Abstract
In this article, the mechanism of human capital accumulation is explored as an example of the participation of the economically active adult population in the main forms of lifelong learning. Demand for expanding lifelong activities is expressed by those employers who are concerned about the development of sustainable skills and upgrading the qualifications of their employees at companies. This process is driven by companies engaged in innovation activity. Russia has a high position in the world if the criterion for assessment is the level of formal education of employees, but Russian employees improve their professional knowledge and skills through lifelong learning less actively than employees in the EU. According to the results of the surveys, the gap between the rates of participation in lifelong learning of top and middle managers and the rates of participation of other employees is quite dramatic, and it demonstrates a failure in exchanging and transferring new knowledge and skills in Russian companies. In its turn, such a disproportionate state creates an obstacle for innovation activity in companies. In this article, we will discuss some state and corporate compensatory measures aimed at adjusting the extreme inequality in the education and training of employees. A higher return on investment in training can be achieved only by the harmonization of advanced knowledge of top and middle managers, who are most actively participating in lifelong learning, with a process of training other employees at companies. Middle managers are considered a key element, a sort of proponent of such a knowledge and skills exchange system, because they act as a mentors for workers.The paper’s core is comparative analysis of international surveys and a survey of Russian employers in six sectors of economy as a part of project “Monitoring of education markets and organizations,” which was initiated by the Russian Ministry of Education and Science and was conducted by National Research University HSE and Levada Center. In the paper we estimate the educational capital of top and middle managers and their rate of participation in lifelong training compared with the rate for employees occupying lower positions and evaluate Russian employers’ contribution to the provision of lifelong learning for employees in comparison with their colleagues from countries in the EU and OECD.
Highlights
Acomprehensive evaluation of the innovative potential and efficiency of the economies of certain countries on a macro level involves key indicators of human capital quality [Healy et al, 2011]
Along with the average duration of training and the proportion of the economically active population with a higher education, researchers often look at the number of participants in lifelong learning programmes
What are the evaluations of human capital quality and the prospects of improving quality in Russia formed from? What impact does the level of involvement of certain groups of the economically active population in lifelong learning have? What is the extent of educational inequality in Russia? Which forms of lifelong learning are prevalent and what is the extent of involvement by employees, companies and the state in such programmes? The responses to these questions would be incomplete if they were only based on education and employment statistics
Summary
Along with the average duration of training and the proportion of the economically active population (aged from 25 to 64 years) with a higher education, researchers often look at the number of participants in lifelong learning programmes. This is because individual capabilities and talents, educational capital accumulated through formal training, and skills and competencies acquired in life, including through a professional career, are the basic elements of human capital. Attention has been paid to these groups as a matter of priority as a result of statistical calculations showing that equal access for economically disadvantaged citizens to education and skills training results in smoothing over existing differences in labour productivity and the pay received [Blanden, McNally, 2015, pp. 27–28]
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.