IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Skill formation among vocational rehabilitation clients - public policy vs private incentives



In this paper we analyse individual vocational rehabilitation clients’ decisions to enter active training or not. Although the Government pays the direct costs of training, the composition of the total costs of training may be decisive for individual choices. Based on labour market theory, we relate background characteristics of the clients to monetary opportunity costs and non-monetary costs of training, arguing that training choices are a consequence of differences in costs of training. We use a ten percent sample of participants in educational programs, work related training and non-participants who entered the Norwegian vocational rehabilitation sector in the period from 1989 to 1993, a total of 6653 persons. We find that the background characteristics of persons investing in educational training differ along several dimensions compared both to persons attending work related training and to clients not participating in training at all.

Suggested Citation

  • Aakvik, Arild & Kjerstad, Egil, 2002. "Skill formation among vocational rehabilitation clients - public policy vs private incentives," Working paper Series 0201, Department of Economics, University of Bergen.
  • Handle: RePEc:uib:bereco:0201

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. McInerney, Melissa, 2010. "Privatizing public services and strategic behavior: The impact of incentives to reduce workers' compensation claim duration," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(9-10), pages 777-789, October.

    More about this item


    public policy; private incentives; costs of training; educational training; work related training; vocational rehabilitation;

    JEL classification:

    • C25 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions; Probabilities
    • H43 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Project Evaluation; Social Discount Rate
    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General

    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:uib:bereco:0201. 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: (Bjørn Sandvik). 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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.