Active Labour Market Policies: What Works for the Long-Term Unemployed?

Rainer Eppel; Ulrike Huemer; Helmut Mahringer; Lukas Schmoigl

doi:10.1515/bejeap-2023-0079

Published by De Gruyter December 14, 2023

Active Labour Market Policies: What Works for the Long-Term Unemployed?

Rainer Eppel , Ulrike Huemer , Helmut Mahringer and Lukas Schmoigl

From the journal The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy

https://doi.org/10.1515/bejeap-2023-0079

Showing a limited preview of this publication:

Abstract

There is still a lack of knowledge on how to effectively help the long-term unemployed into employment. We evaluate a wide range of active labour market policies for this target group, using a dynamic matching approach. Measures vary considerably in the extent to which they improve labour market prospects. Human capital-intensive training programs that substantially enhance vocational skills and employment programs are most effective, short activating job search training the least. Our results suggest that not only wage subsidies in the private sector, but also direct job creation in the public and non-profit sectors can work, if properly designed.

Keywords: long-term unemployment; active labour market policy; public employment service; training; wage subsidies; direct job creation

Corresponding author: Rainer Eppel, Department of Labour Economics, Income and Social Security, Austrian Institute of Economic Research, Vienna, Austria, E-mail: rainer.eppel@wifo.ac.at

Appendix

Figure 5:

Share of different population groups in the eligible unemployed and programme participants. Source: AUR, ASSD, statistics Austria and own calculations. Eligible unemployed: persons who were (for at least one day) registered as unemployed, looking for an apprenticeship, in PES training or a relevant ALMP measure for the unemployed in a given calendar month from 2013 to 2017. Programme participants: persons with programme entry in the respective month. Low-skilled: at most compulsory school level of education. Average over all months.

Table 1:

Covariate balance after matching.

	Nr. treated	% Loss to common support	Median bias, after^a	Logit Pseudo-R ², after^b	p > χ ², after^c
Vocational orientation	39,336	0.2	0.1	0.000	1.000
Basic skills training	36,517	0.4	0.2	0.001	1.000
Vocational training	82,412	0.3	0.1	0.001	1.000
Job search training	42,287	0.1	0.2	0.000	1.000
Course subsidies	40,842	0.2	0.2	0.001	1.000
Wage subsidy	50,709	0.2	0.1	0.000	1.000
Direct job creation	22,796	0.3	0.2	0.000	1.000

Source: AUR, ASSD, statistics Austria and own calculations. Indicators for the estimation of 1- and 2-year effects for the long-term unemployed (no restriction of the sample to specific programme start years). Number of treated observations after matching. Proportion of treated lost to common support. ^aMedian absolute standardised bias after matching: % difference of the sample means in the matched treated and matched non-treated subsamples as a percentage of the square root of the average of the sample variances in the treated and non-treated groups. ^bPseudo R ² from logit estimation on the matched samples. ^c p-value of the likelihood-ratio test of the joint significance of all regressors after matching.

Table 2:

Descriptive sample characteristics by treatment status (before matching), example direct job creation.

