Advertisement

Initiatives to Combat the Labour Market Exclusion of Youth in Northern Europe: A Meta-analysis

  • Inés HardoyEmail author
  • Knut Røed
  • Kristine von Simson
  • Tao Zhang
Chapter

Abstract

We present results from a meta-analysis that compiles studies on labour market programmes targeted at youth below the age of 30 in six selected countries: Denmark, Finland, Germany, Norway, Sweden and the UK. Together they comprise a database with 44 quantitative evaluation studies and 425 observations which fulfil certain criteria with regard to methodology, publication, etc.

Results indicate that labour market training and wage subsidies have a positive impact on youth labour market prospects. Work practice and public employment measures do not. More recent studies tend to give more positive effects, indicating a learning process from previous mistakes. There is no significant difference between short-term and medium- to long-term effects, nor do institutional conditioning factors such as redundancy laws, laws for temporary contracts, etc. seem to matter for the effects of labour market programmes. However, these last findings must be treated with caution as lack of variability might be causing some of the observed patterns.

Keywords

Youth unemployment NEETs Northern Europe Active labour market policies Impact evaluation Meta-analysis 

References

  1. Bertola, G., Blau, F., & Kahn, L. (2007). Labor market institutions and demographic employment patterns. Journal of Population Economics, 20(4), 833–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Caliendo, M., & Schmidl, R. (2016). Youth unemployment and active labor market policies in Europe. IZA Journal of Labor Policy, 5, 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40173-016-0057-x. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Card, D., Kluve, J., & Weber, A. (2010). Active labour market evaluations: A meta-analysis. The Economic Journal, 120, F452–F477. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2010.02387.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Card, D., Kluve, J., & Weber, A. (2015). What works? A meta-analysis of recent active labor market programme evaluations. NBER working paper no. 21431.Google Scholar
  5. Greenberg, D. H., Michalopoulos, C., & Robins, P. K. (2003). A Meta-analysis of government-sponsored training programmes. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 57(1), 31–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jimeno, J. F., & Rodriguez-Palenzuela, D. (2003). Youth unemployment in the OECD: Demographic shifts, labour market institutions, and macroeconomic shocks. ECB working papers no. 155.Google Scholar
  7. Kluve, J. (2010). The effectiveness of European active labor market programmes. Labour Economics, 17(6), 904–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kluve, J., Puerto, S., Robalino, D., Romero, J. M., Rother, F., Stöterau, J., Weidenkaff, F., & Witte, M. (2016). Do youth employment programs improve labor market outcomes? A systematic review. IZA discussion paper no. 10263.Google Scholar
  9. Puerto, O. S. (2007). Labour market impact of youth: A meta-analysis of the Youth Employment Inventory. Prepared for the World Bank http://www.youth-employment-inventory.org/downloads/7.pdf
  10. Stanley, T. D., & Doucouliagos, H. (2012). Meta-regression analysis in economics and business. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

