The wage returns to on-the-job training: evidence from matched employer-employee data

IZA Journal of Labor & Development

Table 5 Estimated wage returns to job training, by level of education

	Workers completed secondary education or more years of schooling			Workers with up to incomplete secondary education
	Difference in log wages	SE	t-stat	Difference in log wages	SE	t-stat
	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)
Panel A: Malaysia
ATT	0.09***	0.03	2.61	0.05	0.04	1.11
Untreated	2,075			2,242
Treated	1,642			548
Observations	3,717			2,790
Panel B: Thailand
ATT	0.10**	0.04	2.51	0.03	0.02	1.50
Untreated	1,016			3,431
Treated	1,935			2,992
Observations	2,951			6,423

Source: Authors’ calculations based on the Enterprise Surveys (World Bank).
Note: * significant at 10%, ** significant at 5%, *** significant at 1%. The table uses propensity score matching to estimate equation (4) in the text. We estimate separate regressions by education group. Columns (1) to (3) refer to the sample of workers that have completed secondary education or more. Columns (4) through (6) refer to workers with lower levels of education (that is those with up to incomplete secondary education). Columns (1) and (4) report ATT (Average Treatment Effect on the Treated), it evaluates the wage impact of training for those actually participating in training. Columns (2) and (5) report standard errors, and columns (3) and (6) report the t-statistic. Treated individuals are those who have participated in training, and the untreated individuals are the “control group” that is similar for all characteristics to the treated group except for the fact of receiving training. Panel A reports the estimates for the sample of workers in Malaysia, and Panel B reports the estimates for the sample of workers in Thailand.