Journal of Population Economics

, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 783–812 | Cite as

Kids or courses? Gender differences in the effects of active labor market policies

Original Paper

Abstract

We investigate active labor market programs in Austria. We find only small effects, if any, for most of the programs. However, the programs may have unintended consequences for women. In particular for younger women, a key effect of the programs and one reason for the male–female effect differential that is observed in the literature is to reduce or postpone pregnancies and to increase their attachment to the labor force. Furthermore, the variables capturing pregnancies and times of parental leave play a key role in removing selection bias.

Keywords

Active labor market policy Matching estimation Program evaluation Panel data 

JEL Classification

J68 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Financial support by the Austrian Federal Ministry of Economics and Labor (BMWA) and by the European Commission is gratefully acknowledged. We benefited from many helpful comments from Johannes Schweighofer, Gottfried Wetzel (both BMWA), and from Helmut Mahringer (Austrian Institute of Economic Research). Furthermore, three anonymous referees helped to improve a previous version of the paper considerably. The usual disclaimer applies.

References

  1. Bergemann A, van den Berg G (2006) Active labor market policy effects for women in Europe: a survey. Discussion Paper 2365, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA)Google Scholar
  2. Caliendo M, Hujer R, Thomsen S (2004) New evidence on the effects of job creation schemes in Germany—a matching approach with threefold heterogeneity. Res Econ 58(4):257–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Caliendo M, Hujer R, Thomsen S (2006) Sectoral heterogeneity in the employment of job creation schemes in Germany. Jahrb Natlökon Stat 226(2):139–179Google Scholar
  4. Caliendo M, Hujer R, Thomsen S (2008) Identifying effect heterogeneity to improve the efficiency of job creation schemes in Germany. Appl Econ 40(9):1101–1122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carling K, Gustafson L (1999) Self-employment grants vs. subsidized employment: is there a difference in the re-employment risk?. Working Paper, Institute for Labor Market Policy Evaluation (IFAU)Google Scholar
  6. Carling K, Richardson K (2004) The relative efficiency of labor market programs: Swedish experience from the 1990s. Labor Economics 11(3):335–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dehejia R, Wahba S (2002) Propensity score-matching methods for nonexperimental causal studies. Rev Econ Stat 84(1):151–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Forslund A, Johannson P, Lindqvist L (2004) Employment subsidy—a fast lane from unemployment to work? Working Paper 2004:18, Institute for Labor Market Policy Evaluation (IFAU)Google Scholar
  9. Friedlander D, Greenberg D, Robins P (1997) Evaluating government training programs for the economically disadvantaged. J Econ Lit 35(4):1809–1855Google Scholar
  10. Gerfin M, Lechner M (2002) A microeconometric evaluation of the Swiss active labor market policy. Econ J 112:854–893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gerfin M, Lechner M, Steiger H (2005) Does subsidized temporary employment get the unemployed back to work? An econometric analysis of two different schemes. Labour Economics—An International Journal 12(6):807–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heckman JJ, LaLonde R, Smith J (1999) The economics and econometrics of active labor market programs, vol. III. A of handbook of economics. North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  13. Hofer H, Weber A (2004a) Are job search programs a promising tool? A microeconometric evaluation for Austria. Discussion Paper 1075, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA)Google Scholar
  14. Hofer H, Weber A (2004b) Employment effects of early interventions in job search programs. Discussion Paper 1076, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA)Google Scholar
  15. Hujer R, Thomsen S, Zeiss C (2005) The effects of vocational training programmes on the duration of unemployment in eastern Germany. Working Paper, Goethe University FrankfurtGoogle Scholar
  16. Imbens G (2000) The role of the propensity score in estimating dose–response functions. Biometrica 87(3):706–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Imbens G (2004) Nonparametric estimation of average treatment effects under exogeneity: a review. Rev Econ Stat 86(1):4–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Joffe M, Ten Have T, Feldman H, Kimmel S (2004) Model selection, confounder control, and marginal structural models. Am Stat 58(4):272–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kluve J, Lehmann H, Schmidt C (1999) Active labor market policies in Poland: human capital enhancement, stigmatization, or benefit churning? J Comp Econ 27(1):61–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kluve J, Lehmann H, Schmidt C (2008) Disentangling treatment effects of labor market policies: the role of employment histories. Labour Econ 15(6):1270–1295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lalive R, van Ours J, Zweimüller J (2008) The impact of active labor market programs on the duration of unemployment. Econ J 118(525):235–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lechner M (1999) Earnings and employment effects of continuous off-the-job training in East Germany after unification. J Bus Econ Stat 17(1):74–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lechner M (2001) Identification and estimation of causal effects of multiple treatments under the conditional independence assumption. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  24. Lechner M, Wunsch C (2009) Active labour market policy in East Germany: waiting for the economy to take off. The Economics of Transition 17:661–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lechner M, Miquel R, Wunsch C (2007) The curse and blessing of training the unemployed in a changing economy: the case of East Germany after unification. Ger Econ Rev 8:468–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lechner M, Miquel R, Wunsch C (2009) Long run effects of public sector sponsored training in west Germany. J Eur Econ Assoc (in press)Google Scholar
  27. Lutz H, Mahringer H, Pöschl A (2005) Schwerpunkt 1: Verhinderung und Bekämpfung der Langzeitsarbeitslosigkeit und der Jugendarbeitslosigkeit. WIFO, IHS, L&R: Evaluierung Europäischer Sozialfonds 2000–2006, Ziel 3: Österreich. WienGoogle Scholar
  28. Puhani P (1999) Evaluating active labor market policies—empirical evidence for Poland during transition, ZEW Economic Studies 5. Physica, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  29. Richardson K, van den Berg G (2001) The effect of vocational employment training on the individual transition rate from unemployment to work. Swed Econ Policy Rev 8:175–213Google Scholar
  30. Rosenbaum P, Rubin D (1983) The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrica 70:41–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rubin D (1974) Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. J Educ Psychol 66:668–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rubin D (1979) Using multivariate matched sampling and regression adjustment to control bias in observational studies. J Am Stat Assoc 74:318–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sianesi B (2008) Differential effects of Swedish active labor market programmes for unemployed. Labour Econ 15(3):370–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Van Ours J (2004) The locking-in effect of subsidized jobs. J Comp Econ 32(1):37–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Winter-Ebmer R, Zweimüller J (1996) Manpower training programmes and employment stability. Economica 63(249):113–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wunsch C, Lechner M (2008) What did all the money do? On the general ineffectiveness of recent West German labour market programmes, Kyklos: International Review for Social Sciences 134–174Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Swiss Institute for Empirical Economic Research (SEW)University of St. GallenSt. GallenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations