scholarly journals Human Capital, Labour Productivity and Employment

2012 ◽  
pp. 11-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Savita Bhat ◽  
N. S. Siddharthan
Keyword(s):  
Human Capital ◽  
Labour Productivity

scholarly journals Regulation of Lifelong in Education and İts Economic, Social Benefits

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (6) ◽  
pp. 1298-1310
Author(s):  
Allahyar Muradov Et al.
Keyword(s):  
Human Capital ◽  
Social Problems ◽  
Labour Productivity ◽  
Economic Benefits ◽  
Social Benefits ◽  
Development Economic ◽  
Knowledge Based ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Impact

Sustainability in education is important in ensuring knowledge-based and innovation-driven development and human capital reproduction. Sustainability is particular important for the prevention of some economic and social problems that may arise in the future and raising the competitiveness of the country. Sustainability - the prevention as some of economic and social problems that may arise in the future is of particular importance in raising the country's competitiveness. The aim of the research is to estimate the economic-social benefits of regulation of sustainability in education and to give the suggestions in the direction of the improvement of the effectiveness of the regulation. The impact of continuity in education on the formation and development of human capital, knowledge-based society building, labour intelligence, competitiveness and the improvement of welfare are assessed cross-country in the article. In particular, in recent years, researches and politicians have analysed the ‘4th industry’ revolution (‘Industry 4.0’) ‘the benefits and losses in the medium and long-term perspective and its interaction with the sustainability of education. Here are two issues: 1) socioeconomic disadvantages of ensuring sustainability in education, 2) socioeconomic advantages of ensuring sustainability in education. Firstly, it is analysed the impacts of increased unemployment, reduction of employment income, declining social security and welfare that will be resulted as problems on economic development. Secondly, it is analysed (ensuring in sustainability condition) the distinguished factors of rapid technological innovation, labour productivity, repatriation of human capital, raising competitiveness on the international level, innovation-based development, economic benefits of knowledge and skills.

scholarly journals IMPACT OF HUMAN CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT ON PRODUCTIVITY GROWTH IN EU MEMBER STATES

2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (0) ◽  
pp. 1-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alma Mačiulytė-Šniukienė ◽  
Kristina Matuzevičiūtė
Keyword(s):  
Human Capital ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Panel Data Analysis ◽  
Labour Productivity ◽  
Ordinary Least Squares ◽  
Fixed Effects Model ◽  
Education Expenditure ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Impact

In this research, we investigate the impact of human capital on labour productivity in European Union member states using panel data analysis. Results of the paper are estimated using the Pooled ordinary least squares (OLS) and Fixed effects model (FEM). The results show that human capital is positively significant in improving the growth of labour productivity in the EU. Our estimates also suggest that the impact occurs after three times lags in case of education expenditure.

Human Capital: Fiscal Policy to Support the Development of Labor Cooperatives as a Way to Create the Welfare Society and to Form the National Financial-Exchange Asset

2021 ◽  
Vol 144 (5) ◽  
pp. 116-121
Author(s):  
Yury V. Alekseev ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Capital ◽  
Fiscal Policy ◽  
Personal Experience ◽  
Labour Productivity ◽  
Temporary Work ◽  
Employment Contract ◽  
Personal Motivation ◽  
Welfare Society ◽  
Russian Form

Production cooperative (artel) historically is a native Russian form of collective labour activity, aimed, as a rule, at performing certain permanent or temporary work and requiring mutual guarantee of all workers. Artels and their associations are based only on free creative labour (not hired labour), which allows workers themselves to be responsible for efficiency of managing their time and to improve constantly, providing an increase in labour productivity and production profitability. Such work is fundamentally different from the work under an employment contract. Members of cooperatives do not pass “their time” for rationing “from above”, but independently organize their work, revealing their potential, based on personal experience, ingenuity, freedom and personal motivation, effectively interacting with each other in the workforce.

Assessing education’s contribution to productivity using firm-level evidence

2014 ◽  
Vol 35 (8) ◽  
pp. 1116-1139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lara Lebedinski ◽  
Vincent Vandenberghe
Keyword(s):  
Human Capital ◽  
Causal Effect ◽  
Labour Productivity ◽  
Firm Level ◽  
Productivity Shocks ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Labour Costs ◽  
Short Run ◽  
Time Invariant ◽  
Heterogeneity Bias

