1 / 22

ASPEN , ETUI-REHS Brno 20.03.2009

ASPEN , ETUI-REHS Brno 20.03.2009. Beyond work first activation The German Welfare Reform in a comparative view. Regina Konle-Seidl@iab.de D - Institute for Employment Research (IAB). Overview. Need for redesign of national unemployment protection in post industrial labour markets

xaria
Download Presentation

ASPEN , ETUI-REHS Brno 20.03.2009

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. ASPEN , ETUI-REHS Brno 20.03.2009 Beyond work first activation The German Welfare Reform in a comparative view Regina Konle-Seidl@iab.deD - Institute for Employment Research (IAB)

  2. Overview • Need for redesign of national unemployment protection in post industrial labour markets • The German welfare reform (Hartz IV): a prime example of UE protection adaptation? • Preliminary outcomes of the new system

  3. Changing the regulation framework • Need for a new model for regulating joblessness in Europe? • unemployment insurance as well as social assistance increasingly ill suited • adaptation of working-age benefit schemes to post-industrial labour markets

  4. Changing profile of LM risks • Post-industrial LMs are characterized by • expanding service sector • skill-biased technological change →need for skill adaptation • increase of atypical work • low end and high end jobs • problems of UI coverage • limits of status maintenance • increase and persistence of LTU • increasing risk of social exclusion • make work pay

  5. Patterns of adaptation • unemployment support homogenisation • activation of benefits • co-ordination of unemployment protection → redesign of national income support systems

  6. Unemployment support homogenisation • Dual aim: prevent poverty and (by) enhancing integration into gainful employment • need-oriented, flat-rate benefits - access during periods of joblessness independent of work history - benefit level can vary: possible “upward” or “downward” generalization • financial incentives (“make work pay”) - to counter disincentive effects of high effective tax rates on means-tested benefits (“inactivity trap” / “low-skilled trap”) - by earnings disregard clauses/ wage supplements to top up low paid work or take on temporary employment • activation (rights and responsibilities)

  7. Towards a single working-age benefit? • standardisation of entitlements and eligibility across individuals with very different employment histories • making insurance benefits less status confirming • from last resort systems (social assistance) to “activating unemployment support systems” • including more financial incentives to take up work for low earners (in-work benefits) • shift from contribution based funding (non- wage labour costs) to general tax revenues (esp. in Bismarckian welfare states) →blurring boundaries between insurance and assistance and UI and other forms of non-employment benefits

  8. Benefit reforms are linked to … • New Welfare Governance • Unemployment policy co-ordination at the interface of labour market and social policy • ■horizontal co-ordination • integration of income support and re-integration services • one-stop shops, single gateways • ■vertical co-ordination • between different layers of government • networks and external providers

  9. Activating interventions… • demanding instruments • individual activity requirements • stricter suitability criteria to take up jobs and sanctioning clauses enabling instruments • ALMP to improve employability and re-integration • specific support measures (social services) • “contingent convergence” of activation strategies across EU countries • activation as a moving target over time • convergence of conditionality and generosity but with varying importance • similar repertoire of instruments in a work first environment • trend towards widening the scope of activation (to all non- employed)

  10. Contingent convergence of benefit generosity

  11. Hartz IV: Big bang reform (2005) • ■ fundamental benefit reform • merging of unemployment assistance and social assistance schemes • introduction of means-tested, flat-rate “basic income support” for able-bodied jobseekers” (UB II) • administrative (“need-oriented”) poverty threshold • shortening of duration of UI benefit entitlement → shift from status protection to basic income support • ■ activation of UB II recipients (Fordern und Fördern) • extensive definition of “acceptable work” • focus on work; in-work-benefits for low-paid work (“Aufstocker”) • work activities (“1 € Jobs”) • employability measures • ■ changes in the institutional setting • creation of 340 ARGE jobcentres (consortia of PES and municipal offices) as “one-stop shops” for welfare clients • 69 opting municipalities as a “time-limited institutional experiment”

