English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 69561/69561 (100%)
Visitors : 23659710      Online Users : 643
RC Version 7.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://ir.lib.ncu.edu.tw/handle/987654321/79101


    Title: 企業如何回應政府的訓練補貼? 前因與效應之探討;How Do Firms Respond to Government Training Subsidies?- Its Antecedents and Consequences
    Authors: 劉念琪
    Contributors: 國立中央大學人力資源管理研究所
    Keywords: 企業訓練支出;政府訓練補貼;人力資本投資;結果溢出;投入溢出;business training expenditure;government training subsidy;human capital investment;output additionality;input additionality
    Date: 2019-02-21
    Issue Date: 2019-02-21 14:41:42 (UTC+8)
    Publisher: 科技部
    Abstract: 企業主要透過人力資本投資活動,也就是訓練與發展,用以培育現任員工的知識和技能,來厚實並培育增加公司重要的競爭優勢資源(Kang,Morris&Snell,2007; Lepak&Snell,1999)。過去後設研究及回顧型研究均指出,企業訓練投入與員工在各階層學習成效及企業人力資本成長,甚或組織結果間均呈現正向關連(Arthur Jr. et. al., 2003; Salas, Tannenbaum, Kraiger & Smith-Jentsch, 2012)。然而即便如此,過去研究也發現,企業對於訓練投入仍是過去謹慎,甚或遲滯,要求企業提高訓練支出並不是一件容易的事(Asplund,2004; Lynch&Black,1998; Smith&Billett,2003)。 雖然人力資本投資與企業績效存在關聯,但人力資本投資因為涉及了公共財(也就是一般性人力資本)的投資,因此企業的投資意願往往受到影響(Becker,1975)。也因此有關訓練投入的相關資源分配(或不分配),其背後的理由及脈絡就更形複雜的。然而人力資本投資的重要性不可言喻,國家在政策上為了促進國家人力資本發展,往往也就會提出訓練補貼政策,期待可以促進訓練活動在企業的普及及量能。 然而訓練補貼的政策對企業的影響這個議題,並不是一個簡單可直接的評估問題。Jayawarna,Macpherson & Wilson (2007)就指出,事實上我們並不深切理解為何公司吝於投入訓練。也因此, 過去研究並未有系統性的理解,企業在內部人力資本投資(或不投資)的各項動機,更未了解這些動機會不會與其是否響應政府的訓練補貼的政策有關?若能理解前一問題,才能進一步討論到,在企業加入補貼計畫後,其結果溢出及投入溢出的效果為何?也就是政府訓練補貼, 究竟是否會對企業人力資本累積及人力資本投資的決策行為產生影響。 企業人力資本投資的議題,原本就是策略人力資本理論中重要的領域。對現況台灣而言,這更是在政策上極具時代性的社會影響性議題。為回應這樣的研究缺口,本次兩年的研究計畫,希望能就以上議題深入探討,期望此一研究能更深入理解企業的人力資本投資行為,以及企業對政府培訓補貼政策的反應。同時更期望研究發現能對理論深化及政策決策者有所貢獻。 ;Human capital development activities, mainly training and development, are an important human resource management strategy which aims to increase a firm’s human capital internally by developing the knowledge and skills of their existing employees (Kang, Morris & Snell, 2007; Lepak & Snell 1999). Prior review or meta-analysis studies show that training and development activities are positively associated with employees’ reaction, learning, behavioral and outcome results, as well as positively linked with organizational outcomes ( Arthur Jr. et al., 2003; Salas, Tannenbaum, Kraiger, and Smith-Jentsch, 2012). However, it is found that it is not an easy task to ask business enterprises to increase the level of spending on their training and development activities(Asplund, 2004; Lynch & Black, 1998; Smith & Billett, 2003). The rationales underlying the allocation of resources to( or not to ) training activities are complex. Human capital investment may involve in public goods problems, that is, general human capital training (Campbell, Coff & Kryscynski, 2012), thus business enterprises are assumed to be more reluctant to invest in general human capital accumulation activities (Becker, 1975). The most mentioned reason is the mobility of human capital which may the possession of property rights of the human capital investment. It lowers motives of business enterprises to invest in human capital accumulation activities, even though these enterprises may comprehend the importance of human capital and human capital investment (Becker, 1975; Kim & Mahoney, 2005). However, human capital is critical for national and industry development. In order to promote national human capital, it provides economic rationales for government support for training activities in business enterprises. But it is not an easy question to answer whether the training subsidy is a good policy or not. Still now, we have little information about why firms spend so less in training activities and what factors may motivate firms’ training expenditure. Moreover, will they response the call of government policies to join the training subsidy project? Furthermore, after joining the project, will it change their following behaviors on training investment? Does there exist a crowding-in or crouwing-out effect? Will firms respond to the government training subsidy policies differently? In fact, these issues remain unanswered. This research is aimed to answer the prior mentioned issues. In the first year, our main objective is to demonstrate and call attention to business enterprises’ participation in government training subsidy projects. Based on exploring firms’ motivation underlying training activities, we will further examine the possible determinants on the participation behaviors of Taiwanese business enterprises in training subsidy. In the second year, we are going to examine how does the government financial support (subsidy) influence the participating firms’ following training expenditure? Thus, the major research objective of the second-year study is as follows: to examine the additionality effects of training subsidy on business enterprises’ following training outcomes, especially on the succeeding training expenditures. Expectantly, the findings should be helpful for understanding firms’ human capital investment behaviors more profoundly. In addition, policy makers should also benefit from the findings.
    Relation: 財團法人國家實驗研究院科技政策研究與資訊中心
    Appears in Collections:[人力資源管理研究所] 研究計畫

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    index.html0KbHTML83View/Open


    All items in NCUIR are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

    社群 sharing

    ::: Copyright National Central University. | 國立中央大學圖書館版權所有 | 收藏本站 | 設為首頁 | 最佳瀏覽畫面: 1024*768 | 建站日期:8-24-2009 :::
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback  - 隱私權政策聲明