Human capital reproduction process is becoming actual on period of active mobility labor forces and integrations inter regional markets. The process of formation scientific based economy is bringing new challenges for using efficiently human capital, making optimal investments in relation to enlargement skills, ability and quality assurance of employment forces. However, the human capital reproduction process includes migration impact risks, concerning to manpower drain from developing countries, reevaluations of employability demands in labor markets, which is more obvious in Armenia. In fact, the country has faced tremendous social economy changes in post independence period. The substantial changes in economic and social sphere of early 1990's had a direct impact on human capital reproduction process through demographic situation in Armenia.
The basis of human capital is people, and for that reason, the key factor that influences the size of a country’s stock of human capital is demographic. The reasonable level of human capital stock can be promoted or limited primarily by population. In addition, the characteristics of population (for example, it’s a geographic orientation) have a large influence on the potential stock of human capital–both for today and in the future. Besides, the process of social transformation in Armenia was accompanied by a considerable devaluation of human capital, which had been accumulated and generated in previous socialistic area. In post independence period Armenia has broken of well founded economic relations with former Soviet Union Republics and start revise long-established economy sources. As a results this massive condemnation effected on quantity and quality level of employability and the accumulated part of human capital came under reevaluation and reconsideration.
Mobility is an essential feature of today’s world, and migrant workers are now an increasingly vital part of the global workforce. The article seeks to provide strategic overview on how well country are leveraging reproduction of home accumulated human capital and establishing workforces that are prepared for the demands of competitive economy.
Key words: recognition of human capital, human capital disbandment, labor forces mobility, migration and human capital interrelation, migration risks, peculiarities of human capital
reproduction
Human Capital Recognition Issues
Capital historically defined economic relations regarding things, the attitudes about the changes in their value, i.e. their capitalization. The literature review is performing, that the main accepted approach in economics views human capital as a set of skills/characteristics that increase a worker’s productivity. Human capital refers to the stock of skills and knowledge embodied in the ability to perform labor so as produce economic value, formed as a result of investment and accumulated human's health, knowledge, skills, abilities, motivations which are expediently used during the process of labor, contributing to human's productivity and wage increase. Human capital theory studies the process of qualitative improvement of human resources, forming one of the central divisions of modern labor supply analysis. Schulz explained his concept in 1981 as follows: „Consider all human abilities to be either innate or acquired. Attributes which are valuable and can be augmented by appropriate investment will be human capital,“ (Schulz, 1981). Bontis, Dragonetti, Jacobsen and Roos suggested a more detailed definition in 1999: „Human capital represents the human factor in the organization; the combined intelligence, skills and expertise that gives the organization its distinctive character. The human elements of the organization are those that are capable of learning, changing, innovating and providing the creative thrust which if properly motivated can ensure the long-term survival of the organization,“ (Bontis, Dragonetti, Jacobsen & Roos, 1999).
In theory most frequently it is used as a synonym of human resources, employees, labor force or even of labor resources population (people in the working age) generally. Accordingly the term was used in connection with the shift from understanding employees as the cost item of organization to understanding them as the assets, the most important part of wealth of organization, the disposable capital, which value is possible to increase, e.g. through investing in employees training and development.
In practice business framework, human capital is the economic value of an employee’s set of skills, with self reproducing capabilities. Nevertheless, for the policy maker, human capital is the capacity of the population to drive economic growth. Conventionally, from both sides, human capital has been viewed as a function of education and experience, the latter reflecting both training and learning by doing. But in recent years, health (including physical capacities, cognitive function and mental health) has come to be seen as a fundamental component of human capital. Additionally, the value of human capital is critically determined by the physical, social and economic context of a society, because that context determines how particular attributes a person possesses may be rewarded (The Human Capital Report, 2013).