	Mean			t-test
	T	C	Diff.	p > \|t\|
Month of elapsed unemployment
13^th	0.061	0.059	0.001	0.308
14^th	0.056	0.051	0.005	0.000	***
15^th	0.061	0.051	0.010	0.000	***
16^th	0.057	0.044	0.013	0.000	***
17^th	0.054	0.044	0.010	0.000	***
18^th	0.050	0.038	0.012	0.000	***
19^th	0.043	0.036	0.007	0.000	***
20^th	0.044	0.036	0.008	0.000	***
21^st	0.036	0.032	0.004	0.000	***
22^nd	0.036	0.032	0.004	0.000	***
23^rd	0.028	0.028	0.000	0.706
24^th	0.031	0.029	0.002	0.011	**
≥25^th	0.442	0.520	−0.078	0.000	***
Female	0.485	0.436	0.049	0.000	***
Age (in years)	44.380	43.510	0.870	0.000	***
Formal education level
At most compulsory school	0.578	0.517	0.061	0.000	***
Apprenticeship	0.301	0.289	0.012	0.000	***
Intermediate vocational school	0.040	0.047	−0.007	0.000	***
Higher academic or vocational school	0.055	0.091	−0.036	0.000	***
Academic education	0.025	0.056	−0.031	0.000	***
Single	0.583	0.586	−0.003	0.322
Family-related returner to workforce (only women)	0.101	0.124	−0.023	0.000	***
Number of children (only women)
0	0.717	0.754	−0.037	0.000	***
1	0.122	0.108	0.014	0.000	***
2	0.096	0.084	0.012	0.000	***
≥3	0.065	0.054	0.011	0.000	***
Age of the youngest child (years)
≤2	0.003	0.006	−0.003	0.000	***
3–7	0.064	0.069	−0.005	0.003	***
8–10	0.033	0.030	0.003	0.002	***
11–15	0.046	0.037	0.009	0.000	***
≥16	0.136	0.104	0.032	0.000	***
Nationality
Austria	0.776	0.768	0.008	0.007	***
EU15 (without Austria), Switzerland	0.023	0.022	0.001	0.144
EU2004/2007-member state	0.059	0.052	0.007	0.000	***
Turkey, former Yugoslavia (without Slovenia)	0.074	0.108	−0.034	0.000	***
Others	0.068	0.049	0.019	0.000	***
Migration background	0.340	0.389	−0.049	0.000	***
Naturalised	0.105	0.140	−0.035	0.000	***
Health-related placement restriction
Legal disability status	0.061	0.057	0.004	0.011	**
Other health-related employment limitation	0.285	0.268	0.017	0.000	***
Economic sector of last employment
Agriculture, mining	0.005	0.005	0.000	0.418
Manufacturing	0.077	0.086	−0.009	0.000	***
Energy and water supply	0.004	0.004	0.000	0.790
Construction	0.038	0.063	−0.025	0.000	***
Trade	0.106	0.144	−0.038	0.000	***
Transport and logistics	0.024	0.047	−0.023	0.000	***
Accommodation and gastronomy	0.083	0.095	−0.012	0.000	***
Information and communication, financial and insurance service provider, real estate and housing	0.017	0.041	−0.024	0.000	***
Freelance, academic, technological services	0.027	0.033	−0.006	0.000	***
Other economical service	0.236	0.236	0.000	0.808
Public service	0.316	0.165	0.151	0.000	***
Other services	0.046	0.043	0.003	0.070	*
Others, unknown	0.021	0.037	−0.016	0.000	***
Last occupation
Professionals	0.022	0.053	−0.031	0.000	***
Armed forces occupations	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.365
Plant and machine operators and assemblers	0.072	0.076	−0.004	0.019	**
Clerical support workers	0.073	0.095	−0.022	0.000	***
Services and sales workers	0.177	0.192	−0.015	0.000	***
Skilled agricultural, forestry and fishery workers	0.007	0.004	0.003	0.000	***
Managers	0.012	0.031	−0.019	0.000	***
Craft and related trades workers	0.115	0.125	−0.010	0.000	***
Elementary occupations	0.469	0.332	0.137	0.000	***
Technicians and associate professionals	0.049	0.088	−0.038	0.000	***
In PES training at end of previous month	0.039	0.017	0.022	0.000	***
Unemployment insurance benefit receipt
Unemployment benefit	0.047	0.038	0.009	0.000	***
Unemployment assistance	0.812	0.793	0.019	0.000	***
Other benefit	0.045	0.035	0.010	0.000	***
Unemployment insurance benefit level (per day in €)
≤5	0.046	0.033	0.013	0.000	***
≤10	0.026	0.026	0.000	0.721
≤20	0.164	0.151	0.013	0.000	***
>20	0.668	0.656	0.012	0.000	***
No benefit	0.095	0.134	−0.039	0.000	***
Employment history: days in last 2 years
Active unsubsidised dependent employment	58.300	52.870	5.430	0.000	***
Active subsidised dep. employment 1^st labour market	5.411	2.795	2.616	0.000	***
Active subsidised dep. employment 2^nd labour market	27.870	9.244	18.626	0.000	***
Temporary absence	3.196	4.750	−1.554	0.000	***
Self-employment	1.331	2.298	−0.967	0.000	***
Registered unemployment	518.000	531.400	−13.400	0.000	***
PES training	74.240	65.130	9.110	0.000	***
Other unemployment status	3.683	3.157	0.526	0.000	***
Out of labour force and not socially insured	8.070	9.247	−1.177	0.000	***
Employment history: days in last 5 years
Dependent employment	522.400	450.100	72.300	0.000	***
Self-employment	14.420	22.360	−7.940	0.000	***
Unemployment (incl. PES training and apprenticeship search)	1090.000	1093.000	−3.000	0.310
Other unemployment status	9.529	8.640	0.889	0.000	***
Out of labour force and not socially insured	54.270	57.350	−3.080	0.006	***
Employment history: days in last 15 years
Dependent employment	2262.000	2109.000	153.000	0.000	***
Self-employment	80.750	115.700	−34.950	0.000	***
Unemployment (incl. PES training and apprenticeship search)	1948.000	1977.000	−29.000	0.000	***
Other unemployment status	30.880	27.640	3.240	0.000	***
Out of labour force and not socially insured	679.900	639.400	40.500	0.000	***
Employed at cut-off dates
3 months ago	0.036	0.026	0.010	0.000	***
6 months ago	0.034	0.026	0.008	0.000	***
1 year ago	0.036	0.031	0.005	0.000	***
2 years ago	0.312	0.258	0.054	0.000	***
