Empirical Economics

, Volume 50, Issue 4, pp 1303–1329 | Cite as

State dependence in welfare receipt: transitions before and after a reform

  • Regina T. RiphahnEmail author
  • Christoph Wunder


We study state dependence in welfare receipt and investigate whether welfare transitions changed after a welfare reform. Using data from the German Socio-Economic Panel, we apply dynamic multinomial logit estimators and find that state dependence in welfare receipt is not a central feature of the German welfare system. We find that welfare transitions changed after the reform: Transitions from welfare to employment became more likely and persistence in welfare and inactivity declined. We observe a large relative increase in transitions from employment to welfare. Immigrants’ responsiveness to the labor market situation increased after the reform.


Social assistance State dependence Unemployment benefit II Immigration Dynamic multinomial logit 

JEL Classification

I38 J61 

Supplementary material

181_2015_977_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (88 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (pdf 87 KB)


  1. Barrett A, McCarthy Y (2008) Immigrants and welfare programmes: exploring the interactions between immigrant characteristics, immigrant welfare dependence, and welfare policy. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 24(3):543–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bitler MP, Hoynes HW (2010) The state of social safety net in the post-welfare reform era. Brook Pap Econ Act 41(2):71–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blank RM (2002) Evaluating welfare reform in the United States. J Econ Lit 40(4):1105–1166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. BMAS (Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales) (2009) Wirkungen des SGB II auf Personen mit Migrationshintergrund. Abschlussbericht. Last Accessed 13 Sept 2013
  5. Boockmann B, Thomsen SL, Walter T, Göbel C, Huber M (2015) Should welfare administration be centralized or decentralized? Evidence from a policy experiment. Ger Econ Rev 16(1):13–42. doi: 10.1111/geer.12021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brewer M, Duncan A, Shephard A, Suarez MJ (2006) Did working families’ tax credit work? The impact of in-work support on labour supply in Great Britain. Labour Econ 13(6):699–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bruckmeier K, Wiemers J (2012) A new targeting: a new take-up? Non-take-up of social assistance in Germany after social policy reforms. Empir Econ 43(2):565–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burda MC, Hunt J (2011) What explains the German labor market miracle in the great recession. Brook Pap Econ Act 42(1):273–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caliendo M, Hogenacker J (2012) The German labor market after the Great Recession: successful reforms and future challenges. IZA J Eur Labor Stud 1(1):3. doi: 10.1186/2193-9012-1-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Caliendo M, Uhlendorff A (2008) Self-employment dynamics, state dependence and cross-mobility patterns. IZA Discussion Papers 3900, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), BonnGoogle Scholar
  11. Cappellari L, Jenkins SP (2008) The dynamics of social assistance receipt: measurement and modelling issues, with an application to Britain. OECD social, employment and migration working papers 67, OECD, Directorate for Employment, Labour and Social AffairsGoogle Scholar
  12. Cappellari L, Jenkins SP (2009) The dynamics of social assistance benefit receipt in Britain. IZA Discussion Papers 4457, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), BonnGoogle Scholar
  13. Chay KY, Hoynes HW, Hyslop D (2004) True state dependence in monthly welfare participation: a nonexperimental analysis. Working Papers 05-33, University of California at Davis, Department of EconomicsGoogle Scholar
  14. Dietz B (1999) Ethnic German immigration from Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union to Germany: the effects of migrant networks. IZA Discussion Papers 68, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), BonnGoogle Scholar
  15. Dietz M, Koch S, Rudolph H, Walwei U, Wiemers J (2011) Reform der Hinzuverdienstregeln im SGB II. Fiskalische Effekte und Arbeitsmarktwirkungen. Sozialer Fortschritt 60(1–2):4–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Edmark K (2009) Migration effects of welfare benefit reform. Scand J Econ 111(3):511–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Erdem T, Sun B (2001) Testing for choice dynamics in panel data. J Bus Econ Stat 19(2):142–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fahr R, Sunde U (2009) Did the Hartz reforms speed-up the matching process? A macro-evaluation using empirical matching functions. Ger Econ Rev 10(3):284–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fortin B, Lacroix G, Drolet S (2004) Welfare benefits and the duration of welfare spells: evidence from a natural experiment in Canada. J Public Econ 88(7–8):1495–1520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Frick JR, Groh-Samberg O (2007) To claim or not to claim: estimating non-take-up of social assistance in Germany and the role of measurement error. Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 734, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  21. Frick JR, Lohmann H (2010) Biography and life history data in the German Socio Economic Panel. Data Documentation 52, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  22. Grogger J, Karoly LA (2005) Welfare reform: effects of a decade of change. Harvard University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hansen J, Lofstrom M (2009) The dynamics of immigrant welfare and labor market behavior. J Popul Econ 22(4):941–970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hansen J, Lofstrom M (2011) Immigrant-native differences in welfare participation: the role of entry and exit rates. Ind Relat J Econ Soc 50(3):412–442. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-232X.2011.00644.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hansen J, Lofstrom M, Liu X, Zhang X (2014) State dependence in social assistance receipt in Canada. In: Carcillo S, Immervoll H, Jenkins SP, Königs S, Tatsiramos K (eds) Safety nets and benefit dependence, vol 39. Emerald, Bingley, pp 81–106Google Scholar
