Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Apprenticeship training: for investment or substitution?

Apprenticeship training: for investment or substitution? Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to derive an empirical method to identify different types of training strategies of companies based on publicly available company data. Design/methodology/approach – Using a ten‐year panel, the within‐firm retention rate, defined as the average proportion of apprentices staying in a company in relation to all apprenticeship graduates of a company over several years, was analyzed. The within‐firm retention rate is used to identify these companies' training strategies. Findings – It was shown that companies' motivation for apprenticeship training in Germany is not homogeneous: 19 percent of all companies follow a substitution strategy and 44 percent follow an investment strategy. The determinants of the substitution strategy were estimated and, for example, sizeable differences were found between sectors with different skill requirements and between firms' coverage of industrial relations. Research limitations/implications – The method is well suited to classify substitution‐motivated training firms but it is less precise in identifying the investment motivation. Moreover, very small firms which train only one apprentice need longer panel duration for precise results and therefore the classification results are less precise for very small firms. Practical implications – The classification can be used to identify determinants of company participation in apprenticeship training and to predict changes in demand for apprentices. Originality/value – A simple and innovative method of identifying different types of training motivation with publicly available company data was derived, which has so far been possible only with very detailed company‐specific apprenticeship surveys. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png International Journal of Manpower Emerald Publishing

Apprenticeship training: for investment or substitution?

Download PDF
18 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/apprenticeship-training-for-investment-or-substitution-xXPIZA2Dko
Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 Emerald Group Publishing Limited. All rights reserved.
ISSN
0143-7720
DOI
10.1108/01437721011066353
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to derive an empirical method to identify different types of training strategies of companies based on publicly available company data. Design/methodology/approach – Using a ten‐year panel, the within‐firm retention rate, defined as the average proportion of apprentices staying in a company in relation to all apprenticeship graduates of a company over several years, was analyzed. The within‐firm retention rate is used to identify these companies' training strategies. Findings – It was shown that companies' motivation for apprenticeship training in Germany is not homogeneous: 19 percent of all companies follow a substitution strategy and 44 percent follow an investment strategy. The determinants of the substitution strategy were estimated and, for example, sizeable differences were found between sectors with different skill requirements and between firms' coverage of industrial relations. Research limitations/implications – The method is well suited to classify substitution‐motivated training firms but it is less precise in identifying the investment motivation. Moreover, very small firms which train only one apprentice need longer panel duration for precise results and therefore the classification results are less precise for very small firms. Practical implications – The classification can be used to identify determinants of company participation in apprenticeship training and to predict changes in demand for apprentices. Originality/value – A simple and innovative method of identifying different types of training motivation with publicly available company data was derived, which has so far been possible only with very detailed company‐specific apprenticeship surveys.

Journal

International Journal of Manpower – Emerald Publishing

Published: Aug 17, 2010

Keywords: Apprenticeships; Training; Human capital

References

  • Why do firms train? Theory and evidence
    Acemoglu, D.; Pischke, J.‐S.
  • The structure of wages and investment in general training
    Acemoglu, D.; Pischke, J.‐S.
  • Kosten und Nutzen der betrieblichen Berufsausbildung in Deutschland
    Beicht, U.; Walden, G.; Herget, H.
  • Ausbildungsinadäquate Beschäftigung als Folge branchenspezifischer Ausbildungsstrategien
    Büchel, F.; Neubäumer, R.
  • Cost and benefit of apprenticeship training – a comparison of Germany and Switzerland
    Dionisius, R.; Muehlemann, S.; Pfeifer, H.U.; Walden, G.; Wenzelmann, F.; Wolter, S.C.
  • Training and union wages
    Dustmann, C.; Schönberg, U.
  • Training intensity and first labor market outcomes of apprenticeship graduates
    Euwals, R.; Winkelmann, R.
  • The German apprenticeship system
    Franz, W.; Soskice, D.
  • The transition from apprenticeship training to work
    Franz, W.; Zimmermann, V.
  • Occupational specificity and mobility: an empirical study based on Lazear's skill‐weights approach
    Geel, R.; Mure, J.; Backes‐Gellner, U.
  • Is the German apprenticeship system a panacea for the US labor market?
    Harhoff, D.; Kane, T.J.
  • Works councils and collective bargaining in Germany: the impact on productivity and wages
    Hübler, O.; Jirjahn, U.