Unemployed at cut-off dates (incl. PES training and apprenticeship search)
3 months ago	0.933	0.921	0.012	0.000	***
6 months ago	0.932	0.921	0.011	0.000	***
1 year ago	0.930	0.917	0.013	0.000	***
2 years ago	0.582	0.597	−0.015	0.000	***
Past sick pay receipt (days)
During dependent employment in last 2 years	3.696	3.416	0.280	0.055	*
During dependent employment in last 15 years	14.380	16.380	−2.000	0.000	***
During unemployment in last 2 years	25.280	34.630	−9.350	0.000	***
During unemployment in last 15 years	62.200	91.600	−29.400	0.000	***
Time since last job
0	0.084	0.012	0.072	0.000	***
≤90	0.061	0.049	0.012	0.000	***
≤180	0.054	0.036	0.018	0.000	***
≤366	0.091	0.059	0.032	0.000	***
>366	0.631	0.730	−0.099	0.000	***
No job	0.080	0.115	−0.035	0.000	***
Income in last job (in €)
≤1,000	0.397	0.388	0.009	0.006	***
1,000–1,500	0.319	0.218	0.101	0.000	***
1,500–2,000	0.129	0.139	−0.010	0.000	***
2,000–2,500	0.053	0.073	−0.020	0.000	***
>2,500	0.022	0.067	−0.045	0.000	***
None	0.080	0.115	−0.035	0.000	***
Active labour market policy participation in last quarter
Job search training	0.030	0.025	0.005	0.000	***
Vocational orientation	0.031	0.019	0.012	0.000	***
Vocational training	0.064	0.051	0.013	0.000	***
Support measure	0.231	0.195	0.036	0.000	***
Active labour market policy participation in penultimate quarter
Job search training	0.042	0.036	0.006	0.000	***
Vocational orientation	0.042	0.028	0.014	0.000	***
Vocational training	0.114	0.085	0.029	0.000	***
Support measure	0.213	0.188	0.025	0.000	***
Active labour market policy participation in last half-year
Private-sector wage subsidies or wage top-up scheme	0.030	0.016	0.014	0.000	***
Direct job creation or non-profit labour leasing	0.124	0.036	0.088	0.000	***
Course subsidies	0.027	0.042	−0.015	0.000	***
Active labour market policy participation in last two years
Private-sector wage subsidies or wage top-up scheme	0.129	0.063	0.066	0.000	***
Direct job creation	0.221	0.047	0.174	0.000	***
Non-profit labour leasing	0.105	0.092	0.013	0.000	***
Job search training	0.195	0.175	0.020	0.000	***
Vocational orientation	0.170	0.122	0.048	0.000	***
Vocational training	0.359	0.268	0.091	0.000	***
Course subsidies	0.0840	0.125	−0.041	0.000	***
External counseling	0.461	0.407	0.054	0.000	***
Active labour market policy participation in last four years (days)
Private-sector wage subsidies or wage top-up scheme	25.220	11.880	13.340	0.000	***
Direct job creation	48.090	10.520	37.570	0.000	***
Non-profit labour leasing	11.630	11.940	−0.310	0.223
Job search training	15.470	14.100	1.370	0.000	***
Vocational orientation	17.870	11.580	6.290	0.000	***
Vocational training	65.880	50.670	15.210	0.000	***
Course subsidies	8.520	14.640	−6.120	0.000	***
External counseling and support	114.900	111.600	3.300	0.008	***
PES meetings in last half-year
0	0.024	0.029	−0.005	0.000	***
1	0.097	0.104	−0.007	0.001	***
2	0.212	0.243	−0.031	0.000	***
≥2	0.666	0.623	0.043	0.000	***
PES meetings in last 2 years
0	0.000	0.002	−0.002	0.000	***
1–4	0.027	0.032	−0.005	0.000	***
5–8	0.192	0.180	0.012	0.000	***
>8	0.780	0.785	−0.005	0.073	*
PES placement offer in last half-year	0.649	0.501	0.148	0.000	***
PES placement offer in last 2 years
0.000	0.119	0.239	−0.120	0.000	***
1	0.092	0.120	−0.028	0.000	***
2–5	0.273	0.274	−0.001	0.681
6–10	0.206	0.164	0.042	0.000	***
>10	0.311	0.203	0.108	0.000	***
Federal state (Bundesland)
Burgenland	0.037	0.030	0.007	0.000	***
Carinthia	0.063	0.065	−0.002	0.109
Lower Austria	0.144	0.192	−0.048	0.000	***
Upper Austria	0.172	0.089	0.083	0.000	***
Salzburg	0.018	0.022	−0.004	0.000	***
Styria	0.261	0.116	0.145	0.000	***
Tyrol	0.042	0.031	0.011	0.000	***
Vorarlberg	0.085	0.018	0.067	0.000	***
Vienna	0.178	0.437	−0.259	0.000	***
Regional characteristics at labour market district level (monthly data)
Economic region type
Metropolitan area	0.178	0.437	−0.259	0.000	***
City	0.190	0.142	0.048	0.000	***
Suburban	0.0640	0.093	−0.029	0.000	***
Medium sized town	0.144	0.110	0.034	0.000	***
Intensive industrial region	0.141	0.068	0.073	0.000	***
Intensive touristic region	0.023	0.018	0.005	0.000	***
Extensive industrial region	0.133	0.061	0.072	0.000	***
Touristic periphery	0.046	0.024	0.022	0.000	***
Industrial periphery	0.082	0.048	0.034	0.000	***
Unemployment rate	0.088	0.111	−0.023	0.000	***
Share of long-term unemployed among the unemployed	0.309	0.358	−0.049	0.000	***
Share of unemployed with hiring promise among the unemployed	0.132	0.099	0.033	0.000	***
Relative change in unemployment to previous year	0.038	0.049	−0.011	0.000	***
Share of unemployed with unemployment insurance benefit	0.890	0.876	0.014	0.000	***
Population density (inhabitants per square kilometre)	925.700	2,031.000	−1,105.300	0.000	***
Relative change in employment to previous year	0.014	0.013	0.001	0.000	***
Growth of labour supply	0.077	0.070	0.007	0.000	***
Share of commuters from abroad in the workforce	0.040	0.038	0.002	0.000	***
Average annual gross salary of year-round full-time employees (in €)	46,000	48,000.000	−2,000.000	0.000	***
Gross regional product (GRP) per inhabitant (in €)^a	40,000	43,000.000	−3,000.000	0.000	***
Programme rate	30.470	31.180	−0.710	0.000	***

