Some Estimations of Adult Vocational Training and its Efficiency in Russia (2001-2008)

Abstract

Dmitry Didenko — Analyst, State Corporation “Bank for Development and Foreign Economic Affairs”, Vnesheconombank. Address: 9, Sakharov Ave., Moscow, 107996, Russian Federation. E-mail: ddidenko@bloomberg.net

Zlata Dorofeeva — Research Associate, National Research University “Higher School of Economics”. Address: 20, Myasnitskaya St., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation. E-mail: zlata@demoscope.com.ru

Grigory Kliucharev — Head of the Department for Social and Economic Research, Institute of Sociology, Russian Academy of Sciences. Address: Bldg. 5, 24/35, Krzhizhanovskogo St., Moscow, 117218, Russian Federation. E-mail: KliucharevGA@mail.ru

This paper discusses quantitative estimations of adult vocational training and its private efficiency based on data from the Russian Longitudinal Monitoring Survey (RLMS).

The results of the analysis performed confirmed our hypothesis that at first incomes of those who participated in vocational training grew more rapidly relative to incomes of those who did not participate. Based on this, we can argue that adult vocational training is an efficient way for private income growth. However, the momentum gained weakened and training income premium gradually faded if recurrent training was not undertaken.

As for social and economic inequalities reproduction, it turned out that the income premium for adult vocational training was distributed not merely unequally among its participants, but also in favor of their minority. An average positive outcome was provided by abnormal income increase obtained by particularly “successful” training graduates, whereas only a minor part of all participants had any economic gain from training. Therefore, we have grounds to argue that in the Russian context, adult vocational training is a meritocratic institution that effects selection and promotion of workers by their aptitudes. It is most likely that the distribution of economic outcomes of training in favor of the minority plays its role in diminishing incentives of its potential recipients and can be considered as one of the major causes of persistently low work force participation indicators in Russia (relative to economically developed countries). Such a profile of distribution may also explain the downward trend of indicators found out in our research.

It was revealed that both motivation to knowledge consumption and expectation of pure economic benefits were not the main factors of participation in training if they were taken separately. However, a more mixed motivation, driven not only by income growth expectations, but also by a participants’ cognitive interest and their need for self-realization, appeared to be a stimulus for learning strong enough to enhance human capital formation and accumulation.