IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Economic Payoffs to Workplace Literacy




This paper focuses on one of the potential benefits to improving the Nation's literacy the economic payoffs. A more literate workforce provides economic benefits to the members of the workforce themselves, to employers, and to society. Workers who improve their basic skills through participation in workplace literacy programs should be more productive and hence earn higher wages and have greater job security. Employers with more productive workers will be more competitive in their industries and will be more profitable. Society gains by having a more productive and stable economy, by having more individuals employed with higher earnings and thus paying more in taxes, and by having fewer individuals unemployed who would otherwise be drawing transfer income from the government. The key nexus in the argument that workplace literacy engenders significant economic benefits is that a more literate worker will be more productive on the job. Were that not the case, the economic benefits to workplace literacy programs would all but evaporate. Whereas literacy advocates would easily accept the notion that more literate workers are more productive, the evidence is far from clear. In fact, the status quo provides a strong counterargument. The business sector is characterized by a very low incidence of workplace literacy programs despite the fact that there is a substantial need, as measured by the percentage of the workforce who are deficient to some extent in basic skills (see Hollenbeck 1993). It can be legitimately asked why, if workplace literacy programs are so beneficial economically, is there such a paucity of programs? Why haven't more employers increased their profits by adopting such programs? This paper presents findings that suggest that there are substantial productivity payoffs to workplace literacy programs. The answer to the question as to why there is such a low incidence of programs is that there must be market failures such as inaccessible capital, lack of information, or uncertainty about costs or payoffs that are dampening more widescale adoption of programs. In the next section of the paper, I review prior literature on the economic payoffs to workplace literacy programs and suggest a model for determining their payoffs. The third section describes the data that I use to analyze the issue, which come from two national surveys of individuals. The fourth, fifth, and sixth sections of the paper present my empirical findings. In the fourth section, I analyze participation in workplace literacy programs the characteristics of the individuals who participate. The fifth section presents tabular analyses of program characteristics as reported by the participants and in the sixth section, I analyze the economic benefits to workers from participation. The final section presents conclusions.

Suggested Citation

  • Kevin Hollenbeck, 1993. "The Economic Payoffs to Workplace Literacy," Upjohn Working Papers and Journal Articles 93-21, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
  • Handle: RePEc:upj:weupjo:93-21

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: This material is copyrighted. Permission is required to reproduce any or all parts.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Kiefer, Nicholas M, 1988. "Economic Duration Data and Hazard Functions," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 26(2), pages 646-679, June.
    2. Woodbury, Stephen A & Spiegelman, Robert G, 1987. "Bonuses to Workers and Employers to Reduce Unemployment: Randomized Trials in Illinois," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(4), pages 513-530, September.
    3. Rebecca M. Blank & David E. Card, 1991. "Recent Trends in Insured and Uninsured Unemployment: Is There an Explanation?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 106(4), pages 1157-1189.
    4. Kennedy, Peter, 1986. "Interpreting Dummy Variables," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(1), pages 174-175, February.
    5. Stephen A. Woodbury, 2009. "Unemployment," Book chapters authored by Upjohn Institute researchers,in: Kenneth G. Dau-Schmidt & Seth D. Harris & Orley Lobel (ed.), Labor and Employment Law and Economics, volume 2, pages 480-516 W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
      • Stephen A. Woodbury, 2009. "Unemployment," Chapters,in: Labor and Employment Law and Economics, chapter 17 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Walter Corson & Paul T. Decker & Shari Miller Dunstan & Anne R. Gordon, "undated". "The New Jersey Unemployment Insurance Reemployment Demonstration Project: Final Evaluation Report," Mathematica Policy Research Reports a1188b0b75ad4085ab98457be, Mathematica Policy Research.
    7. James Tobin, 1956. "Estimation of Relationships for Limited Dependent Variables," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 3R, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. Kevin Hollenbeck, 1996. "A Framework for Assessing the Economic Benefits and Costs of Workplace Literacy Training," Upjohn Working Papers and Journal Articles 96-42, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
    2. repec:mpr:mprres:1766 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Paul T. Decker & Jennifer King Rice & Mary T. Moore, 1997. "Education and the Economy: An Indicators Report," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 82b0174c4b194dabb3401d7b6, Mathematica Policy Research.

    More about this item


    workplace; literacy; programs; productivity; Hollenbeck;

    JEL classification:

    • I2 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education
    • J0 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - General


    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:upj:weupjo:93-21. 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: (). 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.