Human Capital Measurement and Ranking
More to the point of human capital recognition, it is also issue of human capital measurement. Because of various structural components, practically it is complicated to asses and quantitative present human capital stock, is more acceptable measurement of this value using by aggregate approach. However, the Human Capital Index is a new measure for capturing and tracking the state of human capital development around the world and measures a broader set of indicators than the traditional definitions of human capital. The Human Capital Index seeks to create greater awareness among a global audience of human capital as a fundamental pillar of the growth, stability and competitiveness of nations.
According to World Economic Forum implemented methodology the four pillars is included in human capital measurement Index.
1. The Education pillar contains indicators relating to quantitative and qualitative aspects of education across primary, secondary and tertiary levels and contains information on both the present workforce as well as the future workforce.
2. The Health and Wellness pillar contains indicators relating to a population’s physical and mental well– being, from childhood to adulthood.
3. The Workforce and Employment pillar is designed to quantify the experience, talent, knowledge and training in a country’s working–age population.
4. The Enabling Environment pillar captures the legal framework, infrastructure and other factors that enable returns on human capital.
The advantages of human capital index as a measurement tool are obviously from different point of view. This indicator enables us to think of not only the years of schooling, but also of a variety of other characteristics as part of human capital investments. These include school quality, training, attitudes towards work, etc. Using this type of reasoning, it is possible to make some progress towards understanding some of the differences in earnings across workers that are not accounted by schooling differences alone.
In Human Capital Detailed world ranking table Armenia is taking 73 position within 122 countries (see table 1). The top ten countries are dominated by the European countries, with eight of the top ten spots occupied by countries from this region. Switzerland (1) tops the rankings for the Human Capital Index, demonstrating consistently high scores across all four pillars, with top spots on Health and Wellness and Workforce and Employment, second place on Enabling Environment and fourth on Education (The Human Capital Report, 2013).
Nevertheless, ranking position structural analyzing by separate pillars is performing, that workforce and employment is the less competitive components in human capital configuration in Armenia (see figure 1), and the more influence factors for dropping of this indicator is employability level in various social demographic groups (see table 2)
Table 1 Brief Performance of Detailed Ranking of Human Capital Index (2013)
Country Overall index Education Health and wellness Workforce and employment Enabling environment
Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score
Switzerland 1 1.455 4 1.313 1 0.977 1 1.736 2 1.793
Finland 2 1.406 1 1.601 9 0.844 3 1.250 1 1.926
Singapore 3 1.232 3 1.348 13 0.762 2 1.345 5 1.471
Netherlands 4 1.161 7 1.106 4 0.901 8 1.150 4 1.484
Sweden 5 1.111 14 0.977 2 0.960 6 1.154 10 1.351
Germany 6 1.109 19 0.888 8 0.877 9 1.149 3 1.522
Norway 7 1.104 15 0.970 6 0.890 5 1.182 8 1.373
UK 8 1.042 10 1.031 17 0.682 10 1.072 7 1.384
Denmark 9 1.024 18 0.891 3 0.943 12 0.932 11 1.330
Canada 10 0.987 2 1.355 20 0.548 15 0.875 17 1.168
------------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Armenia 73 –0.218 60 0.042 71 –0.035 113 – 0.678 64 –0.201
Table 2
Structure of “Workforce and Employment” Indicator in Armenia (2013)
Pillar 3 Rank/122 Z-Score Country Value Sample Minimum Sample Maximum
Participation
Labour force participation rate, age 15–64 (%) 96 -0.561 63.7 43.4 90.6
Labour force participation rate, age 65+ (%) 47 -0.018 24.3 1.6 91.2
Economic participation gender gap 69 -0.009 0.645 0.310 0.839
Unemployment rate 103 -1.959 19.0 0.3 32
Youth unemployment rate 103 -2.765 45.5 1.6 48.2
Talent
Country capacity to attract talent 93 -0.857 2.56 1.48 6.08
Country capacity to retain talent 103 -0.937 2.62 1.81 5.97
Ease of finding skilled employees 88 -0.607 3.56 2.13 5.69
Pay related to productivity 31 0.672 4.33 2.37 5.25
Capacity for innovation 66 -0.327 3.44 2.31 5.84
Firm level technology absorption 84 -0.638 4.36 3.17 6.23
Scientific and technical journal articles (per 1,000 people 53 -0.451 0.053 0 1.242
Median age of the working population 54 0.074 35 28 42
Training
Staff training 88 -0.751 3.56 2.51 5.57
Training services 106 -1.055 3.47 2.67 6.47
Human Capital Reproduction Peculiarities’
Not only the human capital, but as well its reproduction are phenomena, which sizes are difficult to determine and it is impossible to measure and quantify them using methods applied in population statistics or in other disciplines. It is understandable, what the quality of human capital and its reproduction consists in. However, in the interests of development of extended human capital reproduction it is necessary improvement of quality of upbringing and education young people and on employees training and development, support of acquiring new experiences, support of sharing knowledge and skills, full utilization of potentials of people, and last but not least, improvement the working life quality. This resource must be invested in and leveraged efficiently in order for it to generate returns, for the individuals involved as well as an economy as a whole. Additionally, despite high unemployment in Armenia, the global economy is entering an era of talent scarcity that, if left unaddressed, will hinder economic growth worldwide. Understanding and addressing challenges related to human capital is thus fundamental to short term stability as well as the long term growth, prosperity and competitiveness of nations (The Human Capital Report, 2013). However, it is considerable „accounting“ approach to these activities, because practically is possible to measure the expended costs, but unfeasible ascertain in full any final effect of the costs and thus measure it.
It is useful to think of the possible sources of human capital differences before discussing the incentives for reproduction of human capital. The one of main important factors is innate ability. Workers can have different amounts of skills/human capital because of innate differences. The relevance of this observation for labor economics is twofold: (i) there is likely to be heterogeneity in human capital even when individuals have access to the same investment opportunities and the same economic constraints; (ii) in empirical applications, we have to find a way of dealing with this source of differences in human capital, especially when it’s likely to be correlated with other variables of interest.
Another important factor for human capital reproduction is schooling. This has been the focus of much research, since it is the most easily observable component of human capital investments. However, the assessment of schooling impact is likely to be very informative if will to consider, that the same forces will affect schooling investments are also likely to affect non-schooling investments. Who grew up in the same environment until the age of 6, and then completed the same years of schooling may nevertheless have different amounts of human capital. This could be because they attended different schools with varying qualities, but it could also be the case even if they went to the same school. In this latter case, for one reason or another, they may have chosen to make different investments in other components of their human capital (one may have worked harder, or studied especially for some subjects, or because of a variety of choices/circumstances, one may have become more assertive, better at communicating, etc.). Many economists believe that these “unobserved” skills are very important in understanding the structure of wages (and the changes in the structure of wages).
The essential component of human capital reproduction is training. At some level, training is very similar to schooling in that the worker, at least to some degree, controls how much to invest. But it is also much more complex, since it is difficult for a worker to make training investments by himself. The companies also needs to invest in the training of the workers, and often ends up bearing a large fraction of the costs of these training investments. The role of the firm is even greater once we take into account that training has a significant “matching” component in the sense that it is most useful for the worker to invest in a set of specific technologies that the firm will be using in the future. So training is often a joint investment by companies and workers, complicating the analysis.
Figure 1 Human Capital index Structural Performance in Armenia (2013)
The most deteriorating point in human capital implementing process in Armenia is workforce ineffective usage and higher unemployment rate, which is a considerable in human capital index assessment (see figure 1). Consequently, in human capital reproduction development in Armenia currently essential to give more attention for activating macro economic tools for remodeling human capital structure, such as post educational trainings, long life learning, employee over qualification in companies, which will to meet and satisfy the requirements of labor market.
The presumption that all pay differences are related to skills (even if these skills are unobserved to the economists in the standard data sets) is not entire realistically in Armenia by following reasons.
• compensating differentials: a worker may be paid less in money, because he is receiving part of his compensation in terms of other (hard-to-observe) characteristics of the job, which may include lower effort requirements, more pleasant working conditions, better amenities etc.