Source: AUR, ASSD, statistics Austria and own calculations. Share of long-term unemployed in the unemployed. Share of commuters from abroad in the active workforce with place of work in the respective region. Gross regional product (GRP) per inhabitant (in €) at current prices. Programme rate: persons with at least one day of participation in a relevant ALMP measure as a proportion of all persons with at least one day of unemployment or programme participation and no hiring promise in the respective month. ^aAt NUTS-3-level. Unless otherwise stated, share in %. ***Significant at 1 % level, **significant at 5 % level, *significant at 10 % level.

Table 3:

Programme effects on the share of the treated long-term unemployed in employment by type of employment.

	3 years				6 years
	T	C	Diff.		T	C	Diff.
	%	%	PP (SE)	%	%	%	PP (SE)	%
Vocational orientation
All employment	33.9	33.0	+0.9*** (0.3)	+2.8 %	36.3	34.5	+1.7** (0.7)	+5.1 %
Dependent employment	32.7	31.1	+1.6*** (0.3)	+5.0 %	34.7	32.1	+2.6*** (0.6)	+8.0 %
Dependent, active employment	29.4	27.7	+1.7*** (0.3)	+6.0 %	33.1	30.5	+2.5*** (0.6)	+8.3 %
Unsubsidised, dependent, active employment	24.8	24.1	+0.6** (0.3)	+2.5 %	29.8	27.6	+2.3*** (0.6)	+8.2 %
Subsidised employment 1^st labour market	2.3	1.7	+0.5*** (0.1)	+31.0 %	1.5	1.6	−0.1 (0.2)	−3.7 %
Subsidised employment 2^nd labour market	2.3	1.8	+0.5*** (0.1)	+27.6 %	1.8	1.4	+0.3* (0.2)	+24.5 %
Basic skills training
All employment	35.6	34.6	+0.9** (0.3)	+2.6 %	36.0	35.3	+0.7 (0.7)	+1.9 %
Dependent employment	33.9	32.6	+1.3*** (0.3)	+4.0 %	33.8	33.1	+0.7* (0.7)	+2.1 %
Dependent, active employment	31.1	29.6	+1.5*** (0.3)	+5.0 %	32.3	31.3	+0.9* (0.7)	+2.9 %
Unsubsidised, dependent, active employment	26.8	26.0	+0.8** (0.3)	+2.9 %	29.4	28.5	+1.0* (0.7)	+3.3 %
Subsidised employment 1^st labour market	1.7	1.5	+0.2** (0.1)	+14.8 %	1.2	1.2	0.0 (0.2)	−3.0 %
Subsidised employment 2^nd labour market	2.6	2.1	+0.5*** (0.1)	+23.3 %	1.6	1.6	+0.0 (0.2)	+0.5 %
Vocational training
All employment	39.8	37.1	+2.7*** (0.2)	+7.3 %	42.9	39.6	+3.3*** (0.5)	+8.3 %
Dependent employment	38.3	34.2	+4.0*** (0.2)	+11.8 %	40.8	36.3	+4.5*** (0.5)	+12.4 %
Dependent, active employment	36.2	31.9	+4.3*** (0.2)	+13.5 %	39.1	34.8	+4.3*** (0.5)	+12.3 %
Unsubsidised, dependent, active employment	31.6	28.2	+3.4*** (0.2)	+12.1 %	35.8	31.9	+3.9*** (0.5)	+12.1 %
Subsidised employment 1^st labour market	2.3	1.8	+0.5*** (0.1)	+29.5 %	1.8	1.5	+0.2** (0.1)	+15.3 %
Subsidised employment 2^nd labour market	2.2	1.8	+0.4*** (0.1)	+19.8 %	1.5	1.3	+0.2* (0.1)	+14.0 %
Course subsidies
All employment	39.8	36.3	+3.6*** (0.3)	+9.9 %	39.7	37.2	+2.4*** (0.5)	+6.5 %
Dependent employment	36.1	31.8	+4.2*** (0.3)	+13.3 %	35.6	32.7	+3.0*** (0.5)	+9.1 %
Dependent, active employment	34.1	29.6	+4.5*** (0.3)	+15.1 %	34.2	31.1	+3.0*** (0.5)	+9.7 %
Unsubsidised, dependent, active employment	30.9	26.6	+4.3*** (0.3)	+16.3 %	31.4	28.5	+2.9*** (0.4)	+10.3 %
Subsidised employment 1^st labour market	2.0	1.6	+0.3*** (0.1)	+19.9 %	1.7	1.5	+0.2* (0.1)	+13.9 %
Subsidised employment 2^nd labour market	1.2	1.4	−0.2** (0.1)	−14.6 %	1.0	1.1	−0.1* (0.1)	−12.3 %
Job search training
All employment	30.0	28.8	+1.2*** (0.3)	+4.2 %	29.4	28.4	+1.0* (0.5)	+3.5 %
Dependent employment	28.4	26.7	+1.7*** (0.3)	+6.5 %	27.5	26.2	+1.3** (0.5)	+5.1 %
Dependent, active employment	27.1	25.2	+1.9*** (0.3)	+7.4 %	26.6	25.3	+1.3** (0.5)	+5.1 %
Unsubsidised, dependent, active employment	23.0	21.8	+1.2*** (0.2)	+5.6 %	23.3	22.4	+0.9* (0.5)	+4.0 %
Subsidised employment 1^st labour market	1.9	1.7	+0.3*** (0.1)	+15.5 %	1.5	1.4	+0.1* (0.1)	+9.7 %
Subsidised employment 2^nd labour market	2.1	1.7	+0.4*** (0.1)	+21.0 %	1.8	1.5	+0.3* (0.1)	+18.4 %
Direct job creation
All employment	39.6	32.1	+7.5*** (0.4)	+23.4 %	43.2	35.4	+7.8*** (0.9)	+22.2 %
Dependent employment	39.1	30.5	+8.6*** (0.4)	+28.2 %	42.3	33.3	+8.9*** (0.9)	+26.8 %
Dependent, active employment	37.7	29.0	+8.7*** (0.4)	+29.8 %	41.1	32.3	+8.8*** (0.9)	+27.3 %
Unsubsidised, dependent, active employment	28.8	23.6	+5.2*** (0.4)	+22.1 %	34.3	28.3	+6.0*** (0.9)	+21.2 %
Subsidised employment 1^st labour market	3.0	2.4	+0.6*** (0.1)	+25.8 %	2.8	1.8	+1.1*** (0.3)	+60.6 %
Subsidised employment 2^nd labour market	5.9	3.1	+2.8*** (0.2)	+91.8 %	3.9	2.2	+1.7*** (0.4)	+81.0 %
Wage subsidy (scenario 1)
All employment	61.3	61.0	+0.3 (0.5)	+0.6 %	58.9	60.5	−1.6* (1.1)	−2.6 %
Dependent employment	59.9	59.2	+0.6* (0.5)	+1.1 %	57.0	57.8	−0.8 (1.1)	−1.4 %
Dependent, active employment	58.1	57.6	+0.5* (0.5)	+0.9 %	55.4	55.7	−0.3 (1.1)	−0.6 %
Unsubsidised, dependent, active employment	53.6	54.3	−0.7* (0.5)	−1.3 %	52.2	53.5	−1.3* (1.1)	−2.4 %
Subsidised employment 1^st labour market	3.1	2.1	+1.0*** (0.2)	+45.5 %	2.1	1.3	+0.8** (0.3)	+64.3 %
Subsidised employment 2^nd labour market	1.5	1.2	+0.3** (0.1)	+22.2 %	1.1	0.9	+0.1 (0.2)	+15.1 %
Wage subsidy (scenario 2 with job-uptake)
All employment	61.3	42.1	+19.2*** (0.3)	+45.6 %	58.9	46.1	+12.8*** (0.7)	+27.6 %
Dependent employment	59.9	38.3	+21.6*** (0.3)	+56.5 %	56.9	41.7	+15.2*** (0.7)	+36.5 %
Dependent, active employment	58.1	36.6	+21.6*** (0.3)	+59.0 %	55.4	40.1	+15.3*** (0.7)	+38.1 %
Unsubsidised, dependent, active employment	53.6	32.3	+21.3*** (0.3)	+66.0 %	52.2	37.3	+15.0*** (0.7)	+40.2 %
Subsidised employment 1^st labour market	3.1	2.4	+0.7*** (0.1)	+27.1 %	2.1	1.6	+0.5** (0.2)	+32.2 %
Subsidised employment 2^nd labour market	1.5	1.9	−0.4*** (0.1)	−21.7 %	1.1	1.3	−0.2* (0.1)	−15.9 %

