4.4 Article

Under- or overexpansion of education? Trends in qualification mismatch in the United Kingdom and Germany, 1984-2017

期刊

SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH
卷 117, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2023.102948

关键词

Educational expansion; Mismatch; Occupational change; Comparative research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper examines the impact of educational expansion on the demand for qualified labor, using a self-assessed over- and underqualification approach. The study finds evidence of overexpansion in the United Kingdom and signs of underexpansion in West Germany. The results also indicate that mismatch dynamics are strongest for workers without university degrees in both contexts.
Prominent theoretical positions in sociology and labor economics disagree whether educational expansion has outstripped the demand for qualified labor (overexpansion), or whether economies face a skill shortage despite increases in education (underexpansion). Focusing on the United Kingdom and West Germany, two countries with dissimilar skill formation institutions, patterns of expansion, and labor markets, this paper asks to what degree expansion of education has been absorbed. I point out shortcomings of wage-centered analyses and develop an approach that focuses on trends in self-assessed over- and underqualification. Using repeated surveys among workers and official labor market statistics, I estimate regression models that link the cohort-level expansion of education to the cohort-level prevalence of mismatch. Results suggest overexpansion in the United Kingdom, with overqualification increasing and underqualification decreasing over historical times and cohorts. West Germany, on the other hand, shows signs of underexpansion. While dominant theoretical accounts focus on the under-/overexpansion of tertiary education, my results show that mismatch-dynamics in both contexts are strongest for workers without university degrees.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据