Fiskalische und individuelle Bildungsrenditen – aktuelle Befunde für Deutschland

Abstract

Die Dis cus si on Pape rs die nen einer mög lichst schnel len Ver brei tung von neue ren For schungs arbei ten des ZEW. Die Bei trä ge lie gen in allei ni ger Ver ant wor tung der Auto ren und stel len nicht not wen di ger wei se die Mei nung des ZEW dar.Dis cus si on Papers are inten ded to make results of ZEW research prompt ly avai la ble to other eco no mists in order to encou ra ge dis cus si on and sug gesti ons for revi si ons. The aut hors are sole ly respon si ble for the con tents which do not neces sa ri ly repre sent the opi ni on of the ZEW. Fiskalische und individuelle Bildungsrenditen -aktuelle Befunde für DeutschlandFriedhelm Pfeiffer* und Holger Stichnoth**

Fiscal and Individual Rates of Return to University Education with and without Graduation

“…The IRR in terms of the net fiscal contribution is found to be 6.6%. 9 This is close to the 6.5% found by O'Donoghue (1999) for a much earlier year (1994) and to our previous estimates of 5.7% for university versus vocational education (Pfeiffer and Stichnoth, 2015). The OECD (2019) reports a fiscal IRR for Germany of 9% (men) and 6% (women).…”

“…While private returns to education have been extensively studied, estimates of the fiscal returns are relatively scarce. Using a similar methodology to O'Donoghue (1999), Trostel (2010), and Pfeiffer and Stichnoth (2015), the present paper estimates fiscal returns to education for Germany, based on data from the Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) for the year 2016 and a detailed model of the tax-benefit system. The main contribution of this paper is that we estimate fiscal returns not only for college graduates, but also for college dropouts.…”

“…For the same educational investment, and will differ depending on whether we study the IRR from the perspective of the individual (in terms of gross earnings and of disposable income) or from a fiscal perspective. We focus on monetary returns to education, and disregard any spillover effects not operating via the tax-benefit system (for a discussion of such effects, see Pfeiffer and Stichnoth, 2015).…”

“…SeeBonin et al (2016) orPfeiffer and Stichnoth (2015) for a detailed description of the model.7 The SOEP data are from 2016 while the tax-benefit rules are for 2018. The difference arises because the data are released with a time lag.…”

Schule – Berufsausbildung – Arbeitsmarkt

“…Erstens: Verstärkt die Entwicklung die Probleme junger Menschen beim Eintritt in den Arbeitsmarkt, und steigert sie damit die Jugendarbeitslosigkeit? Zwar geht eine akademische Bildung im Allgemeinen langfristig mit besseren Beschäftigungs-und Einkommenschancen einher, wie Pfeiffer und Stichnoth (2015) zeigen. Andererseits kann der Erwerb von berufsspezifischen Kompetenzen, der mit einer dualen Ausbildung verbunden ist, im Vergleich zu weniger spezifischen Formen beruflicher Bildung einen reibungslosen Übergang aus dem Bildungssystem in Beschäftigung fördern, wie Ryan (2001) sowie Hanushek, Schwerdt et al (2016) nachweisen.…”