Source: AUR, ASSD, statistics Austria, and own calculations. T: treated. C: controls. Diff.: treatment effect as difference between treated and controls in percentage points and in %. SE: analytical standard errors as proposed by Abadie and Imbens (2006). Subsidised employment 1st labour market: wage subsidies, wage top-up scheme, and subsidised company-based apprenticeship. Subsidised employment 2nd labour market: direct job creation, non-profit labour leasing, and supra-company apprenticeship training. ***Significant at 1 % level, **significant at 5 % level, *significant at 10 % level.

Table 4:

Programme effects on labour market integration after 6 years. Ø Effect on the share of persons in the respective labour market position 6 years after programme start.

	Unsubsidised, dependent, active employment				Registered unemployment				Economic inactivity
	T	C	Diff.		T	C	Diff.		T	C	Diff.
	%	%	PP (SE)	%	%	%	PP (SE)	%	%	%	PP (SE)	%
Long-term unemployed
VO	29.8	27.6	+2.3 (0.6)***	+8.2 %	40.1	38.9	+1.1 (0.7)*	+2.8 %	23.6	26.5	−2.9 (0.6)***	−10.9 %
BST	29.4	28.5	+1.0 (0.7)*	+3.3 %	38.5	38.1	+0.4 (0.7)	+1.1 %	25.5	26.5	−1.1 (0.6)*	−4.1 %
VT	35.8	31.9	+3.9 (0.5)***	+12.1 %	36.6	36.2	+0.3 (0.5)	+0.9 %	20.5	24.1	−3.6 (0.4)***	−15.0 %
CS	31.4	28.5	+2.9 (0.4)***	+10.3 %	38.5	38.1	+0.5 (0.5)*	+1.3 %	21.8	24.7	−2.9 (0.4)***	−11.7 %
JST	23.3	22.4	+0.9 (0.5)*	+4.0 %	42.2	41.9	+0.2 (0.5)	+0.5 %	28.3	29.6	−1.2 (0.5)**	−4.2 %
DJC	34.3	28.3	+6.0 (0.9)***	+21.2 %	35.5	36.3	−0.8 (0.9)	−2.1 %	21.3	28.3	−7.1 (0.8)***	−24.9 %
WS1	52.2	37.3	+15.0 (0.7)***	+40.2 %	23.7	30.6	−6.8 (0.6)***	−22.4 %	17.3	23.2	−5.9 (0.5)***	−25.4 %
WS2	52.2	53.5	−1.3 (1.1)*	−2.4 %	23.7	24.3	−0.6 (0.9)	−2.4 %	17.3	15.2	+2.1 (0.8)**	+13.9 %
All treated unemployed
VO	41.2	37.6	+3.6 (0.4)***	+9.6 %	29.3	28.7	+0.7 (0.3)*	+2.3 %	22.0	25.3	−3.3 (0.3)***	−13.1 %
BST	40.0	36.8	+3.1 (0.4)***	+8.5 %	28.7	28.2	+0.5 (0.3)*	+1.8 %	24.2	27.4	−3.3 (0.3)***	−11.9 %
VT	47.1	42.3	+4.8 (0.2)***	+11.3 %	26.5	26.2	+0.4 (0.2)*	+1.5 %	19.1	23.0	−3.9 (0.2)***	−16.8 %
CS	45.4	40.7	+4.7 (0.3)***	+11.5 %	25.9	26.5	−0.6 (0.2)**	−2.4 %	18.7	22.5	−3.7 (0.2)***	−16.6 %
JST	37.2	35.8	+1.4 (0.3)***	+3.9 %	32.1	31.0	+1.1 (0.3)***	+3.4 %	24.3	26.1	−1.8 (0.3)***	−6.9 %
DJC	34.4	29.4	+5.0 (0.7)***	+16.8 %	33.6	33.9	−0.3 (0.7)	−0.8 %	23.6	29.6	−5.9 (0.6)***	−20.1 %
WS1	54.7	41.7	+13.0 (0.4)***	+31.2 %	18.7	23.5	−4.8 (0.3)***	−20.3 %	20.3	26.5	−6.2 (0.4)***	−23.3 %
WS2	54.7	53.5	+1.2 (0.6)**	+2.2 %	18.7	19.3	−0.6 (0.5)*	−3.1 %	20.3	20.4	−0.1 (0.5)	−0.3 %

Source: AUR, ASSD. – T: treated. C: controls. Diff.: treatment effect as difference between treated and controls in percentage points and in %. SE: analytical standard errors as proposed by Abadie and Imbens (2006). VO: vocational orientation. BST: basic skills training. VT: vocational training. CS: course subsidies. JST: job search training. DJC: direct job creation. WS1: wage subsidy, scenario 1 (all unemployed). WS2: wage subsidy, scenario 2 (unemployed with job take-up). ***Significant at 1 % level, **significant at 5 % level, *significant at 10 % level.

