The Employment Effects of Job Creation Schemes for the Participating Individuals

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jens Horbach ◽  

New environmental technologies (environmental/eco-innovations) are often regarded as potential job creators—in addition to their positive effects on the environment. Environmental regulation may induce innovations that are accompanied by positive growth and employment effects. Recent empirical analyses show that the introduction of cleaner process innovations, rather than product-based ones, may also lead to higher employment. The rationale is that cleaner technologies lead to cost savings, which helps to improve firms’ competitiveness, thereby inducing positive effects on their market shares.


ILR Review ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 70 (5) ◽  
pp. 1111-1145 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Neumark ◽  
Diego Grijalva

State and federal policymakers grappling with the aftermath of the Great Recession sought ways to spur job creation, in many cases adopting hiring credits to encourage employers to create new jobs. Virtually no evidence is available, however, on the effects of these kinds of counter-recessionary hiring credits, with the only evidence coming from much earlier studies of the federal New Jobs Tax Credit in the 1970s. This article provides evidence on the effects of state hiring credits on job growth. Some specific types of hiring credits—including those targeting the unemployed, those that allow states to recapture credits when job creation goals are not met, and refundable hiring credits—appear to have succeeded in boosting job growth, particularly during the Great Recession period and perhaps also during recessions in general. At the same time, some evidence suggests that these credits can generate much more hiring than net employment growth, consistent with the credits encouraging churning of employees that raises the cost of producing jobs through hiring credits.


Author(s):  
Marco Caliendo ◽  
Reinhard Hujer ◽  
Stephan L. Thomsen

SummaryJob creation schemes (JCS) have been one important programme of active labour market policy (ALMP) in Germany for a long time. They aim at the re-integration of hard-to-place unemployed individuals into regular employment. A thorough microeconometric evaluation of these programmes was hindered by the fact, that available survey datasets have been too small to account for a possible occurrence of effect heterogeneity. However, identifying effect heterogeneity can help to improve the design and implementation of future programmes. Hence, we use administrative data of the Federal Employment Agency, containing over 11,000 participants to analyse the employment effects of JCS on an individual level. We focus explicitly on effect heterogeneity caused by differences in the implementation of programmes, whereas we analysed these effects with respect to group-specific and regional heterogeneity in a previous paper. At first, we evaluate the effects with respect to the economic sector in which the JCS are accomplished. Second, we analyse if different types of support lead to different effects. Finally, we examine if there are varying effects which can be attributed to different implementing institutions. The results are rather discouraging and show that JCS are in general not able to improve the re-integration chances of participants into regular employment.


Author(s):  
Tobias Brändle ◽  
Lukas Fervers

AbstractPrevious evaluations of job creation schemes (JCS) reveal mostly negative employment effects, mainly due to inherent lock-in effects. In this paper, we assess the impact of an innovative JCS that employs a pre-selection mechanism to target programme participation on unemployed job seekers with very low integration chances, hereby reducing possible lock-in effects. Relying on high-quality administrative as well as survey data, we conduct regression-adjusted matching analyses to estimate the programme effect on integration into regular employment. Our results show that the programme did not succeed to foster labour market integration, but still entails remarkably negative employment effects in the first years after participation. We argue that this results from a principal-agent problem at the last step of the selection mechanism that may have led to cream-skimming rather than targeting on very hard to place workers. However, supplementary analyses reveal that negative effects can be avoided for subgroups with very poor employment chances in case of non-participation. These results are robust to the use of different matching estimators and definitions of non-participation. The inclusion of usually unobservable survey variables as well as placebo tests based on past employment outcomes refute concerns about endogenous selection. From a policy-perspective, these findings imply that targeting JCS on workers with very low integration chances is a key factor to avoid negative employment effects found in previous evaluations. At the methodological level, our analyses add to recent literature that assesses the credibility of non-experimental evaluations based on high-quality administrative data.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document