政府培训对农民工自雇佣的有效性评价——基于扩展probit模型的经验研究

摘要基于2013年和2014年流动人口动态监测数据中的社会融合调查数据,应用扩展probit模型分析了政府培训对农民工自雇佣的影响。研究发现:政府培训能够促进农民工自雇佣概率显著提高14.2%;相对于雇主型自雇佣,政府培训更有助于促进农民工自主经营型自雇佣;政府培训不仅可以通过提高农民工技能型人力资本直接促进农民工自主经营型自雇佣,而且可以通过增加农民工在流入地的社会资本间接促进农民工雇主型自雇佣;政府培训对农民工自雇佣的促进作用具有普遍性,但对女性农民工和低学历农民工的作用效果更为明显;随着地区市场化水平的提高,政府培训对农民工自雇佣的促进作用愈发明显;政府培训是改善农民工自雇佣市场表现的有效途径,且对改善职业层次和声望都较低的自主经营型自雇佣农民工的市场表现的作用尤为明显。因此,政府部门应继续大力开发农民工职业技能培训项目,促进农民工多渠道、多形式高质量就业,从而助力“稳就业”“保就业”政策目标的实现。

	Service

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	Email Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章
	张世伟
	张君凯
	王杰

关键词：政府培训自雇佣社会资本农民工扩展probit模型

Abstract： Based on the data of the special survey on social integration of Migrants Population Dynamic Monitoring Survey in 2013 and 2014, this paper applies the extended model to analyze the impact of government training on the self-employment of rural migrant workers. The empirical results are as follows: Government training helps to promote the self-employment of migrant workers, and can significantly increase the probability of self-employment of migrant workers by 14.2%; Compared with employer self-employment, government training mainly helps to promote self-employment of rural migrant workers; Government training can not only directly promote rural migrant workers to become self-employed workers by improving their skilled human capital, but also indirectly promote rural migrant workers to become employers by increasing their local social capital; The promotion effect of government training on theself-employment of rural migrant workers is universal, especially for the female group; With the improvement of the level of regional marketization, the role of government training in promoting self-employment of migrant workers is becoming more and more obvious; Government training is an effective way to improve the performance of migrant workers’ self-employment market, and it is especially effective to improve the market performance of self-employed migrant workers with low professional level and reputation. Therefore, government departments should continue to vigorously develop vocational skills training programs for migrant workers to promote migrant workers’ multi-channel, multi-form and high-quality employment, so as to help achieve the policy goal of “Stable Employment” and “Employment Protection”.

Keywords： Government Training Self-employment Social Capital Rural Migrant Workers Extended Probit Model

收稿日期 2022-01-03; 接受日期 ;

基金资助:国家社会科学基金项目(20BJY051)

通讯作者 张君凯(1995— ),女,河南漯河人,博士研究生,主要从事劳动经济学研究。

作者简介: 张世伟(1964— ),男,吉林长春人,博士,教授,博士生导师,主要从事劳动力市场的微观计量与政策模拟研究;王杰(1996— ),男,山东德州人,博士研究生,主要从事劳动经济学研究。张君凯为本文通信作者。

引用本文:

张世伟, 张君凯, 王杰.政府培训对农民工自雇佣的有效性评价——基于扩展probit模型的经验研究[J]. 经济经纬, 2022,4: 32-40

ZHANG Shiwei, ZHANG Junkai, WANG Jie.Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Government Training on Rural Migrant Workers’ Self-employment:An Empirical Study Based on Extended Probit Model[J] Economic Survey, 2022,V39(4): 32-40

链接本文:

http://www.jjjw.org.cn/CN/ 或 http://www.jjjw.org.cn/CN/Y2022/V39/I4/32

[1] 白南生,何宇鹏,2002.回乡,还是外出?——安徽、四川二省农村外出劳动力回流研究.社会学研究(3):64-78.
[2] 董延芳,张则,2019.中国创业者创业机会识别研究.经济与管理评论 (6):57-67.
[3] 李涛,朱俊兵,伏霖,2017.聪明人更愿意创业吗?——来自中国的经验发现.经济研究(3):92-105.
[4] 刘万霞,2013.职业教育对农民工就业的影响:基于对全国农民工调查的实证分析.管理世界(5):64-75.
[5] 马光荣,杨恩艳,2011.社会网络、非正规金融与创业.经济研究(3):83-94.
[6] 宁光杰,2012.自我雇佣还是成为工资获得者?——中国农村外出劳动力的就业选择和收入差异.管理世界(7):54-66.
[7] 任锋,李树茁,刘玲睿,2016.农民工机会性与必要性创业的个人资本差异.厦门大学学报(哲学社会科学版)(4):146-156.
[8] 王春超,冯大威,2017.中国乡-城移民创业行为的决定机制:基于社会关系网的分析视角.经济学(季刊)(1):355-382.
[9] 王琼,黄维乔,2020.农民创业更幸福吗?——基于CLDS数据的实证研究.南京农业大学学报(社会科学版)(3):99-110.
[10] 王小鲁,樊纲,余静文,2017.中国分省份市场化指数报告(2016).北京:社会科学文献出版社.
[11] 项质略,张德元,王雅丽,2021.人力资本与农户创业:“智商”还是“财商”更重要?.江苏大学学报(社会科学版) (1):61-74.
[12] 熊智伟,2018.返乡农民工创业失败影响因素比较研究:基于我国中部5省微观调查数据.调研世界(7):19-25.
[13] 阳玉香,2017.自选择、政府培训与流动人口收入提高.教育与经济(4):42-48.
[14] 叶静怡,王琼,2013.农民工的自雇佣选择及其收入.财经研究(1):93-102.
[15] 张广胜,柳延恒,2014.人力资本、社会资本对新生代农民工创业型就业的影响研究:基于辽宁省三类城市的考察.农业技术经济(6):4-13.
[16] 张世伟,张君凯,2020.政府培训、正规就业与农民工劳动报酬.人口学刊(6):101-112.
[17] 赵德昭,耿之斌,2020.“授人以渔”有效吗？——农民工职业培训的工资效应检验.财经研究(8):34-48.
[18] 赵建国,周德水,2021.自我雇佣对农民工健康的影响.世界经济(3):184-204.
[19] 周闯,沈笑笑,2021.政府培训对农民工就业质量的影响研究.数理统计与管理(4):692-704.
[20] ANGRIST J,PISCHKE J,2008.Mostly harmless econometrics: an empiricist’s companion.Princeton: Princeton University Press.
[21] ATTANASIO O,GUARN A,MEDINA C,et al,2017.Vocational training for disadvantaged youth in Colombia: a long-term follow-up.American economic journal: applied economics,9(2):131-143.
[22] BENDA L,KOSTER F,VEEN V R,2020.Active labor market policy as a socializing agent: a cross-national analysis of learning attitudes .Studies in continuing education,42(1):75-101.
[23] EVANS D,LEUGHTON L,1989.Some empirical aspects of entrepreneurship.American economic review,79(3):519-535.
[24] KING G,NIELSEN R,2019.Why propensity scores should not be used for matching? .Political analysis,27(4): 435-454.
[25] LOKSHIN M,SAJAJA Z,2011.Impact of interventions on discrete outcomes: maximum likelihood estimation of the binary choice models with binary endogenous regressors .Stata journal,11(3):368-385.