Shifting the Training Choice Decision to the Jobseeker—The Slovak Experience

Abstract

We describe a reform in the allocation of training to unemployed jobseekers in Slovakia. Under the REPAS reform, unemployed jobseekers choose a specialization and training provider. This shift in responsibility from the caseworker to the client is comparable to the introduction of training vouchers under the German HARTZ I reform. Benefiting from research available on the German case, we first estimate the positive employment effects of training participation separately for the pre‐REPAS and REPAS periods. Second, we quantify and disaggregate the overall effect of the reform, which does not appear to be driven by a change in the composition of the participants. However, for at least one training specialization, this change does play a role in the short run. The overall reform effect is not channelled through the newly created segment of rare training specializations or high‐skilled participants.

Comparing Innovative ‘Chosen Training’ with ‘Standard Training’ in Czechia: How Did the New Program Help?

“…This paper discussed the politically relevant issue of whether chosen training could allocate the unemployed better to appropriate training programs, potentially leading to improved program effects. Researchers in other EU countries, including Eastern European countries, also addressed this topic (Rinne et al, 2013;Stefanik, 2021;Madoń et al, 2021). These analyses generally argued that involvement of the unemployed in program selection is in some ways positive for program effects.…”

“…While short-term effects were higher after the reform (more pronounced locking-in effect before the reform), similar effects were found at the end of the observed period of 22-27 months (after the training). While Rinne et al (2013) found the positive reform effect only for skilled individuals, Stefanik (2021) provided a contrasting example, with the low-skilled (ISCED 0-2) participants benefiting from training par-ticipation slightly more than high-skilled (ISCED 5-6) participants, especially in the longer run, and no reform effect. Madoń et al (2021) found a difference between chosen and standard type of training for onthe-job training, but not for the classroom training.…”

“…It can also be argued that it takes time for attained qualifications to be further developed and recognised by employers. Rinne et al (2013), Stefanik (2021), and Madoń et al (2021) addressed the issue of change of program allocation for effects of the programs. Rinne et al (2013) concluded that the medium term (1.5 years) effects were more promising after the allocation reform due to institutional effect.…”

“…This article evaluates the active labour market policy instrument called 'chosen training' (in Czech zvolené rekvalifikace), introduced to the Czech labour market policy in 2012. Policymakers introduced similar reforms in Germany (Rinne et al, 2013), Slovakia (Stefanik, 2021) and Poland (Madoń et al, 2021). This new instrument allows the registered unemployed much more freedom to choose their supposed future career path by selecting the preferred profession for training and preferred training provider than traditional standard training programs.…”

“…We compared a new instrument with more traditional training programs that continue to be provided alongside the new tool. In contrast to other analyses on a similar topic (Rinne et al, 2013;Stefanik, 2021), we evaluated two different program types implemented within the same year and not the same programs before and after the reform. We do not have data about training programs performed before implementing the reform (2011)(2012)(2013).…”