This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
316 Kombinate have been transformed into 8,000 legally independent firms by law (Siebert, 1991).
The purpose of short-time work compensation is to avoid lay-offs due to temporary, unanticipated reductions in firms’ labour demand. Until 1992, short-time work compensations were also paid if working hours were reduced to zero and even if it was clear that the reduction in labour demand was permanent (Wunsch, 2005).
Sell (1998) notes 115 amendments.
Sell (1998), Fitzenberger and Speckesser (2000) and Fertig and Schmidt (2000) discuss the relevant reforms of labour market policy and the consequences. Brinkmann (1999) deals with the introduction of decentralisation and regionalisation as well as the mandatory output evaluation of labour market policy. A more recent and comprehensive overview is given by Wunsch (2005).
See Martin and Grubb (2001).
Brinkmann (1999) translates Eingliederungsbilanzen as output evaluations, Fertig and Schmidt (2000) use the term balance sheets.
It may be worth noting that the average monthly costs per participant for the FEA have been 1,419 Euro in West Germany and 1,518 Euro in East Germany in the year 2001 (Bundesanstalt für Arbeit, 2002).
See Caliendo and Hujer (2004) for a discussion of the reform of job creation and structural adjustment schemes.
To give an idea of the sample sizes, Steiner and Kraus (1995), for example, use 582 participants and 2,179 comparison individuals for their analysis from LMM. Eichler and Lechner (2002) are able to base their study on 1,123 participants and 12,565 non-participants from LMM-SA.
Since I analyse the microeconometric effects of job creation schemes only, I refrain from reviewing the evidence from the macroeconom(etr)ic literature. However, for the sake of completeness, studies that analyse, among others, macroeconomic effects of job creation schemes in Germany should be mentioned: Büttner and Prey (1998), Hagen and Steiner (2000), Schmid, Speckesser, and Hilbert (2001), Hagen (2003), Hujer, Blien, Caliendo, and Zeiss (2006), and Hujer and Zeiss (2005).
A preliminary version of this paper circulated as Bergemann, Fitzenberger, and Speckesser (2001).
See Brinkmann, Caliendo, Hujer, and Thomsen (2006) for a summary of the results.
See, e.g., Heckman, LaLonde, and Smith (1999).
The task of these Societies for Employment Promotion and Structural Adjustment was to employ and qualify people within job creation and structural adjustment schemes. In the beginning of 1995, more than 150,000 persons were employed in these societies (Kraus et al., 2000).
According to Calmfors (1994), displacement effects describe the possible reduction of jobs elsewhere in the economy because of competition in goods markets.
See, for example, Sianesi (2002).
See, for example, Gerfin and Lechner (2002).
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Physica-Verlag Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
(2007). Some Notes on the Relevance of Job Creation Schemes in Germany. In: Evaluating the Employment Effects of Job Creation Schemes in Germany. ZEW Economic Studies, vol 36. Physica-Verlag HD. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7908-1950-2_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7908-1950-2_2
Publisher Name: Physica-Verlag HD
Print ISBN: 978-3-7908-1949-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-7908-1950-2
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)