• current labor market imperfections: two workers with the same human capital may be paid different wages because jobs differ in terms of their productivity and pay, and one of them ended up matching with the high productivity job, while the other has matched with the low productivity one.
• age discrimination: employers may pay a lower wage to a worker because of the worker’s age, and practically it is to much difficult looking for job positions after 40 age.
Consequently, in interpreting wage differences, and therefore in thinking of human capital reproduction and the incentives for investment, it is important for Armenia to strike the right balance between assigning earning differences to unobserved heterogeneity, compensating wage differentials and labor market imperfections, having consideration also harmonization of macro and micro economic impacts on human capital reproduction process. Human capital reproduction analyzing is verified, that still have misbalance between investments in macro in microeconomic levels, concerning to capital enlargement. According self survey results of human capital investing framework, has determinated difference factors impacts’ weights on human capital reproduction development. As a result, in Armenia more successful influence on human capital reproduction process coming from macro economy level, then from micro economy level, such us:
➢ public education – 20%
➢ cultural – 10% macro economic level (60%)
➢ social security – 15%
➢ public health – 15%
➢ professional education – 28%
➢ overqualification – 2% microeconomic level (34%)
➢ devoloping professional skills – 4%
➢ Armenian Diaspora – 2% outside environment influence (6%)
➢ re emmigrants -4%
In case for Armenia as a human capital development peculiarity also we can mention country outside environment influence, such us re immigrants overqualified skills implementation, Diaspora work force ability exchanging, is also considerable factor in human capital reproduction process (Hergnyan M., Makaryan A., 2006). However, comprehensive analyzing of human capital index by countries is coming to demonstrate, that currently Armenia is not competitive with Europe and such Central Asian countryside’s outline (see figure 2), which is making essential not only activating for regeneration and taking viable ranking positions, but also keeping accumulated national capital from migration risks.
Figure 2 Spread of scores (by pillar and overall)
Migration Motivations Survey Results in Armenia
There is closely linkage between human capital reproduction and migration processes (Martin, Philip L, 2004), which is making essential to emphasize migration motivations’ in Armenia. The main reasons behind the decision to migrate were connected with employment problems in Armenia, be it the lack of jobs in general, lack of jobs that pay sufficiently for a decent living, or the absence of profession-specific jobs. The majority of those aged 21-30, and 51 and above, decided to leave because they were unable to find a job in Armenia. This outcome might be explained by the fact that it is generally easier for the secondary-aged population to find a job. A
bigger demand for middle-aged people in the labour market is natural, since the young do not bring enough work experience, and the elders may not possess the skills required by the current market. The majority of residence with lower levels of education claimed they could not find jobs in Armenia at all. Other reasons include the absence of development perspectives in Armenia, obstacles to doing business, an undesirable moral and psychological atmosphere, and an unstable geopolitical situation.
Some other reasons may account too for the Armenian migration activity. Long term practice is coming to confirm us, that in some villages, from which many men have been continuously leaving to work abroad over a long period of time, labour migration has become a traditional way of providing for families even in former Soviet time, when we not have unemployment issues in Armenian labour market.
Another stimulus for labour migration, though not very widespread, was mentioned mainly by young men. They wish to leave their home village and live in a more cultural and socially vibrant environment (such as a town). They often try to settle in marz centers or Yerevan. There are many active people amongst them, who put their skills and abilities, in different fields, to the test, both in Yerevan and marz centers.
One more factor informing the decision to leave Armenia and work abroad is the need to make investments or to shoulder additional costs. For example, these would be the cost of educating children - hiring a tutor, covering the university fees or the need to support children who moved to another town within Armenia in order to further their education, wedding expenses, the purchase or renovation of a flat/house, start-up expenses for own business etc. It is interesting to know that every fourth migrant was planning to earn money to repair the family house, while every fifth aimed to pay for education of children, or procure durable products such as furniture, household appliances, and the like. These are heavy financial burdens at home and the income from work in Armenia is often enough only for basic everyday expenses, but insufficient to cover these additional expenses (Migration and Development Armenia Country Study, 2009).