References

Abadie, A., and G. W. Imbens. 2006. “Large Sample Properties of Matching Estimators for Average Treatment Effects.” Econometrica 74 (1): 235–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2006.00655.x.Search in Google Scholar

Abbring, J. H., and G. J. van den Berg. 2003. “The Nonparametric Identification of Treatment Effects in Duration Models.” Econometrica 71 (5): 1491–517. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0262.00456.Search in Google Scholar

Albanese, A., B. Cockx, and M. Dejemeppe. 2023. “Long-Term Effects of Hiring Subsidies for Low-Educated Unemployed Youths.” IZA Discussion Papers, no. 16153. https://docs.iza.org/dp16153.pdf (accessed October 13, 2023).10.26481/umagsb.2023008Search in Google Scholar

Altmann, S., A. Falk, S. Jäger, and F. Zimmermann. 2018. “Learning about Job Search: A Field Experiment with Job Seekers in Germany.” Journal of Public Economics 164: 33–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2018.05.003.Search in Google Scholar

AMS. 2018. Geschäftsbericht 2017. Arbeitsmarktservice Österreich (AMS). https://www.ams.at/content/dam/download/gesch%C3%A4ftsberichte/oesterreich/archiv-gesch%C3%A4ftsberichte/001_ams_geschaeftsbericht_2017.pdf (accessed October 13, 2023).Search in Google Scholar

AMS. 2021. Geschäftsbericht 2020. Arbeitsmarktservice Österreich (AMS). https://www.ams.at/content/dam/download/gesch%C3%A4ftsberichte/oesterreich/archiv-gesch%C3%A4ftsberichte/001_ams_geschaeftsbericht_2020.pdf (accessed October 13, 2023).Search in Google Scholar

Batut, C. 2021. “The Longer Term Impact of Hiring Credits. Evidence from France.” Labour Economics 72: 102052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2021.102052.Search in Google Scholar

Bentolila, S., and M. Jansen, eds. 2016. Long-Term Unemployment After the Great Recession: Causes and Remedies. London: Centre for Economic Policy Research.Search in Google Scholar

Berg, G. J. van den, and J. Vikström. 2022. “Long-Run Effects of Dynamically Assigned Treatments: A New Methodology and an Evaluation of Training Effects on Earnings.” Econometrica 90 (3): 1337–54. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA17522.Search in Google Scholar

Berg, G. J. van den, B. van der Klaauw, and J. C. van Ours. 2004. “Punitive Sanctions and the Transition Rate from Welfare to Work.” Journal of Labor Economics 22 (1): 211–41. https://doi.org/10.1086/380408.Search in Google Scholar

Bernhard, S., U. Jaenichen, and G. Stephan. 2006. “Eingliederungszuschüsse bei Einarbeitung und erschwerter Vermittlung: Matching-Analysen auf der Basis von Prozessdaten.” Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung 75 (3): 67–84. https://doi.org/10.3790/vjh.75.3.67.Search in Google Scholar

Bitler, M. P., J. B. Gelbach, and H. W. Hoynes. 2006. “What Mean Impacts Miss: Distributional Effects of Welfare Reform Experiments.” The American Economic Review 96 (4): 988–1012. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.96.4.988.Search in Google Scholar

Blázquez, M., A. Herrarte, and F. Sáez. 2019. “Training and Job Search Assistance Programmes in Spain: The Case of Long-Term Unemployed.” Journal of Policy Modeling 41 (2): 316–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2019.03.004.Search in Google Scholar

BMAW. 2023. Aktive Arbeitsmarktpolitik in Österreich 2015 bis 2023. Dokumentation. Vienna: Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Wirtschaft (BMAW). https://www.bmaw.gv.at/dam/jcr:2a6dff0d-f5f4-456d-99c9-07d9c2baf353/Final_Aktive%20AMP%20in%20%C3%96sterreich%202015%20-%202023_Dokumentation.pdf (accessed October 13, 2023).Search in Google Scholar

Boockmann, B., T. Zwick, A. Ammermüller, and M. Maier. 2012. “Do Hiring Subsidies Reduce Unemployment?” Journal of the European Economic Association 10 (4): 735–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1542-4774.2012.01070.x.Search in Google Scholar

Bown, C. P., and C. Freund. 2019. Active Labor Market Policies: Lessons from Other Countries for the United States. Washington: Peterson Institute for International Economics. https://www.piie.com/publications/working-papers/active-labor-market-policies-lessons-other-countries-united-states (accessed October 13, 2023).10.2139/ssrn.3324615Search in Google Scholar

Brändle, T., and L. Fervers. 2021. “Give it Another Try: What Are the Effects of a Job Creation Scheme Especially Designed for Hard-To-Place Workers?” Journal of Labor Research 42 (3): 382–417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12122-021-09322-x.Search in Google Scholar

Bredgaard, T. 2015. “Evaluating what Works for Whom in Active Labour Market Policies.” European Journal of Social Security 17 (4): 436–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/138826271501700403.Search in Google Scholar

Brown, A. J. G. 2015. “Can Hiring Subsidies Benefit the Unemployed?” IZA World of Labor, no. 163.10.15185/izawol.163Search in Google Scholar

Cahuc, P., S. Carcillo, and T. Le Barbanchon. 2019. “The Effectiveness of Hiring Credits.” The Review of Economic Studies 86 (2): 593–626. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdy011.Search in Google Scholar

Card, D., J. Kluve, and A. Weber. 2010. “Active Labour Market Policy Evaluations. A Meta-Analysis.” The Economic Journal 120 (548): F452–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2010.02387.x.Search in Google Scholar

Card, D., J. Kluve, and A. Weber. 2016. “Active Labour Market Policies and Long-Term Unemployment.” In Long-Term Unemployment After the Great Recession: Causes and Remedies, edited by S. Bentolila, and M. Jansen, 11–23. London: Centre for Economic Policy Research.Search in Google Scholar

Card, D., J. Kluve, and A. Weber. 2018. “What Works? A Meta Analysis of Recent Active Labor Market Program Evaluations.” Journal of the European Economic Association 16 (3): 894–931. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeea/jvx028.Search in Google Scholar

