Training Returns That Arrive Late: Measuring payoffs that materialize at job switches, not right after training

This project proposes a “switch-based” evaluation of training by tracking whether wage gains from training are realized within-job versus at promotions or firm-to-firm moves, quantifying how much conventional short-run designs underestimate total returns. Methodologically, it combines event studies of training with hazard models of job transitions using administrative data where training episodes, wages, and transitions are observed (e.g., Denmark). It exploits quasi-random training access (waiting-list lotteries, capacity shocks, scheduling conflicts) to identify causal effects and decomposes post-training wage growth into within-job and between-job components. The novelty is centering job switches as the mechanism, not just an outcome, bringing micro–macro reconciliation to the training literature. If confirmed, this reframing would influence how policymakers design and evaluate ALMPs and firm training by allowing evaluation windows that straddle promotion cycles and encouraging employer-recognized credentials that unlock promotions. It could also explain why some conscientiousness-focused non-cognitive trainings show early effects while others require longer horizons to pay off.

References:

1. Conscientiousness and Labor Market Returns: Evidence from a Field Experiment in West Africa. Mathias Allemand, M. Kirchberger, S. Milusheva, C. Newman, Brent L. Roberts, Vincent Thorne (2023).