IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Job Duration and Bayesian Learning: Evidence from Germany


  • Yannis Georgellis


In a job matching context, Bayesian learning is assumed in order to provide an optimising framework for the analysis of workers' labour turnover decisions. This framework allows workers' labour turnover behaviour to be affected not only by the wage rate but also by a vector of non-wage job attributes and self-reported satisfaction variables. Assuming that workers' behaviour sufficiently conforms with the normative guidelines suggested by such a Bayesian learning model, the importance of the wage rate relative to the importance of satisfaction and non-wage variables in determining job duration in Germany is examined using econometric survival analysis. To capture the dynamic nature of workers' labour turnover behaviour, survival analysis with "time-varying" covariates is used. The empirical results, based on information from the German Socio-Economic Panel data set, confirm the importance of non-wage attributes and satisfaction variables in determining job duration and they are broadly consistent with the non-monotonic hazard function for job separations suggested by the above theoretical framework.

Suggested Citation

  • Yannis Georgellis, 1996. "Job Duration and Bayesian Learning: Evidence from Germany," Studies in Economics 9604, School of Economics, University of Kent.
  • Handle: RePEc:ukc:ukcedp:9604

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Joseph Zeira, 1998. "Workers, Machines, and Economic Growth," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 113(4), pages 1091-1117.
    2. Greenwood, Jeremy & Hercowitz, Zvi & Krusell, Per, 2000. "The role of investment-specific technological change in the business cycle," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 91-115, January.
    3. Hansen, Gary D., 1985. "Indivisible labor and the business cycle," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 309-327, November.
    4. Cristiano Cantore & Miguel León-Ledesma & Peter McAdam & Alpo Willman, 2014. "Shocking Stuff: Technology, Hours, And Factor Substitution," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 12(1), pages 108-128, February.
    5. Chirinko, Robert S., 2002. "Corporate Taxation, Capital Formation,and the Substitution Elasticity Between Labor and Capital," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 55(2), pages 339-355, June.
    6. Miguel A León-Ledesma & Peter McAdam & Alpo Willman, 2012. "Non-Balanced Growth and Production Technology Estimation," Studies in Economics 1204, School of Economics, University of Kent.
    7. Miguel A. León-Ledesma & Peter McAdam & Alpo Willman, 2010. "Identifying the Elasticity of Substitution with Biased Technical Change," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1330-1357, September.
    8. Ricardo Lagos, 2006. "A Model of TFP," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 73(4), pages 983-1007.
    9. Brent Neiman, 2014. "The Global Decline of the Labor Share," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 129(1), pages 61-103.
    10. Jonas D. M. Fisher, 2006. "The Dynamic Effects of Neutral and Investment-Specific Technology Shocks," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 114(3), pages 413-451, June.
    11. Thomas Piketty & Emmanuel Saez, 2003. "Income Inequality in the United States, 1913–1998," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 118(1), pages 1-41.
    12. Daron Acemoglu & Fabrizio Zilibotti, 2001. "Productivity Differences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 116(2), pages 563-606.
    13. Klump, Rainer & Saam, Marianne, 2008. "Calibration of normalised CES production functions in dynamic models," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 99(2), pages 256-259, May.
    14. Robert J. Barro & Xavier Sala-i-Martin, 2003. "Economic Growth, 2nd Edition," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 2, volume 1, number 0262025531, July.
    15. Douglas Gollin, 2002. "Getting Income Shares Right," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 110(2), pages 458-474, April.
    16. Raj Chetty, 2012. "Bounds on Elasticities With Optimization Frictions: A Synthesis of Micro and Macro Evidence on Labor Supply," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 80(3), pages 969-1018, May.
    17. Benjamin Bridgman, 2014. "Is Labor's Loss Capital's Gain? Gross versus Net Labor Shares," BEA Working Papers 0114, Bureau of Economic Analysis.
    18. Charles I. Jones & Dean Scrimgeour, 2008. "A New Proof of Uzawa's Steady-State Growth Theorem," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 90(1), pages 180-182, February.
    19. Daron Acemoglu, 2007. "Equilibrium Bias of Technology," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 75(5), pages 1371-1409, September.
    20. Growiec, Jakub, 2013. "A microfoundation for normalized CES production functions with factor-augmenting technical change," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 37(11), pages 2336-2350.
    21. Rainer Klump & Peter McAdam & Alpo Willman, 2007. "Factor Substitution and Factor-Augmenting Technical Progress in the United States: A Normalized Supply-Side System Approach," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 89(1), pages 183-192, February.
    22. Chirinko, Robert S., 2008. "[sigma]: The long and short of it," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 671-686, June.
    23. Daron Acemoglu, 2002. "Directed Technical Change," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 69(4), pages 781-809.
    24. Daron Acemoglu, 2003. "Labor- And Capital-Augmenting Technical Change," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 1(1), pages 1-37, March.
    25. Paul Beaudry, 2005. "Innis Lecture: Explorations in medium-run macroeconomics," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 38(4), pages 1136-1159, November.
    26. Olivier de La Grandville & Rainer Klump, 2000. "Economic Growth and the Elasticity of Substitution: Two Theorems and Some Suggestions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(1), pages 282-291, March.
    27. Miguel A. Leon-Ledesma & Mathan Satchi, 2011. "The Choice of CES Production Techniques and Balanced Growth," Studies in Economics 1113, School of Economics, University of Kent.
    28. William B. Peterman, 2016. "Reconciling Micro And Macro Estimates Of The Frisch Labor Supply Elasticity," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 54(1), pages 100-120, January.
    29. Francesco Caselli & Wilbur John Coleman II, 2006. "The World Technology Frontier," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(3), pages 499-522, June.
    30. Charles I. Jones, 2005. "The Shape of Production Functions and the Direction of Technical Change," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 120(2), pages 517-549.
    31. Jakub Growiec, 2008. "A new class of production functions and an argument against purely labor-augmenting technical change," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 4(4), pages 483-502.
    32. Odran Bonnet & Pierre-Henri Bono & Guillaume Chapelle & Etienne Wasmer, 2014. "Does housing capital contribute to inequality? A comment on Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century," Sciences Po Economics Discussion Papers 2014-07, Sciences Po Departement of Economics.
    33. Paul Gomme & Peter Rupert, 2004. "Measuring labor’s share of income," Policy Discussion Papers, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, issue Nov.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item


    Bayesian Learning; Employment Duration; Survival Analysis;

    JEL classification:

    • J6 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Mobility, Unemployment, Vacancies, and Immigrant Workers
    • C41 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - Duration Analysis; Optimal Timing Strategies


    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:ukc:ukcedp:9604. 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: (Tracey Girling). 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.