A double hurdle approach for company further training behaviour and an empirical test of this using data from the IAB establishment panel

"In this paper the further training behaviour of firms is explained using a double hurdle approach: the first hurdle is that the further training of employees is worthwhile for the firms in general, the second hurdle is that demand for further training arises. The empirical test is conducted using data from the IAB establishment panel: by combining the balanced panel for three waves into a cross-section it is possible to determine the effect of extending the observation period for the provision of further training (probit estimates) and the intensity of further training (quasi-likelihood estimates). The results confirm the double hurdle approach: variables for capital intensity, innovation orientation and the employee structure have a significant impact on whether further training is generally worthwhile for the firms, and investment in data processing and in the field of communication as well as organisational changes are significant motivations for providing further training." (Author's abstract, IAB-Doku) ((en)) Additional Information Kurzfassung (deutsch) Executive summary (English)

[1]  Lutz Bellmann,et al.  Das IAB-Betriebspanel: Konzeption und Anwendungsbereiche , 2002 .

[2]  Wolfgang Streeck,et al.  Works Councils: Consultation, Representation, and Cooperation in Industrial Relations , 1997 .

[3]  Lutz Bellmann,et al.  Das IAB-Betriebspanel - Ansatz und Analysepotenziale , 2002 .

[4]  D. Acemoglu,et al.  Beyond Becker: Training in Imperfect Labor Markets , 1998 .

[5]  J. G. Cragg.  Some Statistical Models for Limited Dependent Variables with Application to the Demand for Durable Goods , 1971 .

[6]  Dorothea Alewell.  Warum finanzieren Arbeitgeber transferierbare Weiterbildung? , 1998 .

[7]  P. Pawlowsky.  Betriebliche Qualifikationsstrategien und organisationales Lernen , 1992 .

[8]  Jeffrey M. Wooldridge,et al.  Solutions Manual and Supplementary Materials for Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data , 2003 .

[9]  B. Frick.  Mitbestimmung und Personalfluktuation: zur Wirtschaftlichkeit der bundesdeutschen Betriebsverfassung im internationalen Vergleich , 1997 .

[10]  J. Tobin.  Estimation of Relationships for Limited Dependent Variables , 1958 .

[11]  G. Ronning.  Share equations in econometrics: A story of repression, trustration and dead ends , 1992 .

[12]  Jeffrey M. Woodbridge.  Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data , 2002 .

[13]  R. Blundell.  Unemployment and the labour supply of married women , 1990 .

[14]  B. Baltagi,et al.  Econometric Analysis of Panel Data , 2020, Springer Texts in Business and Economics.

[15]  D. Acemoglu,et al.  The Structure of Wages and Investment in General Training , 1998, Journal of Political Economy.

[16]  Diane Lambert,et al.  Zero-inflacted Poisson regression, with an application to defects in manufacturing , 1992 .

[17]  James L. Medoff,et al.  The Two Faces of Unionism , 1979 .

[18]  Leslie E. Papke,et al.  Econometric Methods for Fractional Response Variables with an Application to 401(K) Plan Participation Rates , 1993 .

[19]  L. Bellmann,et al.  Betriebliche Weiterbildungsaktivitäten in West- und Ostdeutschland: eine theoretische und empirische Analyse mit den Daten des IAB-Betriebspanels 1997 (Company further training activities in western and eastern Germany: theoretical and empirical analysis using the data from the 1997 IAB establishmen , 2003 .

[20]  J Wagner,et al.  A Note on the Firm Size – Export Relationship , 2001 .