scholarly journals How Do Employment Effects of Job Creation Schemes Differ with Respect to the Foregoing Unemployment Duration?

Author(s):  
Reinhard Hujer ◽  
Stephan Lothar Thomsen
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.


2001 ◽  
Vol 91 (1) ◽  
pp. 187-207 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olivier Blanchard ◽  
Pedro Portugal

Behind similar unemployment rates in the United States and Portugal hide two very different labor markets. Unemployment duration is three times longer in Portugal than in the United States. Symmetrically, flows of workers into unemployment are three times lower in Portugal. These lower flows come in roughly equal proportions from lower job creation and destruction, and from lower worker flows given job creation and destruction. A plausible explanation is high employment protection in Portugal. High employment protection makes economies more sclerotic; but because it affects unemployment duration and worker flows in opposite directions, the effect on unemployment is ambiguous. (JEL E2, J3, J6)


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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document