IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jlabrs/v56y2022i1d10.1186_s12651-022-00311-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Justice perceptions of occupational training subsidies: findings from a factorial survey

Author

Listed:
  • Richard V. Wolff

    (University of Bamberg: Otto-Friedrich-Universitat Bamberg)

  • Olaf Struck

    (University of Bamberg: Otto-Friedrich-Universitat Bamberg)

  • Christopher Osiander

    (Institute for Employment Research (IAB): The Research Institute of the Federal Employment Agency)

  • Monika Senghaas

    (Institute for Employment Research (IAB): The Research Institute of the Federal Employment Agency)

  • Gesine Stephan

    (Institute for Employment Research (IAB): The Research Institute of the Federal Employment Agency)

Abstract

Workers whose jobs are affected by structural change and digitization are required to continuously adapt their vocational skills to the requirements of the labor market. This adaptation is also essential for the competitiveness of their employer firms. The German legislature addressed this issue with investive measures for unemployment insurance, one of which is the Qualification Opportunities Act (Qualifizierungschancengesetz). Funds taken from unemployment insurance can now be used to provide financial help for employers in a more direct way and on a broader scale than before. It became possible that not only unemployed individuals but also workers in companies receive state assistance. This paper analyses the extent to which citizens accept such public support programs for further training and which principles of justice they apply when assessing a just amount of training subsidies. We conducted two factorial surveys. First, we investigated the justice assessments of training subsidies for different types of firms. The results showed that citizens are inclined to subsidize companies by receiving social security funds for further training of their employees. However, when doing so, the principle of needs-based justice should be complied with. Second, we analyze whether citizens think it is just or unjust to provide training subsidies to different workers, as we present them with changing characteristics of workers. The findings confirmed that in addition to the principle of need, views on performance justice, as well as economic considerations are relevant in assessments of whether training subsidies co-financed by unemployment insurance are just.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard V. Wolff & Olaf Struck & Christopher Osiander & Monika Senghaas & Gesine Stephan, 2022. "Justice perceptions of occupational training subsidies: findings from a factorial survey," Journal for Labour Market Research, Springer;Institute for Employment Research/ Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), vol. 56(1), pages 1-18, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:jlabrs:v:56:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1186_s12651-022-00311-w
    DOI: 10.1186/s12651-022-00311-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1186/s12651-022-00311-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1186/s12651-022-00311-w?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Konow, James, 2001. "Fair and square: the four sides of distributive justice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 137-164, October.
    2. Mau, Steffen & Burkhardt, Christoph & Sachweh, Patrick, 2009. "Wandel und Reform des deutschen Sozialstaats aus Sicht der Bevölkerung," WSI-Mitteilungen, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 62(11), pages 612-618.
    3. Samuel Bowles & Herbert Gintis, 2000. "Reciprocity, Self-Interest and the Welfare State," Nordic Journal of Political Economy, Nordic Journal of Political Economy, vol. 26, pages 33-53.
    4. Daron Acemoglu & Pascual Restrepo, 2020. "Robots and Jobs: Evidence from US Labor Markets," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(6), pages 2188-2244.
    5. van den Berg, Gerard J. & Dauth, Christine & Homrighausen, Pia & Stephan, Gesine, 2018. "Informing Employees in Small and Medium Sized Firms about Training: Results of a Randomized Field Experiment," IZA Discussion Papers 11963, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. Andrew Bell & Malcolm Fairbrother & Kelvyn Jones, 2019. "Fixed and random effects models: making an informed choice," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 1051-1074, March.
    7. Konow, James, 1996. "A positive theory of economic fairness," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 13-35, October.
    8. Osiander, Christopher & Senghaas, Monika & Stephan, Gesine & Struck, Olaf & Wolff, Richard, 2020. "“Acceptance of social- and labor market programs and regulations”: Methodological report on the first survey wave," IAB-Forschungsbericht 202007, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany].
    9. Femke Roosma & John Gelissen & Wim Oorschot, 2013. "The Multidimensionality of Welfare State Attitudes: A European Cross-National Study," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 113(1), pages 235-255, August.
    10. Daron Acemoglu & Pascual Restrepo, 2017. "Robots and Jobs: Evidence from US Labor Markets," Boston University - Department of Economics - Working Papers Series dp-297, Boston University - Department of Economics.
    11. Wolfgang Langer, 2017. "How to assess the fit of multilevel logit models with Stata?," German Stata Users' Group Meetings 2017 05, Stata Users Group.
    12. Ronald L. Wasserstein & Allen L. Schirm & Nicole A. Lazar, 2019. "Moving to a World Beyond “p," The American Statistician, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 73(S1), pages 1-19, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Uwe JIRJAHN & Stephen C. SMITH, 2018. "Nonunion Employee Representation: Theory And The German Experience With Mandated Works Councils," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 89(1), pages 201-233, March.
    2. Ufuk Akcigit & Sina T. Ates, 2023. "What Happened to US Business Dynamism?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 131(8), pages 2059-2124.
    3. Lütkenhorst, Wilfried, 2018. "Creating wealth without labour? Emerging contours of a new techno-economic landscape," IDOS Discussion Papers 11/2018, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
    4. Joshua Greenstein, 2020. "The Precariat Class Structure and Income Inequality among US Workers: 1980–2018," Review of Radical Political Economics, Union for Radical Political Economics, vol. 52(3), pages 447-469, September.
    5. Alain Cohn & Tobias Gesche & Michel André Maréchal, 2022. "Honesty in the Digital Age," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(2), pages 827-845, February.
    6. Dario Cords & Klaus Prettner, 2022. "Technological unemployment revisited: automation in a search and matching framework [The future of work: meeting the global challenges of demographic change and automation]," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 74(1), pages 115-135.
    7. Embrey, Matthew & Hyndman, Kyle & Riedl, Arno, 2021. "Bargaining with a residual claimant: An experimental study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 335-354.
    8. Colombo, Emilio & Mercorio, Fabio & Mezzanzanica, Mario, 2019. "AI meets labor market: Exploring the link between automation and skills," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 27-37.
    9. Sonal Pandey, 2021. "Artificial Intelligence and Food Industry," RAIS Conference Proceedings 2021 0058, Research Association for Interdisciplinary Studies.
    10. Alejandro Micco, 2019. "The Impact of Automation in Developed Countries," Working Papers wp480, University of Chile, Department of Economics.
    11. Goos, Maarten & Rademakers, Emilie & Röttger, Ronja, 2021. "Routine-Biased technical change: Individual-Level evidence from a plant closure," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(7).
    12. Traub, Stefan & Schwaninger, Manuel & Paetzel, Fabian & Neuhofer, Sabine, 2023. "Evidence on need-sensitive giving behavior: An experimental approach to the acknowledgment of needs," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    13. Ajay Agrawal & Joshua Gans & Avi Goldfarb, 2019. "Economic Policy for Artificial Intelligence," Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 19(1), pages 139-159.
    14. Pierre Barral & Mehdi Senouci, 2018. "Walking on two legs: Growth accounting with labor-saving and capital-saving technical change," Working Papers hal-01709599, HAL.
    15. Gries, Thomas & Naudé, Wim, 2022. "Modelling artificial intelligence in economics," Journal for Labour Market Research, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany], vol. 56, pages 1-12.
    16. Andrea Salvatori & Seetha Menon & Wouter Zwysen, 2018. "The effect of computer use on job quality: Evidence from Europe," OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers 200, OECD Publishing.
    17. Lankisch, Clemens & Prettner, Klaus & Prskawetz, Alexia, 2019. "How can robots affect wage inequality?," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 161-169.
    18. Warning, Anja & Weber, Enzo, 2018. "Digitalisation, hiring and personnel policy: evidence from a representative business survey," IAB-Discussion Paper 201810, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany].
    19. Manav Raj & Robert Seamans, 2018. "Artificial Intelligence, Labor, Productivity, and the Need for Firm-Level Data," NBER Chapters, in: The Economics of Artificial Intelligence: An Agenda, pages 553-565, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Antonio Cabrales & Penélope Hernández & Angel Sánchez, 2020. "Robots, labor markets, and universal basic income," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-8, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Occupational training; Unemployment insurance; Justice assessments; Factorial survey; Multilevel and mixed effects model;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C99 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Other
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • I38 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - Government Programs; Provision and Effects of Welfare Programs
    • J08 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - General - - - Labor Economics Policies
    • J24 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Human Capital; Skills; Occupational Choice; Labor Productivity
    • J65 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Mobility, Unemployment, Vacancies, and Immigrant Workers - - - Unemployment Insurance; Severance Pay; Plant Closings

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:jlabrs:v:56:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1186_s12651-022-00311-w. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.