Cerqua, A., P. Urwin, D. Thomson, and D. Bibby. 2020. “Evaluation of Education and Training Impacts for the Unemployed: Challenges of New Data.” Labour Economics 67: 101907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2020.101907.Search in Google Scholar

Ciani, E., A. Grompone, and E. Olivieri. 2019. “Long-Term Unemployment and Subsidies for Permanent Employment.” Termi di discussione/Working Paper, no. 1249. Banca d’Italia.Search in Google Scholar

Cockx, B., M. Lechner, and J. Bollens. 2023. “Priority to Unemployed Immigrants? A Causal Machine Learning Evaluation of Training in Belgium.” Labour Economics 80: 102306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2022.102306.Search in Google Scholar

Crépon, B., and G. J. van den Berg. 2016. “Active Labor Market Policies.” Annual Review of Economics 8 (1): 521–46. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-080614-115738.Search in Google Scholar

De Brouwer, O., E. Leduc, and I. Tojerow. 2023. “The Consequences of Job Search Monitoring for the Long-Term Unemployed: Disability Instead of Employment?” Journal of Public Economics 224: 104929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2023.104929.Search in Google Scholar

Dengler, K. 2019. “Effectiveness of Active Labour Market Programmes on the Job Quality of Welfare Recipients in Germany.” Journal of Social Policy 48 (4): 807–38. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279419000114.Search in Google Scholar

Desiere, S., and B. Cockx. 2022. “How Effective Are Hiring Subsidies in Reducing Long-Term Unemployment Among Prime-Aged Jobseekers? Evidence from Belgium.” IZA Journal of Labor Policy 12 (1). https://doi.org/10.2478/izajolp-2022-0003.Search in Google Scholar

Eppel, R., U. Famira-Mühlberger, T. Horvath, U. Huemer, H. Mahringer, H. Eichmann, and J. Eibl. 2018. Anstieg und Verfestigung der Arbeitslosigkeit seit der Wirtschaftskrise. Entwicklung, Ursachen und die Rolle der betrieblichen Personalrekrutierung – Synthesebericht. Vienna: Austrian Institute of Economic Research. https://www.wifo.ac.at/wwa/pubid/62228 (accessed October 13, 2023).Search in Google Scholar

Eppel, R., U. Huemer, H. Mahringer, and L. Schmoigl. 2022. Evaluierung der Effektivität und Effizienz von Qualifizierungsförderungen des Arbeitsmarktservice Österreich. Vienna: Austrian Institute of Economic Research. https://www.wifo.ac.at/wwa/pubid/69250 (accessed October 13, 2023).Search in Google Scholar

Eppel, R., H. Mahringer, A. Weber, and C. Zulehner. 2011. Evaluierung der Eingliederungsbeihilfe. Vienna: Austrian Institute of Economic Research. https://www.wifo.ac.at/wwa/pubid/42771 (accessed October 13, 2023).Search in Google Scholar

Escudero, V. 2018. “Are Active Labour Market Policies Effective in Activating and Integrating Low-Skilled Individuals? An International Comparison.” IZA Journal of Labor Policy 7 (4). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40173-018-0097-5.Search in Google Scholar

Federal Ministry of Labour and Economy. 2023. “Labour Market Policy Austria – Overview. Reporting Year 2022.” Federal Ministry of Labour and Economy. https://www.bmaw.gv.at/dam/jcr:bbf99d7e-49e7-4285-9870-275ecda0d137/Labour%20Market%20Policy%20Overview-Reporting%20Year%202022_3.pdf (accessed October 13, 2023).Search in Google Scholar

Filomena, M. 2023. “Unemployment Scarring Effects: An Overview and Meta-Analysis of Empirical Studies.” Italian Economic Journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40797-023-00228-4.Search in Google Scholar

Fisher, R. A. 1935. The Design of Experiments. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd.Search in Google Scholar

Fredriksson, D. 2021. “Reducing Unemployment? Examining the Interplay Between Active Labour Market Policies.” Social Policy and Administration 55 (1): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12606.Search in Google Scholar

Fredriksson, P., and P. Johansson. 2008. “Dynamic Treatment Assignment: The Consequences for Evaluations Using Observational Data.” Journal of Business & Economic Statistics 26 (4): 435–45. https://doi.org/10.1198/073500108000000033.Search in Google Scholar

Goller, D., T. Harrer, M. Lechner, and J. Wolff. 2023. “Active Labour Market Policies for the Long-Term Unemployed: New Evidence from Causal Machine Learning.” arXiv:2106.10141. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2106.10141.Search in Google Scholar

Heckman, J. J., R. J. Lalonde, and J. A. Smith. 1999. “The Economics and Econometrics of Active Labor Market Programs.” In Handbook of Labor Economics. Volume 3, Part A, edited by O. C. Ashenfelter, and D. Card, 1865–2097. Amsterdam: Elsevier.10.1016/S1573-4463(99)03012-6Search in Google Scholar

Hohmeyer, K., and J. Wolff. 2010. “Direct Job Creation in Germany Revisited. Is it Effective for Welfare Recipients and Does it Matter whether Participants Receive a Wage?” IAB-Discussion Paper, no. 21. https://doku.iab.de/discussionpapers/2010/dp2110.pdf (accessed October 13, 2023).Search in Google Scholar

Irandoust, M. 2023. “Active Labor Market as an Instrument to Reduce Unemployment.” Journal of Government and Economics 9: 100065. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jge.2023.100065.Search in Google Scholar

Jaenichen, U., and G. Stephan. 2011. “The Effectiveness of Targeted Wage Subsidies for Hard-To-Place Workers.” Applied Economics 43 (10): 1209–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840802600426.Search in Google Scholar

Kasy, M., and L. Lehner. 2023. “Employing the Unemployed of Marienthal: Evaluation of a Guaranteed Job Program.” IZA Discussion Papers, no. 16088 https://docs.iza.org/dp16088.pdf (accessed October 13, 2023).10.31235/osf.io/cd25uSearch in Google Scholar