  26. Heckman JJ (1981) Heterogeneity and state dependence. In: Rosen S (ed) Studies in labor markets. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 91–140Google Scholar
  27. Heckman JJ, Borjas GJ (1980) Does unemployment cause future unemployment? Definitions, questions and answers from a continuous time model of heterogeneity and state dependence. Economica 47(187):247–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hoynes HW (2000) Local labor markets and welfare spells: do demand conditions matter? Rev Econ Stat 82(3):351–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hoynes HW, Miller DL, Schaller J (2012) Who suffers during recessions? J Econ Perspect 26(3):27–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Huber M, Lechner M, Wunsch C, Walter T (2011) Do German welfare-to-work programmes reduce welfare dependency and increase employment? Ger Econ Rev 12(2):182–204. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0475.2010.00515.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jahn E, Stephan G (2012) Arbeitslosengeld—wie lange man dafür arbeiten muss. IAB Kurzbericht 19, IAB, NürnbergGoogle Scholar
  32. Klinger S, Rothe T (2012) Der Rückgang der Langzeitarbeitslosigkeit in Deutschland: Ein Erfolg der Hartz-Reformen oder konjunktureller Effekt? Schmollers Jahrbuch (J Appl Soc Sci Stud) 132(1):1–33Google Scholar
  33. Kogan I (2004) Last hired, first fired? The unemployment dynamics of male immigrants in Germany. Eur Sociol Rev 20(5):445–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Koller L, Rudolph H (2011) Viele Jobs von kurzer Dauer. IAB Kurzbericht 14, IAB, NürnbergGoogle Scholar
  35. Königs S (2014) State dependence in social assistance receipt in Germany before and after the Hartz reforms. In: Immervoll H, Carcillo S, Königs S, Jenkins SP, Tatsiramos K (eds) Safety nets and benefit dependence, vol 39. Emerald, Bingley, pp 107–150Google Scholar
  36. Ludsteck J, Seth S (2014) Comment on “Unemployment compensation and wages: evidence from the German Hartz reforms” by Stefan Arent and Wolfgang Nagl. Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik (J Econ Stat) 234(5):635–644Google Scholar
  37. Mundlak Y (1978) On the pooling of time series and cross section data. Econometrica 46(1):69–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Prowse V (2012) Modeling employment dynamics with state dependence and unobserved heterogeneity. J Bus Econ Stat 30(3):411–431. doi: 10.1080/07350015.2012.697851 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rabe-Hesketh S, Skrondal A (2013) Avoiding biased versions of Wooldridge’s simple solution to the initial conditions problem. Econ Lett 120(2):346–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rabe-Hesketh S, Skrondal A, Pickles A (2004) Gllamm manual. U.C. Berkeley Division of Biostatistics Working Paper Series 1160, Berkeley Electronic PressGoogle Scholar
  41. Riphahn RT (2001) Rational poverty or poor rationality? The take-up study of social assistance benefits. Rev Income Wealth 47(3):379–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Riphahn RT (2004) Immigrant participation in social assistance programs: evidence from German guestworkers. Appl Econ Q 50(4):329–362Google Scholar
  43. Riphahn RT, Wunder C (2013) Patterns of welfare dependence before and after a reform: evidence from first generation immigrants and natives in Germany. Rev Income Wealth 59(3):437–459. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4991.2012.00518.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schnabel C (2015) United, yet apart? A note on persistent labour market differences between western and eastern Germany. IZA Discussion Papers 8919, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), BonnGoogle Scholar
  45. Schneider H (2012) Wie nachhaltig ist das deutsche Jobwunder? Eine Reformbilanz. IZA Standpunkte 51, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), BonnGoogle Scholar
  46. Skrondal A, Rabe-Hesketh S (2009) Prediction in multilevel generalized linear models. J R Stat Soc Ser A 172(3):659–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stewart MB (2007) The interrelated dynamics of unemployment and low-wage employment. J Appl Econom 22(3):511–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. SVR (Sachverständigenrat zur Begutachtung der gesamtwirtschaftlichen Entwicklung) (2011) Verantwortung für Europa wahrnehmen. Jahresgutachten 2011/12. WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
  49. Wagner GG, Frick JR, Schupp J (2007) The German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP)—scope, evolution and enhancements. Schmollers Jahrbuch (J Appl Soc Sci Stud) 127(1):139–169Google Scholar
  50. Wooldridge JM (2005) Simple solutions to the initial conditions problem in dynamic, nonlinear panel data models with unobserved heterogeneity. J Appl Econom 20(1):39–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wunder C, Riphahn RT (2014) The dynamics of welfare entry and exit among natives and immigrants. Oxf Econ Pap 66(2):580–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ziliak JP, Figlio DN, Davis EE, Connolly LS (2000) Accounting for the decline in AFDC caseloads: welfare reform or the economy? J Hum Resour 35(3):570–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Erlangen-NürnbergNurembergGermany
  2. 2.University of Halle-WittenbergHalleGermany

Personalised recommendations