References of Studies Included in the Meta-analysis

  1. Achatz, J., Fehr, S., Schels, B., & Wolff, J. (2012). Ein-Euro-Jobs, betriebliche und schulische Trainingsmassnahmen: Wovon junge Arbeitslose im SGB II am meisten profitieren. IAB-Kurzbericht 6, IAB Nuremberg.Google Scholar
  2. Bell, B., Blundell, R., & Van Reenen, J. (1999). Getting the unemployed back to work: The role of targeted wage subsidies. International Tax and Public Finance, 6(3), 339–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennmarker, H., Grönqvist, E., & Öckert, B. (2013). Effects of outsourcing employment services: Evidence from a randomized experiment. Journal of Public Economics, 98, 68–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernhard, S., & Kruppe, T. (2012). Effectiveness of further vocational training in Germany. Empirical findings for persons receiving means-tested unemployment benefits. Schmollers Jahrbuch: Zeitschrift für Wirtshafts- und Sozialwissenshaften, 132(4), 501–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernhard, S., & Wolff, J. (2008). Contracting out placement services in Germany. Is assignment to private providers effective for needy job-seekers? Discussion paper 5, IAB Nuremberg.Google Scholar
  6. Blundell, R., Costa Dias, M., Meghir, C., & van Reenen, J. (2004). Evaluating the employment impact of a mandatory job search programme. Journal of the European Economic Association, 2(4), 569–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caliendo, M., & Künn, S. (2011). Start-up subsidies for the unemployed: Long-term evidence and effect heterogeneity. Journal of Public Economics, 95(3–4), 311–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caliendo, M., Hujer, R., & Thomsen, S. (2008a). Identifying effect heterogeneity to improve the efficiency of job creation schemes in Germany. Applied Economics, 40(9), 1101–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caliendo, M., Hujer, R., & Thomsen, S. L. (2008b). The employment effects of job creation schemes in Germany: A micro econometric evaluation. In T. Fornby et al. (Eds.), Modelling and evaluating treatment effects in econometrics, Advances in econometrics (Vol. 21, pp. 381–428). Emerald Publishing Limited, registered in England with company number 03080506 and registered office Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley, West Yorkshire, BD16 1WA.Google Scholar
  10. Caliendo, M., Künn, S., & Schmidl, R. (2011). Fighting youth unemployment: The effects of active labor market policies. IZA DP 6222.Google Scholar
  11. Carling, K., & Larsson, L. (2005). Does early intervention help the unemployed youth? Labour Economics, 12(3), 301–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Costa Dias, M., Ichimura, H., & van den Berg, G. J. (2013). Treatment evaluation with selective participation and ineligibles. Journal of the American Statistical Assocciation, 108(502), 441–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dahlberg, M., Johansson, K., & Mörk, E. (2009). On mandatory activation of welfare recipients. IZA DP No. 3947.Google Scholar
  14. Dorsett, R. (2006). The new deal for young people: Effect on the labour market status of young men. Labour Economics, 13(3), 405–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ehlert, C., Kluve, J., & Schaffner, S. (2012). Temporary work as an active labor market policy: Evaluating an innovative programme for disadvantaged youth. Economics Bulletin, 32, 1765–1773.Google Scholar
  16. Engström, P., Hesselius, P., & Holmlund, B. (2012). Vacancy referrals, job search, and the duration of unemployment: A randomized experiment. Labour, 26(4), 419–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Forslund, A., & Nordström Skans, O. (2006). Swedish youth labour market policies revisited. Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, 75(3), 168–185.Google Scholar
  18. Graversen, B. K., & Van Ours, J. C. (2008). How to help unemployed find jobs quickly: Experimental evidence from a mandatory activation programme. Journal of Public Economics, 92(10–11), 2020–2035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hägglund, P. (2014). Experimental evidence from active placement efforts among unemployed in Sweden. Evaluation Review, 38(3), 191–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hall, C., & Liljeberg, L. (2011). En jobbgaranti för ungdomar? Om Arbetsförmedlingens ungdomsinsatser. IFAU- rapport 2011, 1.Google Scholar
  21. Hämäläinen, K., & Ollikainen, V. (2004). Differential effects of active labour market programmes in the early stages of young people’s unemployment. VATT research report 115, Helsinki.Google Scholar