Intentions to emigrate among house owners vary depending on these 3 types of residence and are slightly different among residents in villages and in Yerevan. Respondents in villages are around 2.5 larger than those in towns or Yerevan, reflecting the fact that in rural areas houses are dominant (Aleksandr Grigoryan, 2013). This, however, does not change the overall pattern that emigration intentions do not change much when moving from rural to urban areas. Around one third of respondents express willingness to emigrate, no matter where they reside, in rural or urban areas and whether families own house or not.
Consistent with our self study of motivation to migrate among Armenian residences, we are getting various results among potential emigrants and emigrated habitant (see figure 3). As a potential migrant has considered:
• anyone who is between 18-50 years old, lived in the country at the moment of the interview and was available for being interviewed.
• representatives of the young adult population (18–50 years), who are not actively seeking to migrate and are included.
As a emigrated residents is included:
• anyone who left the survey country aged 18 or over,
• lived and worked abroad continuously for at least three months,
• came back to own country within the last 5 years.
The survey is showing us, that in both potential emigrants and emigrated target groups the main migration reason is job seeking. Though, potential emigrants motivation is presenting more strongly in profession development, and long life education fields, making less attention to social condition development (see figure 3), which is considerable migration risk in human capital reproduction process in Armenia and need for further investigation and case – result analyzing not only in sociological, but also in economical framework.
Figure 3 Migration Motivations Survey Results in Armenia career
Emigrated Residents
Potential Emigrants
Migration Risks Influence on Human Capital Reproduction
All surveys and studies conclude that Armenian contemporary labor migration flows are, in most cases, of a temporary nature. It is estimated that 94 per cent of all migrants are temporary migrant workers, while only 3 per cent leave the country with the purpose of permanently settling abroad and 2 per cent leave in order to study abroad (Minasyan, A., Poghosyan, A., Gevorgyan, L., and Chobanyan, 2008). Regarding the education and professional background of migrant workers, household surveys converge to estimate that more than 70 percent of migrant workers either have secondary general education or secondary professional (vocational) education, while around 20 per cent have tertiary education. It is also noticeable that the migration rate of workers with higher education (7%) appears to be lower than that of workers with vocational and secondary education (11%). This may be explained by “the higher demand for [persons with tertiary education] in the domestic labour market”. (Migration and Development. Armenia Country Study, 2009). Given the high rate of unemployment within numerous skilled professional groups, this may only be a partial explanation. It could also be argued that the fact that a significant number of skilled workers appear to be employed abroad, under their level of qualification, may have a deterring effect on pull factors.
The most interesting and important thing that the parents having primary secondary and vocational education their children have lower probability to get higher education than the parents that have higher education. As a consequence, there is a linkage between parental and children's education level (Edgar Begrakyan, 2013). The linkage is more emphasized for higher education as it is likely to be connected with the financial conditions (as well as with ability) while an individual can get primary and secondary education in the public schools which are free of charge in Armenia.
Annually, about 60,000 labor migrants go to seek jobs in Russia, mainly in the construction industry. As a matter of rule, these migrants return to Armenia to visit their families at least once a year. Most of them do not wish to relocate families to Russia to settle there permanently. At the same time, they do not want to return to Armenia permanently, because they cannot find decent employment that would pay sufficiently to sustain their families. The resent surveys is showing, that however in case of finding employment, they would be ready to return to Armenia permanently (Migration and Development Armenia Country Study, 2009). Consequently, migration motivations is making sufficient influence on human capital reproduction process and have need for associated analyzing.
