Empirical Economics

, Volume 45, Issue 3, pp 1089–1127 | Cite as

Vouchers and caseworkers in training programs for the unemployed

Article

Abstract

This paper studies the role of vouchers and caseworkers in training programs for the unemployed. We explore the unique features of the Hartz reform in Germany which simultaneously introduced training vouchers and imposed more selective criteria on participants. This allows us to go beyond the standard approach when we estimate the treatment effects for the most important type of training. Next to assessing the overall impact of the reform on the training’s effectiveness, we isolate the impact induced by changes in the composition of program participants (selection effect) from the impact based on the introduction of vouchers and related institutional changes (institutional effect). Our results show a small positive overall impact of the reform. The decomposition suggests that the selection effect is, if at all, slightly negative, and that the introduction of the voucher and related institutional changes increased both employment and earnings of participants. It furthermore appears that our findings are driven by skilled participants.

Keywords

Active labor market policy Program evaluation Matching Voucher Caseworker Training 

JEL Classification

J64 J68 H43 

References

  1. Abadie A, Imbens GW (2006) Large sample properties of matching estimators for average treatment effects. Econometrica 74(1):235–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abadie A, Imbens GW (2008) On the failure of the bootstrap for matching estimators. Econometrica 76(6):1537–1557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnow BS (2000) Vouchers for federal targeted training programs. In: Peterson GE, Reischauer RD, Steuerle CE, Doorn Ooms V (eds) Vouchers and the provision of public services. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnow BS (2009) Vouchers in U.S. Vocational Training Programs: An Overview of What We Have Learned. J Labour Market Res 42(1):71–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bell S, Orr L (2002) Screening (and creaming?) Applicants to job training programs: the AFDC homemaker-home health aide demonstration. Labour Econ 9(2):279–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biewen M, Fitzenberger B, Osikominu A, Waller M (2007) Which program for whom? Evidence on the comparative effectiveness of public sponsored training programs in Germany. IZA discussion paper 2885, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), BonnGoogle Scholar
  7. Bloom H (1984) Accounting for no-shows in experimental evaluation designs. Eval Rev 8(2):225–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bruttel O (2005) Delivering active labor market policy through vouchers: experiences with training vouchers in Germany. Int Rev Adm Sci 71(3):391–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caliendo M (2009) Income support systems, labor market policies and labor supply: the German experience. IZA discussion paper 4665, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), BonnGoogle Scholar
  10. Caliendo M, Kopeinig S (2008) Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching. J Econ Surv 22(1):31–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Caliendo M, Hujer R, Thomsen SL (2008) The employment effects of job creation schemes in Germany: a microeconometric evaluation. In: Millimet DL, Smith JA, Vytlacil EJ (eds) Estimating and evaluating treatment effects in econometrics, advances in econometrics, vol 21. Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, pp 383–430Google Scholar
  12. Card D, Hyslop DR (2005) Estimating the effects of a time-limited earnings subsidy for welfare-leavers. Econometrica 73(6):1723–1770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dustmann C (2004) Parental background, secondary school track choice, and wages. Oxf Econ Papers 56(2):209–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dustmann C, Meghir C (2005) Wages, experience and seniority. Rev Econ Stud 72(1):77–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fitzenberger B, Osikominu A, Völter R (2006) Imputation rules to improve the education variable in the IAB employment subsample. Schmollers Jahrbuch 126(3):405–436Google Scholar
  16. Fitzenberger B, Osikominu A, Völter R (2008) Get training or wait? Long-run employment effects of training programs for the unemployed in West Germany. Annales d’Economie et de Statistique 91/92:321–355Google Scholar
  17. Fitzenberger B, Osikominu A, Paul M (2010) The heterogeneous effects of training incidence and duration on labor market transitions. IZA discussion paper 5269, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), BonnGoogle Scholar
  18. Flores C, Flores-Lagunes A, Gonzalez A, Neuman T (2012) Estimating the effects of length of exposure to instruction in a training program: the case of job corps. Rev Econ Stat 94(1):153–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fortin NM, Lemieux T, Firpo S (2011) Decomposition methods in economics. In: Ashenfelter O, Card D (eds) Handbook of labor economics, vol 4A, chap 1. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 1–102Google Scholar
  20. Friedman M (1962) The role of government in education. In: Capitalism and freedom, chap 6. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  21. Görlitz K (2010) The effect of subsidizing continuous training investments—evidence from German establishment data. Labour Econ 17(5):789–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ham JC, Li X, Reagan PB (2011) Matching and semi-parametric IV estimation, a distance-based measure of migration, and the wages of young men. J Econ 161(2):208–227Google Scholar
  23. Heckman JJ, Hotz VJ (1989) Choosing among alternative nonexperimental methods for estimating the impact of social programs: the case of manpower training. J Am Stat Assoc 84(408):862–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heckman JJ, Heinrich C, Smith JA (1997) Assessing the performance of performance standards in public bureaucracies. Am Econ Rev 87(2):389–395Google Scholar
  25. Heckman JJ, Ichimura H, Smith JA, Todd PE (1998) Characterizing selection bias using experimental data. Econometrica 66(5):1017–1098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Heckman JJ, Heinrich C, Smith JA (2002) The performance of performance standards. J Human Resour 37(4):778–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hipp L, Warner ME (2008) Market forces for the unemployed? Training vouchers in Germany and the USA. Social Policy Adm 42(1):77–101Google Scholar
  28. Hujer R, Thomsen SL, Zeiss C (2006) The effects of vocational training programmes on the duration of unemployment in Eastern Germany. All Stat Arch 90(2):299–322Google Scholar
