Journal of Labour Economics (노동경제논집)

The Korean Labor Economic Association (한국노동경제학회)
권호 표지

The Effect of On-the-Job Training on Employment Status and Employee Retention

재직자 직업훈련이 취업 및 이직에 미치는 영향

  • 양용현 (한양대학교 일반대학원 응용경제학과) ;
  • 최광성 (한양대학교 일반대학원 응용경제학과) ;
  • 최충 (한양대학교 ERICA캠퍼스 경제학부)
  • Received : 2019.07.15
  • Accepted : 2019.09.29
  • Published : 2019.09.19
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This paper examines the impact of on-the-job training (OJT) programs on turnover rates and employment status in the labor market. Exploiting the administrative data (the Employment Insurance Database), we apply the propensity score matching method to investigate 1) whether OJT participation increases the probability of remaining in the labor market after the job training, and 2) whether trainees are more likely to transition to a new employer. Our findings reveal positive effects of OJT on the continuous employment (2.4~5.3%p). We also observe that trainees show lower rates of turnover for some part of the study period, from 2008 to 2015.

본 연구는 고용보험자료를 이용하여 재직자의 직업훈련 참여가 노동시장성과에 미치는 영향을 분석하고자 하였다. 재직자 직업훈련은 근로자 개인의 계속근로 여부와 이직 여부에 영향을 미칠 수 있는바, 이에 대한 훈련효과를 추정하기 위해 성향점수매칭법(Propensity score matching method)을 이용하였다. 분석결과, 재직자 직업훈련 참여자는 미참여자에 비해 다음 연도에 노동시장에 남아 계속근로를 제공할 확률이 연도별로 2.4~5.3%p 더 높은 것으로 나타났다. 한편 계속근로자를 대상으로 재직자 직업훈련의 이직효과에 대해 분석한 결과, 재직자 직업훈련 참여자는 참여하지 않은 근로자보다 이직확률이 2008~2015년에 연도별로 0.9~4.2%p 낮은 것으로 나타났으며, 2016년에는 통계적으로 유의하지 않은 것으로 분석되었다.

Keywords

References

  1. 문영만. 재직자의 교육훈련이 임금, 직무만족도, 이직에 미치는 영향. 노동정책연구 19권 2호 (2019. 6.): 103-133. https://doi.org/10.22914/JLP.2019.19.2.004
  2. 유경준.강창희. 직업훈련의 임금효과 분석: 경제활동인구조사를 중심으로. KDI Journal of Economic Policy 32권 2호 (2010. 6.): 27-53. https://doi.org/10.23895/KDIJEP.2010.32.2.27
  3. 이영민.조정윤.조세형.최충, 심층평가 보고서: 재직자 직업훈련군. 기획재정부.숙명여자대학교 산학협력단, 2019.
  4. Becker, Gary S. Human Capital, 3rd Edition, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993.
  5. Becker, Sascha O., and Ichino, Andrea. "Estimation of average treatment effects based on propensity scores." Stata Journal 2 (4) (December 2002): 358-377. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X0200200403
  6. Blasco, S., Crepon, B., and Kamionka, T. "The effects of on-the-job and out-of-employment training programmes on labor market histories," Working paper 1210 (September 2012).
  7. Borjas, G., Labor Economics. 6th Edition, McGraw-Hill, 2013.
  8. Caliendo, M., and Kopeinig, S. "Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching." Journal of Economic Surveys 22 (1) (January 2008): 31-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6419.2007.00527.x
  9. Dearden, L., Reed, H., and Reenen, J. "The impact of training on productivity and wages: Evidence from British panel data." Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 68 (4) (August 2006): 397-421. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2006.00170.x
  10. Dehejia, H., and Wahba, S. "Causal effects in non-experimental studies: Reevaluating the evaluation of training programs." Journal of the American Statistical Association 94 (448) (December 1999): 1053-1062. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1999.10473858
  11. Farber, Henry S. "Mobility and stability: The dynamics of job change in Labor markets." Handbook of Labor Economics 3B (1999): 2440-2483.
  12. Goux, D., and Maurin, E. "Returns to firm-provided training: Evidence from french worker-firm matched data." Labour Economics 7 (1) (January 2000): 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0927-5371(99)00023-8
  13. Munasinghe, L., and O'Flaherty, B. "Specific training sometimes cuts wages and always cuts turnover." Journal of Labor Economics 23 (2) (April 2005): 213-233. https://doi.org/10.1086/428022
  14. Parent, D. "Wages and mobility: The impact of Employer-Provided Training." Journal of Labour Economics 17 (2) (April 1999): 298-317. https://doi.org/10.1086/209922
  15. Parent, D. "Employer-supported training in Canada and its impact on mobility and wages." Empirical Economics 28 (3) (July 2003): 431-459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001810200140
  16. Rosenbaum, P., and Rubin, D. "The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects." Biometrika 70 (1) (April 1983): 41-55. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/70.1.41
  17. Rosenbaum, P., and Rubin, D. "Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score." The American Statistician 39 (1) (February 1985): 33-38. https://doi.org/10.2307/2683903
  18. Smith, J., and Todd, P. "Does matching overcome LaLonde's critique of nonexperimental estimators?." Journal of Econometrics 125 (2) (April 2005): 305-353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2004.04.011