Katz, L. F., K. Kroft, F. Lange, and M. J. Notowidigdo. 2016. “Addressing Long-Term Unemployment in the Aftermath of the Great Recession.” In Long-Term Unemployment After the Great Recession: Causes and Remedies, edited by S. Bentolila, and M. Jansen, 33–42. London: Centre for Economic Policy Research.Search in Google Scholar

Kruppe, T., and J. Lang. 2018. “Labour Market Effects of Retraining for the Unemployed: The Role of Occupations.” Applied Economics 50 (14): 1578–600. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2017.1368992.Search in Google Scholar

Lauringson, A., and M. Lüske. 2021. “Institutional Set-Up of Active Labour Market Policy Provision in OECD and EU Countries: Organisational Set-Up, Regulation and Capacity.” OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, no. 262.Search in Google Scholar

McCall, B. P., J. A. Smith, and C. Wunsch. 2016. “Government-Sponsored Vocational Education for Adults.” In Handbook of the Economics of Education, Volume 5, edited by E. A. Hanushek, S. Machin, and L. Woessmann, 479–652. Amsterdam: North Holland.10.1016/B978-0-444-63459-7.00009-9Search in Google Scholar

Miyamoto, H., and N. Suphaphiphat. 2021. “Mitigating Long-Term Unemployment in Europe.” IZA Journal of Labor Policy 11 (1). https://doi.org/10.2478/izajolp-2021-0003.Search in Google Scholar

OECD. 2019. LMP Interventions for the Long-Term Unemployed. In-Depth Evaluation. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). https://www.oecd.org/els/emp/LMP%20interventions%20for%20LTU%20-%20in-depth%20evaluation.pdf (accessed October 13, 2023).Search in Google Scholar

OECD. 2021a. Building Inclusive Labour Markets: Active Labour Market Policies for the Most Vulnerable Groups. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD).Search in Google Scholar

OECD. 2021b. Designing Active Labour Market Policies for the Recovery. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD).Search in Google Scholar

OECD. 2021c. OECD Employment Outlook 2021: Navigating the COVID-19 Crisis and Recovery. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD).Search in Google Scholar

OECD. 2022. OECD Employment Outlook 2022: Building Back More Inclusive Labour Markets. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD).Search in Google Scholar

Ours, J. C. van. 2004. “The Locking-In Effect of Subsidized Jobs.” Journal of Comparative Economics 32 (1): 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jce.2003.10.002.Search in Google Scholar

Pasquini, A., M. Centra, and G. Pellegrini. 2019. “Fighting Long-Term Unemployment: Do We Have the Whole Picture?” Labour Economics 61: 101764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2019.101764.Search in Google Scholar

Rosenbaum, P. R., and D. B. Rubin. 1983. “The Central Role of the Propensity Score in Observational Studies for Causal Effects.” Biometrika 70 (1): 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/70.1.41.Search in Google Scholar

Rosenbaum, P.R., and D.B. Rubin. 1985. “The Bias Due to Incomplete Matching.” Biometrics 41 (1): 103–16. https://doi.org/10.2307/2530647.Search in Google Scholar

Rubin, D. B. 1974. “Estimating Causal Effects of Treatments in Randomized and Nonrandomized Studies.” Journal of Educational Psychology 66 (5): 688–701. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037350.Search in Google Scholar

Rubin, D. B. 1978. “Bayesian Inference for Causal Effects: The Role of Randomization.” Annals of Statistics 6 (1): 34–58. https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176344064.Search in Google Scholar

Rubin, D. B. 1980. “Randomization Analysis of Experimental Data: The Fisher Randomization Test Comment.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 75 (371): 591–3. https://doi.org/10.2307/2287653.Search in Google Scholar

Schünemann, B., M. Lechner, and C. Wunsch. 2015. “Do Long-Term Unemployed Workers Benefit from Targeted Wage Subsidies?” German Economic Review 16 (1): 43–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/geer.12040.Search in Google Scholar

Sianesi, B. 2004. “An Evaluation of the Swedish System of Active Labor Market Programs in the 1990s.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 86 (1): 133–55. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465304323023723.Search in Google Scholar

Sianesi, B. 2008. “Differential Effects of Active Labour Market Programs for the Unemployed.” Labour Economics 15 (3): 370–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2007.04.004.Search in Google Scholar

Sjögren, A., and J. Vikström. 2015. “How Long and How Much? Learning about the Design of Wage Subsidies from Policy Changes and Discontinuities.” Labour Economics 34: 127–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2015.03.009.Search in Google Scholar

Splawa-Neyman, J., D. M. Dabrowska, and T. P. Speed. 1990. “On the Application of Probability Theory to Agricultural Experiments. Essay on Principles. Section 9.” Statistical Science 5 (4): 465–72. https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1177012031.Search in Google Scholar

Vikström, J. 2017. “Dynamic Treatment Assignment and Evaluation of Active Labor Market Policies.” Labour Economics 49: 42–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2017.09.003.Search in Google Scholar

Wheeler, L., R. Garlick, E. Johnson, P. Shaw, and M. Gargano. 2022. “LinkedIn(to) Job Opportunities: Experimental Evidence from Job Readiness Training.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 14 (2): 101–25. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20200025.Search in Google Scholar

Wolff, J., and G. Stephan. 2013. “Subsidized Work before and After the German Hartz Reforms: Design of Major Schemes, Evaluation Results and Lessons Learnt.” IZA Journal of Labor Policy 2: 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-9004-2-16.Search in Google Scholar

Wunsch, C. 2016. “How to Minimize Lock-In Effects of Programs for Unemployed Workers.” IZA World of Labor, no. 288.10.15185/izawol.288Search in Google Scholar

Supplementary Material

This article contains supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/bejeap-2023-0079).

Received: 2023-03-20

Accepted: 2023-11-21

Published Online: 2023-12-14

Active Labour Market Policies: What Works for the Long-Term Unemployed?

Abstract

Appendix

References

Supplementary Material

Journal and Issue

Articles in the same Issue