Furthermore, human capital is a link which enters both the cause and effects of economic-demographic changes and can not be developed in isolation. Rather, it is influenced by the interaction of complex demographic, social and economic factors. Obviously, well-managed labor migration has huge potential for governments, communities, migrants, employers and other stakeholders in countries of origin and destination. While job creation at home is the first, best option, an increasing number of countries see international labor migration as an integral part of national development and employment strategies by taking advantage of global employment opportunities and bringing in foreign exchange. In countries of origin, labour migration can relieve pressure on unemployment and can contribute to development through the channeling of remittances, transfer of know-how, and the creation of business and trade networks. In countries of destination which face labor shortages, orderly and well-managed labour migration can lighten labor scarcity, facilitate mobility, and add to human capital. Consequently, well founded migration management giving more advantages for both origin and destination countries and reducing inconvenience risks impacts on human capital reproduction process.
Unfortunately, in Armenia steel migration process is not under regular management, which is generating lot of local risks during human capital formation. Armenia is an important country of emigration, where most migrant workers leave to Russia in order to work on a temporary basis in the construction sector. Armenian workers in Russia face numerous abuses of their employment rights. And the same time Armenian current labor emigration policy is very limited and can not fully protect the economic and social rights of emigrants. It notably lacks a comprehensive approach that would include both activities in Armenia and in countries of destination (Alexandre Devillard, 2012).
Here, the issue of human capital reproduction is essentially transformed into another issue; i.e. explore, record, evaluate and effectively manage the migration risks. The matter is that the emigration of several people or groups, which is apparently derived from basic needs of households and which enhances their individual utility, upon reaching a certain threshold, begins to contradict to their social utility by thus, brings about the dispersion of aggregate human capital. This raises new social risks within the society and might become a problem for not only human capital accumulation but also for its simple reproduction (Marzpanyan H., Astvatsaturov S., Siroyan G.,2013).
Social isolation and intolerance, compulsive unemployment, lack of legal protection and material well-being and many other risks to which the main part of Armenian society is vulnerable, are mostly knitted into migration risks (the decision to migrate). While studying the social factors of migration or estimating the effectiveness of use of human capital, one should certainly take into consideration the impact of gender risks, which are clearly seen, for example, in the gender disbalance in employment sector and labor market. It will probably be sufficient to mention only one indicator from the great number of other proving this statement: in the employed population men and women are almost equally represented (women account for 46% and men for 54% of the employed), while in case of employers the proportion of men is quite significant (men-86%) .
Even though in service sector of RA women's educational level and professional expertise is much higher, most of these institutions are headed by men. This is clearly demonstrated particularly in health sector. Currently the total number of doctors in Armenia is 13200, 8850 of whom are women (66.5%). The implemented studies have shown that only 15 out of 100 medical institutions are headed by a woman. Taking into consideration the fact that lower-level positions (nurses, assistants, medical orderlies, etc.) are mainly held by women who are badly paid, it becomes obvious that gender-based differentiation of incomes in the health sector is unacceptably big and clearly expressed by vertical discrimination.
The picture is almost the same in state and local governance, manufacturing enterprise, service sector and financial-banking sector.
As a result, in the country overall a significant gender-based differentiation in terms of average monthly income has developed: during 2011-2012 women's average monthly wages continued to be about 63% of men’s wages . Among the employed population men's average salary was 131293 AMD, while women's average salary was 84992 , income of male employers was 23% higher than that of female employers, and income of self-employed men was more than double the income of self-employed women .
Anyway, gender disbalance in Armenian labor market, employment sector and income is a serious factor for migration risks growth. All the main factors that force population to migrate (poverty, unemployment, low income, distrust) are conditioned by gender discrimination in RA and its result-inefficient use of human capital.
Additionally, in Armenia effective procedures of generating and analyzing migration and human capital reproduction interrelations should be developed, including observant mechanisms and early-warning systems, with such elements as risk profiling and monitoring, to prevent not only administrative offences but also economic activities of individuals and organized groups. Despite the existence of several databases of relevance to irregular migration, representatives of the competent authorities stressed during the assessment that the databases they were regularly using did not comply with necessary requirements, lacking both in their technical characteristics and the quality of supporting equipment and software, such as, for instance, inability to collect, store and process biometric information, ageing computers and IT platforms, lack of interoperability between databases from different agencies (Enhancing Migration Data Collection, Processing and Sharing in the Republic of Armenia, Needs, Assessment and Gap Analysis Report, 2010) . This situation presents a considerable gap. Therefore, it is recommended to carry out a specialized thorough appraisal of the existing IT resources involved in the process of irregular migration counteraction, with a particular focus on the available hardware and software, interoperability between various databases, capacity to perform required functions (complex queries and quick results), to which extend the existing systems are utilized by relevant authorities (number of active users, functions for which the systems are used, users’ level of satisfaction and potential gaps – training level, legal framework).
