在职培训与学历教育,孰能促进城镇劳动力的个体增收?——基于中国家庭收入调查的准实验研究

Who Can Promote the Individual Income of Urban Labor Force:On-the-Job Training or Education?—— A Quasi-experimental Study Based on PSM

本文采用北京师范大学收入分配研究院提供的中国家庭收入调查数据(CHIP2007),借鉴并改造工资决定方程,采用传统回归方法与准实验的倾向得分匹配法,估计了培训收益率的净效应,研究发现:(1)传统回归方法揭示了培训收益率、教育收益率、大学教育收益率分别为17%、6.6%与8.3%;(2)Logit模型与平均边际效应的估计结果表明,教育年限、工作经验每上升1年,城镇劳动力的培训参与率可分别提高2%与0.9%,未婚与自我感觉处于健康状态的劳动者则负向影响培训参与率;(3)倾向得分匹配法揭示了培训收益率的取值区间为[10.4%,12.9%],大学教育收益率的取值区间为[33.8%,36%],大学教育年收益率约为8.45%～9%;(4)在职培训的经济价值虽低于整体大学教育回报率但却高于学历教育投资,并且忽视自选择偏差将会高估培训的经济价值。

This paper based on the CHIP2007 provided by the survey of income of residents in China, drawing lessons from and reforming the wage determination equation, estimating the net effect of training return rate by traditional regression method and quasi-experimental research of PSM. It is indicated that(1)The traditional regression method reveals that the rates of return on training, education and university education are 17%, 6.6% and 8.3%;(2)The model of Logit and average marginal effect show that the probability of urban labor force participating in training can be increased by 2% and 0.9% for every one year's increase in education and work experience, while unmarried and self-perceived workers in a healthy state negatively affect the training participation rate;(3)The PSM reveals that the range of return on training and university are [10.4%, 12.9%] and [33.8%, 36%], while the annual return on university education is about 8.45%~ 9%;(4)Although the economic value of on-the-job training is lower than the overall rate of return on University education, it is higher than the investment in education, Ignoring self-selection bias will overestimate the economic value of training.