Who Profits from Training Subsidies? Evidence from a French Individual Learning Account

Eloïse Corazza and Francesco Filippucci ()
Additional contact information
Eloïse Corazza: DARES - Direction de l'animation de la recherche, des études et des statistiques - Ministère du Travail, de l'Emploi et de la Santé
Francesco Filippucci: PSE - Paris School of Economics - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - ENS-PSL - École normale supérieure - Paris - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - ENPC - École nationale des ponts et chaussées - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement, PJSE - Paris Jourdan Sciences Economiques - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - ENS-PSL - École normale supérieure - Paris - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - ENPC - École nationale des ponts et chaussées - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement

PSE Working Papers from HAL

Abstract: This paper studies the incidence and welfare effects of a particular kind of training subsidies, Individual Learning Accounts (ILA). We exploit a natural experiment provided by the reform of a French ILA, the Compte personnel de formation (CPF). First, we theoretically model the impact of changing the per-hour subsidy rate on demand and supply for training, using a simple partial equilibrium model. Informed by this, we study the impact of a reform of 2019, which differentially lowered the per-hour value of the CPF subsidy across industries. We highlight three results. First, the supply of training is between 15% and 50% less elastic than demand, so that more than half of the benefit of the subsidy is captured by training producers. Second, total hours of training undertaken are not significantly affected by subsidy changes, leading to estimates of demand and supply elasticities which are close to zero. This makes CPF subsidy a simple transfer to producers and trainees. The silver lining is that, when studied through the lenses of a sufficient statistics framework, the efficiency cost of CPF is also low. Third, we use data on revenues and expenses of training to see that the reduction of the subsidy eventually translates in a reduction of producers' profits, with no effect on labor costs and employment of trainers.

Keywords: Training; Individual learning accounts; Incidence; Salience; Entry barriers training (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022-01
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-eur
Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-03519664v1
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://shs.hal.science/halshs-03519664v1/document (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:hal:psewpa:halshs-03519664

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in PSE Working Papers from HAL
Bibliographic data for series maintained by CCSD ().