According the “Skills and Employment for Migrants report, 2012”, the migration risks have an influence on human capital reproduction to following aspects:
• 36% of 18-50 age group in Armenia intend to migrate, but the likelihood decreases to 12.6% when controlled for actual ability to migrate,
• reasons for migration are all economic – lack of jobs, improving standards of living, unsatisfactory wage and career prospects at home – while reasons for return are typically family related
• pre-departure training: high interest from potential migrants (30-40%), but very little training received in reality (2% in Armenia),
• most migrants work as unskilled/skilled workers, irrespective of their education level; skills mismatch increases with education and is higher for women,
• post-return work: only 42% in Armenia work after return; high tendency to re-migrate again 68% in Armenia,
• remittances are used only to a small degree for education and business investments,
• reintegration programmes: awareness of return support and training schemes is very limited among returnees (and participation miniscule),
• portability of social rights improves the return outcome of returning migrants (The Skills Dimension of Migration: ETF Survay Rezults From Armenia and Georgia, 2012)
The issue of migration risks, being considered and analyzed through the prism of institutional risks, unites (bring together) the micro- and macro-levels of human capital reproduction. Moreover, migration process is making indispensable negative (sometimes positive) impact on human capital reproduction process, which his necessary to consider during workforces mobility regulation (see figure 4).
The self study results in human capital reproduction process framework is showing, that cur¬rent¬ly in Armenia 35% of human capital is in disbandment position because of unemployment or in use under less classified job position, and only 40% of human capital is effectively included in national economy system. The irritant matter is the 25% overall potential and current outflows human capital from country. The economic situation in Armenia steel assisting the emigration and consequently permanent human capital outflows. Only 5% returnees maintained, that implemented new professional skills and abilities, additionally occurred obtaining emigration. Consequently, migration risks is declining because of gaining new professional skills on abroad among re emigrants. However, the negative impact of migration on human capital reproduction process in Armenia is more, then constructive influence (see figure 4).
Conclusion
The human capital reproduction and migration processes having closely linkage. Although, currently in Armenia is actual to measure this correlation in order making qualitative analysis and conclusions, however there are some obstacles to do it. First of all, the human capital quantities assessment implementation practically has a gaps and non accountable points performance, which is issue not only in Armenia. This conditions making difficulties for analyzing of interrelations human capital reproduction and migration processing. Secondly, in Armenia the migration process is not under entirely regulation process and usually is taking monitoring from work forces mobility point of view, consequently having outstanding quality aspects of emigration results. Well managed labor migration has huge information providing potential for governments, communities, migrants, employers and other stakeholders in countries of origin and destination.
However, even in current situation it is possible to have some conclusions, concerning to impact of migration on human capital reproduction process in Armenia. More successful influence on human capital reproduction process in Armenia is performing from macro economy level, such us public education, cultural, social security. From micro economy level supplementary impact on human capital reproduction is making higher education, which is strongly related with migration risks. Talent scarcity in destination countries making reasonable manpower drain from Armenia, which is currently taking additional promotion in case of having higher education low fees and qualified workforce ineffective usage in Armenia.
Considerable unemployment rate among higher educated residence is bringing migration risks of transformation alumnus to abroad, because of paying less education fees in native country and having expensive paid jobs in destination countries. Thus, migration indirectly making identity corrections in human capital reproduction process, over reviewing traditionally installments of professions and skills of labor forces and configuring preventions against human capital disbandment process in Armenia. Consequently, migration and human capital reproduction interrelation analyzing results is performing the necessity of investment reorientation from high professional skills to the middle professionalism in accumulated human capital structure.