  22. Hämäläinen, K., & Tuomala, J.(2007). Vocational labour market training in promoting youth employment. VATT Discussion paper 432, Helsinki.Google Scholar
  23. Hämäläinen, K., Hämäläinen, U., & Tuomala, J. (2014). The labour market impacts of a youth guarantee: Lessons for Europe? VATT WP 60, Helsinki.Google Scholar
  24. Hardoy, I. (2003). Effect evaluation: Methods and applications. Accepted PhD thesis (dr.polit) at the University of Oslo, Norway.Google Scholar
  25. Hardoy, I. (2005). Impact of multiple labour market programmes on multiple outcomes: The case of Norwegian youth programmes. Labour, 19(3), 425–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hardoy, .I, Røed, K., Torp, H., & Zhang, T. (2006). Virker ungdomsgarantien? Søkelys på arbeidsmarkedet 1. Oslo.Google Scholar
  27. Hohmeyer, K., & Wolff, J. (2012). A fistful of Euros: Is the German one-euro job workfare scheme effective for participants? International Journal of Social Welfare, 21, 174–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Huber, M., Lechner, M., & Wunsch, C. (2011). Do German welfare-to-work reduce welfare dependency and increase employment? German Economic Review, 12(2), 182–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jensen, P., Rosholm, M., & Svarer, M. (2003). The response of youth unemployment to benefits, incentives and sanctions. European Journal of Political Economy, 19, 301–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Larsson, L. (2003). Evaluation of Swedish youth labor market programmes. Journal of Human Resources, 38(4), 891–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Maibom, J., Rosholm, M., & Svarer, M. (2012). Experimental evidence on the effects of early meetings and activation. IZA DP 6970, IZA Bonn.Google Scholar
  32. Maibom, J., Rosholm, M., & Svarer, M.(2014). Can active labour market policies combat youth unemployment? IZA DP no. 7912, IZA Bonn.Google Scholar
  33. Nivorozhkin, A., & Wolff, J. (2012). Give them a break! Did activation of young welfare recipients overshoot in Germany? (A regression discontinuity analysis). Conference paper, Beiträge zur Jahrestagung des Vereins für Socialpolitik 2012: Neue Wege und Herausforderungen für den Arbeitsmarkt des 21. Jahrhunderts – Session: Labor Market Policy Evaluation. No. B08-V1.Google Scholar
  34. Petrongolo, B. (2009). The long-term effect of job search requirements: Evidence from the UK JSA reform. Journal of Public Economics, 93(11–12), 1234–1253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rinne, U., Schneider, M., & Uhlendorff, U. (2011). Do the skilled and prime-aged unemployed benefit more from training? Effect heterogeneity of public training programmes in Germany. Applied Economics, 43, 3465–3494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rosholm, M., & Svarer, M. (2015). Kvantitativ evaluering af Brobygning til uddannelse. Rapport til Styrelsen for Arbejdsmarked og Rekruttering.Google Scholar
  37. Svarer, M., Rosholm, M., Havn, L., & Høeberg, L. (2014). Evaluering af mentorindsats til unge uden uddannelse og job. Rapport til STAR, Rambøll.Google Scholar
  38. van den Berg, G. J., Kjærsgaard, L., & Rosholm, M. (2012). To meet or not to meet (your case worker) – That is the question. IZA DP no. 6476, IZA Bonn.Google Scholar
  39. van den Berg, G. J., Bozio, A., & Costa Dias, M. (2014a). Policy discontinuity and duration outcomes. IZA DP no. 8450.Google Scholar
  40. van den Berg, G. J., Uhlendorff, A., & Wolff, J. (2014b). Sanctions for young welfare recipients. Nordic Economic Policy Review, 1, 177–208.Google Scholar
  41. von Simson, K. (2012). Veier til jobb for ungdom som ikke har fullført videregående utdanning. Søkelys på arbeidslivet, 29(1–2), 76–96. Oslo.Google Scholar
  42. Wolff, J., & Jozwiak, E. (2007). Does short-term training activate means-tested unemployment benefit recipients in Germany? Discussion paper 29, IAB Nuremberg.Google Scholar
  43. Wolff, J., Popp, S., & Zabel, C. (2010). Ein-euro-jobs für hilfebedürftige Jugendliche. Hohe Verbreitung, geringe Integrationswirkung. WSI-Mitteilungen, 63(1), 11–18.Google Scholar
  44. Zhang, T. (2016). Virker arbeidspraksis i ordinær virksomhet etter sitt formål? Søkelys på arbeidslivet, 33, 45–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Inés Hardoy
    • 1
    Email author
  • Knut Røed
    • 2
  • Kristine von Simson
    • 1
  • Tao Zhang
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute for Social ResearchOsloNorway
  2. 2.Frisch CentreOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations