Some Notes on the Relevance of Job Creation Schemes in Germany

Part of the ZEW Economic Studies book series (ZEW, volume 36)


Labour Market Labour Market Policy Unemployed Person Regular Employment Wage Subsidy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 3.
    316 Kombinate have been transformed into 8,000 legally independent firms by law (Siebert, 1991).Google Scholar
  2. 4.
    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).Google Scholar
  3. 5.
    Sell (1998) notes 115 amendments.Google Scholar
  4. 6.
    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).Google Scholar
  5. 7.
    See Martin and Grubb (2001).Google Scholar
  6. 11.
    Brinkmann (1999) translates Eingliederungsbilanzen as output evaluations, Fertig and Schmidt (2000) use the term balance sheets.Google Scholar
  7. 13.
    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).Google Scholar
  8. 15.
    See Caliendo and Hujer (2004) for a discussion of the reform of job creation and structural adjustment schemes.Google Scholar
  9. 16.
    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.Google Scholar
  10. 18.
    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).Google Scholar
  11. 19.
    A preliminary version of this paper circulated as Bergemann, Fitzenberger, and Speckesser (2001).Google Scholar
  12. 21.
    See Brinkmann, Caliendo, Hujer, and Thomsen (2006) for a summary of the results.Google Scholar
  13. 22.
    See, e.g., Heckman, LaLonde, and Smith (1999).Google Scholar
  14. 26.
    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).Google Scholar
  15. 27.
    According to Calmfors (1994), displacement effects describe the possible reduction of jobs elsewhere in the economy because of competition in goods markets.Google Scholar
  16. 28.
    See, for example, Sianesi (2002).Google Scholar
  17. 29.
    See, for example, Gerfin and Lechner (2002).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Physica-Verlag Heidelberg 2007

Personalised recommendations