Handbook of Econometrics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 22, pages 1247-1318 Elsevier.
    9. Black, Sandra E & Lynch, Lisa M, 1996. "Human-Capital Investments and Productivity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(2), pages 263-267, May.
    10. Arulampalam, Wiji & Booth, Alison L & Taylor, Mark P, 2000. "Unemployment Persistence," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 52(1), pages 24-50, January.
    11. Alfonso Miranda, 2007. "Dynamic probit models for panel data: A comparison of three methods of estimation," United Kingdom Stata Users' Group Meetings 2007 11, Stata Users Group.
    12. Booth, Alison L. & Bryan, Mark L., 2002. "Who Pays for General Training? New Evidence for British Men and Women," IZA Discussion Papers 486, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item


    Training; State dependence; Dynamic probit;

    JEL classification:

    • C23 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Models with Panel Data; Spatio-temporal Models
    • J24 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Human Capital; Skills; Occupational Choice; Labor Productivity

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:9424. 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: (Joachim Winter). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.