  29. Imbens GW (2004) Nonparametric estimation of average treatment effects under exogeneity: a review. Rev Econ Stat 86(1):4–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Imbens GW, Wooldridge JM (2009) Recent developments in the econometrics of program evaluation. J Econ Lit 47(1):1–81Google Scholar
  31. Jacobi L, Kluve J (2007) Before and after the Hartz reforms: the performance of active labour market policy in Germany. J Labour Market Res 40(1):45–64Google Scholar
  32. Kluve J (2010) The effectiveness of European active labor market policy. Labour Econ 17(6):904–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kluve J, Schneider H, Uhlendorff A, Zhao Z (2012) Evaluating continuous training programs using the generalized propensity score. J R Stat Soc Ser A 175(2):587–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kruppe T (2009) Bildungsgutscheine in der aktiven Arbeitsmarktpolitik. Sozialer Fortschritt 58(1):9–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ladd HF (2002) School vouchers: a critical review. J Econ Perspect 16(4):3–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. LaLonde RJ (2003) Employment and training programs. In: Moffitt R, Feldstien M (eds) Means tested transfer programs in the U.S. University of Chicago Press for the National Bureau of Economic Research, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  37. Lechner M, Smith JA (2007) What is the value added by caseworkers? Labour Econ 14(2):135–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lechner M, Wunsch C (2008) What did all the money do? On the general ineffectiveness of recent West German labour market programmes. Kyklos 61(1):134–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lechner M, Wunsch C (2009) Are training programs more effective when unemployment is high? J Labor Econ 27(4):653–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lechner M, Wunsch C (2011) Sensitivity of matching-based program evaluations to the availability of control variables. IZA discussion paper 5553, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), BonnGoogle Scholar
  41. 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(4):468–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lechner M, Miquel R, Wunsch C (2011) Long-run effects of public sector sponsored training in West Germany. J Eur Econ Assoc 9(4):742–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Leuven E, Sianesi B (2003) PSMATCH2: stata module to perform full Mahalanobis and propensity score matching, common support graphing, and covariate imbalance testing. Statistical software components. Boston College Department of Economics, available at http://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s432001.html
  44. Mueser PR, Troske KR, Gorislavsky A (2007) Using state administrative data to measure program performance. Rev Econ Stat 89(4):761–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Neal D (2002) How vouchers could change the market for education. J Econ Perspect 16(4):25–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Neyman JS (1923) On the application of probability theory to agriculture experiments. Essay on principles. Section 9. Roczniki Nauk Rolniczych Tom X:1–51 (Ann Agric Sci), translated in: Neyman JS, Dabrowska DM, Speed TP (1990) Stat Sci 5(4):465–472Google Scholar
  47. Rinne U, Schneider M, Uhlendorff A (2011) Do the skilled and prime-aged unemployed benefit more from training? Effect heterogeneity of public training programs in Germany. Appl Econ 43(25):3465–3494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB (1983) The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70(1):41–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB (1985) Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. Am Stat 39(1):33–38Google Scholar
  50. Roy AD (1951) Some thoughts on the distribution of earnings. Oxf Econ Papers 3(2):135–146Google Scholar
  51. Rubin DB (1973) The use of matched sampling and regression adjustment to remove bias in observational studies. Biometrics 29:185–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rubin DB (1974) Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. J Educ Psychol 66(5):688–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rubin DB (2006) Matched sampling for causal effects, 1st edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schneider H, Uhlendorff A (2006) Die Wirkung der Hartz-Reform im Bereich der beruflichen Weiterbildung. J Labour Market Res 39(3–4):477–490Google Scholar
  55. Schneider H, Brenke K, Jesske B, Kaiser L, Rinne U, Schneider M, Steinwede J, Uhlendorff A (2007) Evaluation der Maßnahmen zur Umsetzung der Vorschläge der Hartz-Kommission—Bericht 2006. IZA Research Report 10, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), BonnGoogle Scholar
  56. Sianesi B (2004) An evaluation of the active labor market programmes in Sweden. Rev Econ Stat 86(1):133–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Smith JA, Todd PE (2005a) Does matching overcome LaLonde’s critique of non-experimental estimators? J Econ 125(1–2):305–353Google Scholar
  58. Smith JA, Todd PE (2005b) Rejoinder. J Econ 125(1–2):365–375Google Scholar
  59. Stephan G (2008) The effects of active labor market programs in Germany: an investigation using different definitions of non-treatment. Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik 228(5–6):586–611Google Scholar
  60. Steuerle CE (2000) Common issues for voucher programs. In: Peterson GE, Reischauer RD, Steuerle CE, Doorn Ooms V (eds) Vouchers and the provision of public services. Brookings Institution Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  61. Tsiatis A (2006) Semiparametric theory and missing data, 1st edn. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  62. van Ours JC (2004) The locking-in effect of subsidized jobs. J Comp Econ 32(1):37–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Winkelmann R (1996) Employment prospects and skill acquisition of apprenticeship-trained workers in Germany. Ind Labor Relat Rev 49(4):658–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Winterhager H, Heinze A, Spermann A (2006) Deregulating job placement in Europe: a microeconometric evaluation of an innovative voucher scheme in Germany. Labour Econ 13(4):505–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zhao Z (2008) Sensitivity of propensity score methods to the specifications. Econ Lett 98(3):309–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA)BonnGermany
  2. 2.University of MannheimMannheimGermany
  3. 3.IABNurembergGermany
  4. 4.DIWBerlinGermany
  5. 5.Renmin University of ChinaBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations