IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/oec/elsaab/215-en.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How demanding are activation requirements for jobseekers

Author

Listed:
  • Herwig Immervoll
  • Carlo Knotz

Abstract

This paper presents new information on activity-related eligibility criteria for unemployment and related benefits in OECD- and EU-countries in 2017, comparing the strictness of “demanding” elements built into unemployment benefits across countries and over time. Eligibility criteria for unemployment benefits determine what claimants need to do to successfully claim benefits initially or to continue receiving them. Benefit systems feature specific rules that define the type of job offers that claimants need to accept, requirements for reporting on the outcomes of independent job-search efforts, obligations to participate in active labour market programmes, as well as sanctions for failing to meet these requirements. Such rules aim to strengthen incentives to look for, prepare for, and accept employment. They may also be used as a targeting device to reduce demands on benefit systems, and on associated employment services. While this may serve to limit support to genuine jobseekers, strict requirements can also exclude some intended recipients from financial and re-employment support, e.g., by discouraging them from applying. This paper presents detailed information on policy rules in 2017, summarises them into an overall policy indicator of eligibility strictness, and gauges recent policy trends by documenting changes in the strictness measures. A novelty is the inclusion of lower-tier unemployment or social assistance benefits in the compilation of policy rules. Results document a large number of reforms enacted after the Great Recession and suggest a slight convergence of policy rules across countries even though overall measures of the strictness of activity-related eligibility criteria have remained broadly unchanged during the recent past. In countries with multiple layers of support for the unemployed, availability requirements tend to be more demanding for lower-tier assistance benefits, while sanction rules tend to be more stringent for first-tier programmes.

Suggested Citation

  • Herwig Immervoll & Carlo Knotz, 2018. "How demanding are activation requirements for jobseekers," OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers 215, OECD Publishing.
  • Handle: RePEc:oec:elsaab:215-en
    DOI: 10.1787/2bdfecca-en
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1787/2bdfecca-en
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1787/2bdfecca-en?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. van den Berg, Gerard J. & Hofmann, Barbara & Stephan, Gesine & Uhlendorff, Arne, 2021. "Mandatory integration agreements for unemployed job seekers: a randomized controlled field experiment in Germany," Working Paper Series 2021:4, IFAU - Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy.
    2. Lombardi, Stefano, 2019. "Threat effects of monitoring and unemployment insurance sanctions: evidence from two reforms," Working Paper Series 2019:22, IFAU - Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy.
    3. Eichhorst, Werner & Marx, Paul & Brunner, Johannes & Kettenring, Jannis, 2020. "A Comparative Analysis of National Unemployment Benefit Schemes," IZA Research Reports 101, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    4. Malory Rennoir & Ilan Tojerow, 2019. "Évaluation de l’ensemble du dispositif de contrôle de la disponibilité des chômeurs, tel que mis en œuvre au sein du Forem," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/292150, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    5. Vanda Almeida & Claire Hoffmann & Sebastian Königs & Ana Moreno Monroy & Mauricio Salazar-Lozada & Javier Terrero-Dávila, 2024. "Geographic inequalities in accessibility of essential services," OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers 307, OECD Publishing.
    6. Bea Cantillon;, 2022. "The Tragic Decline of the Poverty Reducing Capacity of the Welfare State: Lessons from Two Decades of Social Policy Research," Working Papers 2201, Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy, University of Antwerp.
    7. Gerard J. van den Berg & Barbara Hofmann & Gesine Stephan & Arne Uhlendorff, 2020. "Mandatory integration agreements for unemployed job seekers: a randomized controlled field experiment in Germany," Bristol Economics Discussion Papers 20/734, School of Economics, University of Bristol, UK.
    8. Eichhorst, Werner & Marx, Paul & Brunner, Johannes & Kettenring, Jannis, 2020. "Vergleichende Analyse nationaler Arbeitslosenversicherungen," IZA Research Reports 100, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    9. Gerard J. van den Berg & Hanno Foerster & Arne Uhlendorff, 2021. "A Structural Analysis of Vacancy Referrals with Imperfect Monitoring and the Strategic Use of Sickness Absence," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 1042, Boston College Department of Economics, revised 17 Sep 2023.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • 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
    • J65 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Mobility, Unemployment, Vacancies, and Immigrant Workers - - - Unemployment Insurance; Severance Pay; Plant Closings
    • J68 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Mobility, Unemployment, Vacancies, and Immigrant Workers - - - Public Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:oec:elsaab:215-en. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eloecfr.html .

    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.