Alternative Measures of State UI Systems
AbstractComparisons among state unemployment insurance (UI) systems can be misleading. Frequently quoted indicators of benefit generosity, tax cost, and adherence to the experience-rating principle are influenced by the relative economic conditions of states. Such comparisons thereby obscure underlying structural differences in state UI systems. A business considering alternative states in which to locate a production facility should be cautious when interpreting UI information in an economic developer's marketing pitch. This paper offers alternative indicators based on how representative firms, with a well specified unemployment experience, would fare in different states. The authors use a micro-simulation approach to model the experiences of representative workers and firms to compare 28 states and contrast the results with those obtained from more conventional indicators. In closing, the authors consider whether a business location decision would be influenced differently by the alternative measures of state UI systems.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research in its series Upjohn Working Papers and Journal Articles with number 00-62.
Date of creation: Feb 2000
Date of revision:
unemployment; insurance; state; O'Leary; Tannenwald;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- J0 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - General
- J6 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Mobility, Unemployment, Vacancies, and Immigrant Workers
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-LAB-2000-11-14 (Labour Economics)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Robert Tannenwald & Christopher J. O'Leary, 1997.
"Unemployment Insurance Policy in New England: Background and Issues,"
Upjohn Working Papers and Journal Articles
97-49, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
- Robert Tannenwald & Christopher J. O'Leary, 1997. "Unemployment insurance policy in New England: background and issues," New England Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, issue May, pages 3-22.
- Robert Tannenwald & Christopher J. O'Leary, . "Unemployment Insurance Policy in New England: Background and Issues," Upjohn Working Papers and Journal Articles rtcjo1997, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
- Robert Tannenwald & Christopher J. O'Leary & Wei-Jang Huang, 1999.
"New ways of evaluating state unemployment insurance,"
New England Economic Review,
Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, issue Mar, pages 15-40.
- Robert Tannenwald & Christopher J. O'Leary & Wei-Jang Huang, . "New Ways of Evaluating State Unemployment Insurance," Upjohn Working Papers and Journal Articles rtcjo1999, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
- Topel, Robert H, 1984. "Experience Rating of Unemployment Insurance and the Incidence of Unemployment," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 27(1), pages 61-90, April.
- Christopher J. O'Leary & Murray Rubin, 1997. "Adequacy of the Weekly Benefit Amount," Book chapters authored by Upjohn Institute researchers, in: Christopher J. O'Leary & Stephen A. Wandner (ed.), Unemployment Insurance in the United States: Analysis of Policy Issues, chapter 5, pages 163-210 W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.