The constructive side of migration is reducing unemployment pressure and reevaluating of employability demands in Armenian labor market, which is giving macroeconomic optimizing corrections from human capital structural point of view. Currently, in Armenian tertiary education preparing some kinds of professions, which are mostly facing with spare of local labor market, and consequently is motivating emigration among them. Therefore, this kind of migration risks making some adjustments in process of human capital reproduction, reviewing the scope of traditionally prepared specializations in universities and colleges.
Finally, the labor migration can relieve pressure on unemployment, and this process can bring encouraging results by development through the channeling of remittances, transfer of know-how, and the creation of business and trade networks. However, in Armenia migration mentioned positive impacts are lower on human capital reproduction process, because most of all returnees had included in under qualified works in destination countries and do not taking usefully exchange abilities. Consequently, in order for reducing migration negative risks in process of reproduction human capital, is necessary to organize long life learning and over qualification trainings more dynamically among Armenian residence, which will promote demand and supplying balance keeping in job market and same time encourage effective investments in human capital formation process.
References:
Aleksandr Grigoryan, Who else migrates from Armenia? Evidence from intentions (2013), CRRC-Armenia Exploratory Research Fellowship Program
Armen Yeghiazaryan, Vahram Avanesian, and Nelson Shahnazaryan. How to reverse emigration? Technical report, jointly with ”Ameria” CJSC, 2003.
Bontis, N., Dragonetti, N. C., Jacobsen, K. & Roos, G. (1999). The Knowledge Toolbox: A Review of Tools Available to Measure and Manage Intangible Resources. European Management Journal, 17 (4), 391–402.
Enhancing Migration Data Collection, Processing and Sharing in the Republic of Armenia
Needs Assessment and Gap Analysis Report, December 2010, International Organization for Migration Mission in Armenia
Labour Migration in Armenia: Existing Trends and Policy Options, Alexandre Devillard
International Organization for Migration Yerevan, 2012, International Organization for Migration Mission in Armenia:
Minasyan, A., Poghosyan, A., Gevorgyan, L., and Chobanyan, H., Return Migration to Armenia in 2002-2008, AST OSCE, 2008, p. 9
Migration and Development. Armenia Country Study, ILO, 2009, pp. 23-42.
Schulz, T. W. (1981). Investing in People. The Economics of Population Quality. Berkeley:
University of California Press. 12+173 p.
Edgar Begrakyan, Inequality, Human Capital, Growth and Mobility in Armenia Economic Research Department, Central Bank of Armenia, May, 2013
Josef Koubek (2013), Some comments on the concept of human capital, its value and reproduction, Human Resources Management & Ergonomics, Volume, VII 2/2013 pp.78-89
Hergnyan M., Makaryan A., “The Role of the Diaspora in Generating Foreign Direct Investments in Armenia” ,Yerevan, 2006
Marzpanyan H., Astvatsaturov S., Siroyan G., Peculiarities of migration risks in Armenia in the light of human capital reproduction, 2013
Martin, Philip L (2004), Migration and development: Toward sustainable solutions, ILO Decent
Work Research Programme, DP 153/2004
Migration and Development Armenia Country Study, 2009, International Labour Organization
National Statistical Service, Armenia, 2013, //www.armstat.am
The Human Capital Report, 2013, World Economic Forum
The Skills Dimension of Migration: ETF Survay Rezults From Armenia and Georgia,
Skills and Employment for Migrants Yerevan, 2012
Valery Tishkov, Zhanna Zayinchkovskaya, and Galina Vitkovskaya. Migration in the countries
of the former soviet union. Technical report, Global Commision of Internatonal Migration, September 2005.
United Nations Development Programme, Migration and Human Development: Opportunities and Challenges. Armenia 2009, National Human Development Report 2009, Yerevan, 2010
No comments:
Post a Comment