EconStor >
ifo Institut – Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung an der Universität München >
CESifo Working Papers, CESifo Group Munich >

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10419/26615
  

Full metadata record

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorCard, David Edwarden_US
dc.contributor.authorKluve, Jochenen_US
dc.contributor.authorWeber, Andrea Mariaen_US
dc.date.accessioned2009-03-17en_US
dc.date.accessioned2009-07-28T08:48:58Z-
dc.date.available2009-07-28T08:48:58Z-
dc.date.issued2009en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10419/26615-
dc.description.abstractThis paper presents a meta-analysis of recent microeconometric evaluations of active labor market policies. Our sample consists of 199 program estimates drawn from 97 studies conducted between 1995 and 2007. In about one-half of these cases we have both a short-term impact estimate (for a one-year post-program horizon) and a medium-term estimate (two-year horizon). We characterize the program estimates according to the type and duration of the program, the characteristics of the participants, and the evaluation methodology. Heterogeneity in all three dimensions affects the likelihood that an impact estimate is significantly positive, significantly negative, or statistically insignificant. Comparing program types, subsidized public sector employment programs have the least favorable impact estimates. Job search assistance programs have relatively favorable short-run impacts, whereas classroom and on-the-job training programs tend to show better outcomes in the medium-run than the short-run. Programs for youths are less likely to yield positive impacts than untargeted programs, but there are no large or systematic differences by gender. Methodologically, we find that the outcome variable used to measure program effectiveness matters. Evaluations based on registered unemployment durations are more likely to show favorable short-term impacts. Controlling for the outcome measure, and the type of program and participants, we find that experimental and non-experimental studies have similar fractions of significant negative and significant positive impact estimates, suggesting that the research designs used in recent non-experimental evaluations are unbiased.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherCESifo Münchenen_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesCESifo working paper 2570en_US
dc.subject.jelH53en_US
dc.subject.jelJ08en_US
dc.subject.ddc330en_US
dc.subject.keywordActive labor market policyen_US
dc.subject.keywordprogram evaluationen_US
dc.subject.keywordmeta-analysisen_US
dc.subject.stwArbeitsmarktpolitiken_US
dc.subject.stwWirtschaftspolitische Wirkungsanalyseen_US
dc.subject.stwMikroökonometrieen_US
dc.subject.stwMeta-Analyseen_US
dc.subject.stwWelten_US
dc.titleActive labor market policy evaluations: a meta-analysisen_US
dc.typeWorking Paperen_US
dc.identifier.ppn593924770en_US
dc.rightshttp://www.econstor.eu/dspace/Nutzungsbedingungen-
Appears in Collections:CESifo Working Papers, CESifo Group Munich

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat
593924770.PDF307.72 kBAdobe PDF
No. of Downloads: Counter Stats
Show simple item record
Download bibliographical data as: BibTeX

Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.