CAJ | 학술논문

随着我国经济的快速发展，劳动力市场的教育回报率受到广泛关注。利用三省20个村庄近3500个农村劳动力的大样本调查资料，采用改进的Mincer模型，分析我国城乡流动人口教育回报状况以及地区间的差异。研究发现，我国城乡流动人口年平均教育回报率约为2％，其中初中、高中及以上的教育回报率约为3．3％，高于小学及以下的教育回报；城乡流动人口接受职业培训的回报率显著高于教育回报率，这暗示职业培训在城乡流动人口的人力资本积累中起着非常关键的作用；不同区域之间的教育和职业培训回报率存在明显差异，这些差异说明由于迁移成本等原因，当前我国非农部门对农业部门的溢出效应还存在一定的区域性。
수착아국경제적쾌속발전，노동력시장적교육회보솔수도엄범관주。이용삼성20개촌장근3500개농촌노동력적대양본조사자료，채용개진적Mincer모형，분석아국성향류동인구교육회보상황이급지구간적차이。연구발현，아국성향류동인구년평균교육회보솔약위2％，기중초중、고중급이상적교육회보솔약위3．3％，고우소학급이하적교육회보；성향류동인구접수직업배훈적회보솔현저고우교육회보솔，저암시직업배훈재성향류동인구적인력자본적루중기착비상관건적작용；불동구역지간적교육화직업배훈회보솔존재명현차이，저사차이설명유우천이성본등원인，당전아국비농부문대농업부문적일출효응환존재일정적구역성。
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the rate of return to schooling, as well as training premium and regional comparison for rural migrants in China. Based on modified version of Mincer model and introduce new perspective to view re- turn to education for rural migrants, which is usually thought downwardly biased due to omitted ability or sample selection. A representative data set is employed to reduce potential measurement error and estimation bias. The return tO schooling for rural migrants is about 2 percent, while average yearly rate of return to education for people with secondary schooling and above is a- bout 3.3 percent, confirming non -linearity in rate of return to education. Compared with interest rate deposits at the same time, no evidence support downward biased estimation. Training can gain much more benefit than schooling, indicating that it plays more vital role in human capital accumulation for rural laborers transferring to non - farm employment. The provincial disparity in education rctum to migrants indicates poor education prevent people from earning equally. Identifying rate of return to education and training, as well as regional wage disparity using rural migrant data is critical for China to continue market - oriented reformation in labor market. This paper introduces new perspective to evaluate estimation bias in return to education. Comparison of return to education with interest rate deposits at the same time suggests that our estimation of return to schooling was downward biased.