  12. inability to work social assistance 2004: UA: unemployment assistance2005: UB II 2004: UB 2005: UB I D: Working-age recipients of main income support schemes Source: Federal Statistical Office Germany, Federal Employment Agency Germany (2005), Federation of German Pension Insurance Institutes

  13. Similar trends of policy adaptation in other EU countries • …. but less encompassing/ more incremental • UK - benefit reforms 1996 (JSA) , 2008 (ESA) • - “welfare-to work”: work first activation - Jobcentre Plus 2002 • France • - benefit reform: 2008/09 (RSA) • - organisational: 2008/09 (Pole emploi) • - PARE, extending and reinforcement of activation measures? • Netherlands - benefit reforms 2004 (WWB) and 2006 (WIA) - work first at municipal level organisational: - SUWI (2001); merging of CWI and UWV (2009) … also in Denmark, Sweden, Austria … • ,

  14. Preliminary outcomes of the new system • Benefit receipt • strong increase in UB II recipients between 2005 and mid-2006 • welfare take-up rates increased (decrease of hidden poor) • decrease of housing benefits by > 50% • improved fringe benefits (full medical coverage, pension and care insurance) • more generous earning and asset limits compared to former SA • in-work UB II benefits esp. among part-time and mini- jobbers • just 1/3 of total BIS and 50% of able-bodied UB II recipients are registered as unemployed • after 24 months: 48% of households left UB II benefit rolls • decrease among unemployed UB II recipients since mid-2006

  15. Preliminary outcomes LM participation • marginal effects on labour supply; negative for lone mothers • evidence on increased search intensity and reduced reservation wages • unemployment generally down by 30% (end of 2008) (open UE - 33%, hidden UE – 35%) • reintegration rate 27% p. a. among UB II recipients

  16. Preliminary outcomes of the new system • Public expenditures • general shift of financial resources from employment related contributions to general tax revenues • UI contribution rate down from 6,4% in 2005 to 2,8% but (unexpected) increase in public expenditures financed out of tax revenues

  17. Preliminary outcomes of the new system • Social inclusion • UB II standard payment is higher than in former social assistance but lower than in former unemployment assistance • redistributive effect: 20% on the lower end gain, 20% on the upper end loose • not “poverty by law” rather poverty preventing • However: higher risk of exclusion (deprivation indices) for singles between 35-49 years and lone parents Detailed results: www.iab.de (IAB-Bibliothek 315)

  18. Evaluation of an “institutional experiment” • who performs better and why? -jobcentres of the ARGE or opting municipalities by comparing activating interventions in terms of • termination of need (BIS receipt) • reintegration rates into employment - into employment which terminates neediness - into unsubsidized employment • improvement of employability and social stabilizing

  19. Who performs better? Centralized vs. decentralized service delivery • Impact on individual and aggregate level • existing performance differences between models are statistically not significant • ARGE : faster reintegration into jobs which end benefit receipt (25%) • municipal jobcentres: - higher reintegration rates into jobs which do not end neediness/UB II receipt (15%) - advantages in the improvement of employability (measured by a multidimensional indicators) • estimated fiscal effects: difference of 3,1 billion € in 1 year 2006/2007 in favour of the ARGE jobcentres

  20. Who performs better? Centralized vs. decentralized service delivery • Driving forces • generalized rather than specialized case-management • workload • quick (work first) and intensive assistance • consequent sanctioning • job training measures • availability of child care facilities • → not models but implementation strategies make the difference • however: no political solution; problem of interlocking federalism Results in detail: http://www.bmas.de/coremedia/generator/31070/f390__forschungsbericht.html

  21. Concluding remarks • Basic income allowance of growing relevance regarding the structure of unemployment protection in Germany • Beyond activation: convergence of patterns established in more liberal market economies (flat rate) but also in Scandinavian welfare states (funding mode) • Modelfor post-industrial risk regulation despite several shortcomings? • What happens in times of crisis? Possible reversal of policy trends?

  22. Thank you for your attention! • Regina.Konle-Seidl@iab.de

More Related