International Tax and Public Finance

, Volume 13, Issue 5, pp 565–585 | Cite as

Optimal unemployment insurance design: Time limits, monitoring, or workfare?

  • Peter Fredriksson
  • Bertil Holmlund


This paper analyses crucial design features of unemployment insurance (UI) policies. We examine three different means of improving the efficiency of UI: the duration of benefit payments, monitoring in conjunction with sanctions, and workfare. To that end we develop a quantitative model of equilibrium unemployment. The model features worker heterogeneity in preferences for leisure. The analysis suggests that a system with monitoring and sanctions restores search incentives most effectively, since it brings additional incentives to search actively so as to avoid the sanction. Therefore, the UI provider can offer a more generous UI replacement rate in a system with monitoring and sanctions than in the other two systems. Workfare appears to be inferior to the other two systems.


Unemployment insurance Search Monitoring Sanctions Workfare 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abbring, J., van den Berg, G., & van der Ours, J. (1998). The Effect of Unemployment Insurance Sanctions on the Transition Rate from Unemployment to Employment. Working paper, Tinbergen Institute, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  2. Beaudry, P., & Blackorby, C. (1998). Taxes and Employment Subsidies in Optimal Redistribution Programs, NBER Working Paper 6355.Google Scholar
  3. Benus, J., & Johnson, T. (1997). Evaluation of the Maryland Unemployment Insurance Work Search Demonstration. Report prepared for Maryland Department of Labor, Battelle Memorial Institute in conjunction with Abt Associates Inc. Available on the web at the address:
  4. Besley, T., & Coate, S. (1992). Workfare versus welfare: Incentive Arguments for Work Requirements in Poverty-Alleviation Programs. American Economic Review, 82, 249–261.Google Scholar
  5. Besley, T., & Coate, S. (1995). The Design of Income Maintenance Programs. Review of Economic Studies, 62, 187–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Black, D., Smith, J., Berger, M., & Noel, B. (2003). Is the Threat of Reemployment Services More Effective than the Services Themselves? Evidence from Random Assignment in the UI System. American Economic Review, 93, 1313–1327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blanchard, O. J., & Diamond, P. (1989). The Beveridge Curve. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1, 1–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boone, J., & van Ours, J. (2000). Modeling Financial Incentives to Get Unemployed Back to Work. CentER Discussion Paper 2000-02, Tilburg University.Google Scholar
  9. Boone, J., Fredriksson, P., Holmlund, B., & van Ours, J. (2002). Optimal Unemployment Insurance with Monitoring and Sanctions. Working paper 2002:21, Institute for Labour Market Policy Evaluation (IFAU).Google Scholar
  10. Cahuc, P., & Lehmann, E. (2000). Should Unemployment Benefits Decrease with the Unemployment Spell? Journal of Public Economics, 77, 135–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davidson, C., & Woodbury, S. (1997). Optimal Unemployment Insurance. Journal of Public Economics, 64, 359–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fredriksson, P., & Holmlund, B. (2001). Optimal Unemployment Insurance in Search Equilibrium. Journal of Labor Economics, 19, 370–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fredriksson, P., & Holmlund, B. (2003). Improving Incentives in Unemployment Insurance: A Review of Recent Research. Working paper 2003:10, Department of Economics, Uppsala University. Forthcoming in Journal of Economic Surveys.Google Scholar
  14. Hassler, J., & Rodriguez Mora, J. V. (2002). Should UI Benefits Really Fall over Time? CESifo Working Paper No 804.Google Scholar
  15. Hopenhayn, H., & Nicolini, J. P. (1997). Optimal Unemployment Insurance. Journal of Political Economy, 105, 412–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hosios A. J. (1990). On the Efficiency of Matching and Related Models of Search and Unemployment. Review of Economic Studies, 57, 279–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jackman, R. (1994). What Can Active Labour Market Policy Do? Swedish Economic Policy Review, 1, 221–257.Google Scholar
  18. Johnson, T., & Klepinger, D. (1994). Experimental Evidence on Unemployment Insurance Work-Search Policies. Journal of Human Resources, 29, 695–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lalive, R., van Ours, J. C., & Zweimüller, J. (2002). The Effect of Benefit Sanction on the Duration of Unemployment. Discussion paper 3311, Centre for Economic Policy Research.Google Scholar
  20. Lundin, M. (2000). Tillämpningen av arbetslöshetsförsäkringens regelverk vid arbetsförmedlingarna, stencil 2000:1, Institute for Labour Market Policy Evaluation (IFAU).Google Scholar
  21. Mortensen, D. (1977). Unemployment Insurance and Job Search Decisions. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 30, 505–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Shavell, S., & Weiss, L. (1979). The Optimal Payment of Unemployment Insurance Benefits over Time. Journal of Political Economy, 87, 1347–1362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Thustrup Kreiner, C., & Tranæs, T. (2005). Optimal Workfare with Voluntary and Involuntary Unemployment. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 107, 459–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Van den Berg, G., & van der Klaauw, B. (2001). Counseling and Monitoring of Unemployed Workers: Theory and Evidence from a Social Experiment. Working Paper 2001:12, Institute for Labour Market Policy Evaluation (IFAU).Google Scholar
  25. Van den Berg, G., van der Klaauw, B., & van Ours, J. (2004). Punitive Sanctions and the Transition Rate from Welfare to Work. Journal of Labor Economics, 22, 211–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wang, C., & Williamson, S. (1996). Unemployment Insurance with Moral Hazard in a Dynamic Economy. Carnegie Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, 44, 1–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUppsala University, and IFAUUppsalaSweden
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations