7. Education Flashcards
Educational attainment
Educational attainment of workforce is a strong predictor of:
-labour market performance at the micro level
-degree of economic development of a country
Individuals with high levels of educational attainment
Earn more
Higher probability of being employed
Gary Becker - Human capital theory (1964)
Measured monetary returns to education
Human capital theory
Influenced by:
-individual’s innate ability
-investment in schooling
-investment in on-the-job and off-the-job training
Difference between human capital and physical capital
Property rights: human capital is embodied in persons
Workers and firms must agree on terms of use of worker’s human capital
Government spend on education as their endowment in human capital
Literature focuses on
Individual’s choice on educational attainment
Who pays for training
Measures and cross-country comparisons
Organisation of education is country specific
Within boundaries such as minimum schooling age, to acquire formal education is an investment decision
Quality of education-PISA tests
PISA - Program for International Student Assessment Test
Three year survey of 15 year olds to assess cognitive skills essential for full participation in society (reading, math, science)
-At country level - strong correlation among the three domains scores
-Mid positive relationship between education expenditures and PISA math scores
Where PISA is not measured, one can evaluate:
-pupil-teacher ratio
-ratio of average salary of teachers
-length of school year
Informal education
Never organised, no set objectives in terms of learning outcomes (learning by experience)
Formal education
Structured, explicit learning objectives
Non-formal
Rather organised, can have learning objectives but also a by-product of more organised activities that may not have learning objectives
Perfect labour markets
Individuals invest in their human capital throughout their lives, comparing cost and benefit of education.
Two costs:
-direct costs
-foregone earnings
Benefit: higher earnings in the future
Human capital model of education - Becker 1964
Direct costs
Enrolment costs to formal education, traveling lodging, purchase of books and other learning material
Foregone earnings
Loss of income insofar as the time devoted to schooling is not allocated to remunerated activity
Human capital model of education - Becker 1964
3 assumptions:
- more education —-> higher productivity
- higher productivity ——> higher wage
- Individual’s choice is based on financial considerations
General and firm specific training
On the job training:
-is costly in terms of effort
- does not involve a trade-off between getting education and getting paid
Becker identifies two types of training:
-General training
-Specific training
General training
Increases productivity - but can also be used by all firms —> firms cannot recoup their investment
Workers pay
Firm specific training
Firms will be appropriating the net-benefits from this investment —-> firms are willing to pay for it
Constrained choice of training
Precondition for training is having the resources to invest in it
If workers are not credit constrained, they will invest up to maximizing the private (and social) net benefits from training
May not be the case:
-in the presence of credit market restrictions the worker may not be able to make the investment
- employer cannot make the investment either: market failure, government may want to intervene and provide subsidies
Credit constraints generally less serious for firms than for workers:
- optimal level of investment in firm-specific training usually provided in perfect labour market
Imperfect markets: schooling as a signalling device
Employers could fail to observe the productivity of workers
Spence, 1973: education as a signal
-suppose education does not affect productivity of workers
-productivity depends only on innate ability of workers
-suppose further that workers with general innate ability find it less expensive to acquires any level of education
-education achievements can be used by high-ability workers as a signal for employers of their ability
For effective signalling, we need a separating equilibrium:
- low ability workers choose not to achieve more years education
-high ability workers choose more years education
Returns in the signalling model and over-education
Private returns to schooling are still there
Social returns to schooling are much lower in this context:
-employers can find well fitted employees more easily - improving the allocation of resources in the economy
Returns in the signalling model and over-education
Private returns to schooling are still there
Social returns to schooling are much lower in this context:
-employers can find well fitted employees more easily - improving the allocation of resources in the economy
-however, if education does not increase productivity - there is a waste of resources involved in educational systems
In this context, there can be OVER-EDUCATION: refers to over-investment in education from a social standpoint
Gov may want to offer cross-subsidies limiting investment in education
Critiques of the signalling model
Weiss and Ching-to (1993), Swinkles (1999): if hiring can be made on the same day students enrol in long a difficult courses of study, then education can no longer be used as a signalling device
Borghans et al (2011): it ignores other relevant factors alongside innate ability —–> non-cognitive skills
Cross-country comparisons
Strong relationship between education attainment and labour market status —> cannot be attributed a causal interpretation: could be that education increases productivity, hence wages and employment , or the other way around
Employment rates and earnings are substantially higher for workers with tertiary education
Education gradient in employment rates is not present in all countries, at least not for men
-skill based technology change
-job polarization