Purpose – There is plenty of individual-level evidence, based on the estimation of Mincerian equations, showing that better-educated individuals earn more. This is usually interpreted as a proof that education raises labour productivity. Some macroeconomists, analysing cross-country time series, also support the idea that the continuous expansion of education has contributed positively to growth. Surprisingly, most economists with an interest in human capital have neglected the level of the firm to study the education-productivity-wage nexus. And the few published works considering firm-level evidence are lacking a proper strategy to cope with the endogeneity problem inherent to the estimation production and wage functions. The purpose of this paper is to aim at providing estimates of the causal effect of education on productivity and wage labour costs. Design/methodology/approach – This paper taps into a rich, firm-level, Belgian panel database that contains information on productivity, labour cost and the workforce’s educational attainment to deliver estimates of the causal effect of education on productivity and wage/labour costs. Therefore, it exclusively resorts to within firm changes to deal with time-invariant heterogeneity bias. What is more, it addresses the risk of simultaneity bias (endogeneity of firms’ education-mix choices in the short run) using the structural approach suggested by Ackerberg et al. (2006), alongside more traditional system-GMM methods (Blundell and Bond, 1998) where lagged values of labour inputs are used as instruments. Findings – Results suggest that human capital, in particular larger shares of university-educated workers inside firms, translate into significantly higher firm-level labour productivity, and that labour costs are relatively well aligned on education-driven labour productivity differences. In other words, the authors find evidence that the Mincerian relationship between education and individual wages is driven by a strong positive link between education and firm-level productivity. Originality/value – Surprisingly, most economists with an interest in human capital have neglected the level of the firm to study the education-productivity-pay nexus. Other characteristics of the workforce, like gender or age have been much more investigated at the level of the firm by industrial or labour economists (Hellerstein et al., 1999; Aubert and Crépon, 2003; Hellerstein and Neumark, 2007; Vandenberghe, 2011a, b, 2012; Rigo et al., 2012; Dostie, 2011; van Ours and Stoeldraijer, 2011). At present, the small literature based on firm-level evidence provides some suggestive evidence of the link between education, productivity and pay at the level of firms. Examples are Hægeland and Klette (1999); Haltiwanger et al. (1999). Other notable papers examining a similar question are Galindo-Rueda and Haskel (2005), Prskawetz et al. (2007) and Turcotte and Whewell Rennison (2004). But, despite offering plausible and intuitive results, many of the above studies essentially rely on cross-sectional evidence and most of them do not tackle the two crucial aspects of the endogeneity problem affecting the estimation of production and wage functions (Griliches and Mairesse, 1995): first, heterogeneity bias (unobserved time-invariant determinants of firms’ productivity that may be correlated to the workforce structure) and second, simultaneity bias (endogeneity in input choice, in the short-run, that includes the workforce mix of the firm). While the authors know that labour productivity is highly heterogeneous across firms (Syverson, 2011), only Haltiwanger et al. (1999) control for firm level-unobservables using firm-fixed effects. The problem of simultaneity has also generally been overlooked. Certain short-term productivity shocks affecting the choice of labour inputs, can be anticipated by the firms and influence their employment decision and thus the workforce mix. Yet these shocks and the resulting decisions by firms’ manager are unobservable by the econometrician. Hægeland and Klette (1999) try to solve this problem by proxying productivity shocks with intermediate goods, but their methodology inspired by Levinsohn and Petrin (2003) suffers from serious identification issues due to collinearity between labour and intermediate goods (Ackerberg et al., 2006).

Human capital effects on labour productivity in EU regions

2015 ◽  
Vol 47 (45) ◽  
pp. 4814-4828 ◽  
Author(s):  
José Daniel Buendía Azorín ◽  
María del Mar Sánchez de la Vega
Keyword(s):  
Human Capital ◽  
Labour Productivity ◽  
Eu Regions

scholarly journals Analysis of inflation management model factors as regards supply and demand

Ekonomika ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 95 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-63
Author(s):  
Dainius Butautas
Keyword(s):  
Human Capital ◽  
Content Analysis ◽  
Regression Models ◽  
Supply And Demand ◽  
Labour Productivity ◽  
Pair Correlation ◽  
Government Expenditure ◽  
Demand And Supply ◽  
General Government ◽  
Linear Correlation Analysis

This article analyses the demand and supply aspects of the determinants of CPI inflation in Lithuania in 1998–2008. Content analysis was used to identify and group significant demand and supply inflation factors and using RGT, objectively assess and generalize the results. Pair linear correlation analysis confirmed the significance for CPI inflation of the factors identified through content analysis, and both research methods reliably and effectively helped to identify factors for regression models of inflation. Content analysis revealed that the causes of inflation most often mentioned and traditionally regarded as significant in the economic literature are factors such as money and wages, capital, competition and monopolies, and so on. Pair correlation research showed the significance for inflation of supply and demand factors such as income distribution, income levels, taxes, saving, human capital and labour productivity as well as exports and imports – things which content analysis gave only average or little mention. Regression models confirmed and helped to concretize the significance for inflation of the identified demand and supply factors. The results of the research show that inconsistent monetary and general government expenditure policies reinforce private consumption and capital shocks. Note that human capital and employment, which changed little during the analysed period, did not show the large significance for inflation that they are commonly thought to have.

Household Saving Behaviour in Pakistan

1993 ◽  
Vol 32 (4II) ◽  
pp. 1281-1292
Author(s):  
Rehana Slddlqui ◽  
Rizwana Slddlqui
Keyword(s):  
Human Capital ◽  
Gross National Product ◽  
Consumer Preferences ◽  
Labour Productivity ◽  
Consumer Durables ◽  
Household Saving ◽  
Functional Forms ◽  
Future Income ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Productive Assets

Household saving, which is a part of national saving, is expected to contribute to economic growth significantly. Its share in the total national savings of Pakistan, during 1960-90, was about 83 percent, ( and in gross national product it varied between 6.6 percent and 10 percent, in the early 1980s.2 This is a significantly high proportion considering the meagre total national saving ratio in Pakistan. The analysis of savings is a controversial issue. First. there is no standard empirical definition of household savings. Should consumer durables be considered a part of household saving? Should human capital be considered a part of household saving? These are important questions. Answers to these questions will be useful for the analysis of consumer preferences and for public policy. The rationale for the inclusion of consumer durables as a' part of household saving is that they are like productive assets purchased in order to provide for a flow of services. Similarly, human capital is expected to raise labour productivity and its future income and consumption. The second issue is the response of each component of saving to changes in economic and demographic factors.3 For example, jewellery and assets may respond differently to changes in economic and/or social conditions. Third, since the theoretical literature defines saving as a residual there is no standard functional form of the empirical saving function. In this paper, we estimate different functional forms to analyse savings behaviour in Pakistan.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document