Active Labor Market Policies

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. The Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) in Bonn is a local and virtual international research center and a place of communication between science, politics and business. IZA is an independent nonprofit organization supported by Deutsche Post Foundation. The center is associated with the University of Bonn and offers a stimulating research environment through its international network, workshops and conferences, data service, project support, research visits and doctoral program. IZA engages in (i) original and internationally competitive research in all fields of labor economics, (ii) development of policy concepts, and (iii) dissemination of research results and concepts to the interested public. Terms of use: Documents inIZA Discussion Papers often represent preliminary work and are circulated to encourage discussion. Citation of such a paper should account for its provisional character. A revised version may be available directly from the author.IZA Discussion Paper No. 10321 October 2016 ABSTRACTActive Labor Market Policies * Active labor market policies are massively used with the objective being to improve labor market outcomes of individuals out of work. Many observational evaluation studies have been published. In this review, we critically assess policy effectiveness. We emphasize insights from recent randomized controlled trials. In addition, we examine policy effects that have not been the primary object of most of the past evaluations, such as anticipatory effects of advance knowledge of future treatments and equilibrium effects, and we discuss the actual implementation of policies. We discuss the importance of heterogeneity of programs and effects and examine the extent to which potential participants are interested in enrollment.We also discuss the assessment of costs and benefits of programs.JEL Classification: J08, J64

Immigration Restrictions as Active Labor Market Policy: Evidence from the Mexican Bracero Exclusion

“…A large literature evaluates how active labor market policy a ects workers' wages and employment (LaLonde 2016; Crépon and van den Berg 2016). One class of these interventions is littlestudied relative to its policy importance: speci c immigration policy interventions designed to raise domestic wages and employment by reducing the total size of the workforce.…”

Job Creation Schemes in Turbulent Times

“…As Crépon and van den Berg (2016) show both, an increased job offer arrival rate and a shift in the wage offer distribution due to participation in ALMP, increases the exit rate from unemployment compared to the situation before participation.…”

“…Consequently, as a common shortcoming of ALMP evaluation studies, we can not capture equilibrium effects (see Crépon and van den Berg (2016)), i.e. we do not focus on how nonparticipants are affected by the program (for example spillover effects) and how the effect of participants is influenced by the existence of the program.…”

“…1 There are at least two potential channels how JCSs might improve the employment situation of participants. To fix ideas, we are arguing in the framework of a labor market with search frictions (for a more formal analysis see the Supplemental Material of Crépon and van den Berg (2016)). By providing work experience JCSs can increase participants' attachment to the labor market.…”

Unemployment and the role of supranational policies

“…The effectiveness of ALMPs at reducing unemployment remains a controversial issue. Some surveys tend to conclude that, when taking into account deadweight, substitution, lock-in, and general equilibrium effects, ALMPs are not cost-effective at reducing unemployment [5]; others suggest that some programs, in particular those aimed at human capital accumulation, can have positive longterm effects on the employability of some targeted groups, especially in a recessionary climate [6]. In any case, the effectiveness of ALMPs seems to be rather dependent on the institutional framework in which they are implemented.…”