IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/kdifoc/v74y2016p1-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Employment Incentives: Issues and Solutions

Author

Listed:
  • Park, Yoonsoo

Abstract

As of 2016, 20 employment incentives are in operation in Korea under four ministries with a budget of 2.8 trillion won. However, instead of creating new jobs, these projects mainly aim to maintain and improve existing jobs, unlike most OECD countries. Moreover, the scope of target groups is too broad and conflicts with the core principle of providing selective support to vulnerable job seekers. Therefore, efforts must be made to enhance policy efficiency by placing stronger emphasis on new job creation and support for the vulnerable. - As of 2016, 20 employment incentives are currently in operation under four ministries with a budget of 2.8 trillion won. - This paper discusses the effects and limitations of Korea's employment incentives and intends to suggest a direction for improvement. - Employment incentives are government- subsidized budgetary projects that aim to increase employment throughout the economy. - According to the OECD, employment incentives are classified into three types: recruitment incentives, employment maintenance incentives and job rotation and sharing. - Under normal conditions, recruitment incentives are effective, but at a time of crisis, maintenance incentives and job rotation and sharing projects could serve as effective policy measures. - The abuse of employment incentives would lead to several side effects, and thus should be used selectively for the vulnerable who are in desperate need of government support. - Korea's budget for employment incentives relative to GDP is lower than the OECD average but higher than advanced economies in the West, such as the US, the UK, Germany and France. - OECD countries have operate employment incentives to complement new hiring, whereas Korea focuses on maintaining and improving existing jobs. - According to a multiple choice survey conducted on operators of employment incentives regarding the main beneficiaries, 'no particular target' was the most common answer. - Analysing the target selection process used in major employment incentives reveals a lack of selective support for the vulnerable. - The final goal of employment incentives, must be clarified further, and more support should be given to new jobs. - One suggestion for selective support is to grant a subsidy to only for those who have engaged in job seeking activities via employment support programs for a certain period of time but have failed to find employment.

Suggested Citation

  • Park, Yoonsoo, 2016. "Employment Incentives: Issues and Solutions," KDI Focus 74, Korea Development Institute (KDI).
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:kdifoc:v:74:y:2016:p:1-9
    DOI: 10.22740/kdi.focus.e.2016.74
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/200874/1/kdi-focus-74.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22740/kdi.focus.e.2016.74?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. Sianesi, Barbara, 2008. "Differential effects of active labour market programs for the unemployed," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 370-399, June.
    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. Leduc, Elisabeth & Tojerow, Ilan, 2020. "Subsidizing Domestic Services as a Tool to Fight Unemployment: Effectiveness and Hidden Costs," IZA Discussion Papers 13544, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Caloffi, Annalisa & Freo, Marzia & Ghinoi, Stefano & Mariani, Marco & Rossi, Federica, 2022. "Assessing the effects of a deliberate policy mix: The case of technology and innovation advisory services and innovation vouchers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(6).
    3. Jonas Wood & Karel Neels, 2019. "Does Mothers’ Parental Leave Uptake Stimulate Continued Employment and Family Formation? Evidence for Belgium," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-24, October.
    4. Bennmarker, Helge & Skans, Oskar Nordström & Vikman, Ulrika, 2013. "Workfare for the old and long-term unemployed," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 25-34.
    5. Badescu, Mircea & Garrouste, Christelle & Loi, Massimo, 2012. "The distribution of adult training among European unemployed: Evidence from recent surveys," MPRA Paper 49960, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Picchio, Matteo & van Ours, Jan C., 2013. "Retaining through training even for older workers," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 29-48.
    7. Berger, Johannes & Köppl-Turyna, Monika, 2021. "Hiring credits - Einstellungsförderungen: Was der Staat nun für den Arbeitsmarkt tun kann," Policy Notes 45, EcoAustria – Institute for Economic Research.
    8. Benjamin Schünemann & Michael Lechner & Conny Wunsch, 2015. "Do Long-Term Unemployed Workers Benefit from Targeted Wage Subsidies?," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 16(1), pages 43-64, February.
    9. Miguel Baiao & Ilze Buligina, 2021. "Work Experience Led Programs and Employment Attainment," International Journal of Economics & Business Administration (IJEBA), International Journal of Economics & Business Administration (IJEBA), vol. 0(1), pages 180-198.
    10. Cockx, Bart & Lechner, Michael & Bollens, Joost, 2023. "Priority to unemployed immigrants? A causal machine learning evaluation of training in Belgium," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    11. Duncan McVicar & Jan M. Podivinsky, 2009. "How Well Has The New Deal For Young People Worked In The Uk Regions?," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 56(2), pages 167-195, May.
    12. Matthew A. COLE & Robert R.J. ELLIOTT & OKUBO Toshihiro & Liyun ZHANG, 2017. "The Pollution Outsourcing Hypothesis: An empirical test for Japan," Discussion papers 17096, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    13. Francesco Pastore & Marco Pompili, 2020. "Assessing the Impact of Off-the-Job and On-the-Job Training on Employment Outcomes: A Counterfactual Evaluation of the PIPOL Program," Evaluation Review, , vol. 44(2-3), pages 145-184, April.
    14. Tobias Brändle & Lukas Fervers, 2017. "Give it Another Try: What are the Effects of a Public Employment Scheme Especially Designed for Hard-to-Place Workers?," IAW Discussion Papers 129, Institut für Angewandte Wirtschaftsforschung (IAW).
    15. Stephan Gesine, 2008. "The Effects of Active Labor Market Programs in Germany: An Investigation Using Different Definitions of Non-Treatment," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 228(5-6), pages 586-611, October.
    16. Hohmeyer, Katrin & Wolff, Joachim, 2010. "Direct job creation in Germany revisited: Is it effective for welfare recipients and does it matter whether participants receive a wage?," IAB-Discussion Paper 201021, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany].
    17. Flesch, J. & Kuipers, J. & Mashiah-Yaakovi, A. & Schoenmakers, G. & Solan, E. & Vrieze, K., 2010. "Borel games with lower-semi-continuous payoffs," Research Memorandum 041, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    18. Hagen, Tobias, 2016. "Econometric evaluation of a placement coaching program for recipients of disability insurance benefits in Switzerland," Working Paper Series 10, Frankfurt University of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Business and Law.
    19. Begoña Cueto & Luis Toharia & Carlos García Serrano & Joan A. Alujas, 2010. "Los efectos de la formación ocupacional: ¿Importa la duración de las acciones?," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 195(4), pages 9-36, december.
    20. Susan Athey & Emil Palikot, 2022. "Effective and scalable programs to facilitate labor market transitions for women in technology," Papers 2211.09968, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2024.

    More about this item

    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:zbw:kdifoc:v:74:y:2016:p:1-9. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/kdiiikr.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.