CEPA Discussion Papers
ISSN (online) 2628-653X
URN urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-series-954
CEPA Discussion Papers are edited by
Rainald Borck, Lisa Bruttel, Marco Caliendo, Maik Heinemann and Alexander Kritikos.
The CEPA Discussion Papers Series is meant to disseminate recent research results by CEPA members to the scientific community and the interested public. Research findings published in a CEPA Discussion Paper reflect on-going research prior to publication in peer-reviewed journal articles. If you consider submitting an article to CEPA, please look at our submission guidelines.
URN urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-series-954
CEPA Discussion Papers are edited by
Rainald Borck, Lisa Bruttel, Marco Caliendo, Maik Heinemann and Alexander Kritikos.
The CEPA Discussion Papers Series is meant to disseminate recent research results by CEPA members to the scientific community and the interested public. Research findings published in a CEPA Discussion Paper reflect on-going research prior to publication in peer-reviewed journal articles. If you consider submitting an article to CEPA, please look at our submission guidelines.
Filtern
Volltext vorhanden
- ja (79)
Dokumenttyp
- Arbeitspapier (79)
Sprache
- Englisch (79)
Schlagworte
- experiment (12)
- communication (6)
- COVID-19 (4)
- Entrepreneurship (4)
- Innovation (4)
- cartel (4)
- entrepreneurship (4)
- gender (4)
- machine learning (4)
- E-DSGE (3)
Institut
23
We analyze workers’ risk preferences and training investments. Our conceptual framework differentiates between the investment risk and insurance mechanisms underpinning training decisions. Investment risk leads risk-averse workers to train less; they undertake more training if it insures them against future losses. We use the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) to demonstrate that risk affinity is associated with more training, implying that, on average, investment risks dominate the insurance benefits of training. Crucially, this relationship is evident only for general training; there is no relationship between risk attitudes and specific training. Thus, as expected, risk preferences matter more when skills are transferable – and workers have a vested interest in training outcomes – than when they are not. Finally, we provide evidence that the insurance benefits of training are concentrated among workers with uncertain employment relationships or limited access to public insurance schemes.