Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Vouchers and caseworkers in training programs for the unemployed

  • Published:
Empirical Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper studies the role of vouchers and caseworkers in training programs for the unemployed. We explore the unique features of the Hartz reform in Germany which simultaneously introduced training vouchers and imposed more selective criteria on participants. This allows us to go beyond the standard approach when we estimate the treatment effects for the most important type of training. Next to assessing the overall impact of the reform on the training’s effectiveness, we isolate the impact induced by changes in the composition of program participants (selection effect) from the impact based on the introduction of vouchers and related institutional changes (institutional effect). Our results show a small positive overall impact of the reform. The decomposition suggests that the selection effect is, if at all, slightly negative, and that the introduction of the voucher and related institutional changes increased both employment and earnings of participants. It furthermore appears that our findings are driven by skilled participants.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

Notes

  1. The international literature on the evaluation of ALMP is summarized by LaLonde (2003) and Kluve (2010), among others.

  2. The discussion about vouchers in the field of education started with Friedman (1962).

  3. Görlitz (2010) evaluates the impact of training vouchers for employed workers at the establishment level. This voucher program was implemented in one German federal state in 2006.

  4. The approval of providers and courses is subject to a new quality management system which adopts a two-level approach. For details see, e.g., Bruttel (2005).

  5. The official transitional arrangement was as follows: “Individuals who were counseled before January 1, 2003 and participation in a public training program was agreed upon do not receive a training voucher if they enter the program before March 1, 2003.”

  6. When there are many covariates, it is impractical to match directly on covariates because of the curse of dimensionality. See, e.g., Zhao (2008) for some comments on this problem.

  7. We have additionally run simple OLS for the pooled sample. The results (available on request) suggest that participants in 2003 have a significantly higher probability of being employed than participants in 2002. This is in line with our results.

  8. This is precisely the reason why we perform the decomposition exercise in the presented way, namely that we take the post-reform participants and look for similar individuals among the pre-reform participants. The results of the decomposition might change if we would match participants in 2003 to participants in 2002, i.e., if we would hold the composition of the pre-reform constant. Therefore, the institutional effect has to be interpreted with respect to the group of participants in 2003. This issue is conceptually related to the “omitted group” problem in the Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition framework, see Fortin et al. (2011) for a discussion.

  9. The matching algorithms are implemented using the PSMATCH2 Stata ado-package by Leuven and Sianesi (2003).

  10. See Table 1 for descriptive statistics on selected variables and the notes below Table 1 for additional variables that we use to estimate the propensity scores. We include information on the characteristics which have been shown to be particularly important for selection correction in matching estimation, see Lechner and Wunsch (2011).

  11. Ham et al. (2011) experiment with both the standard bootstrap and “\(m\) out of \(n\)” bootstrap in their matching estimators, and they find that both yield similar results. However, “\(m\) out of \(n\)” bootstrap requires much weaker conditions.

  12. Occupation-related or general training is the most important type of training programs, which is also often referred to as further training (Fitzenberger et al. 2010). The two other broad categories of training programs are retraining and short-term training.

  13. It is in general possible to drop-out early from the program as well as to prolong participation. The actual duration of training is thus endogenously determined (Fitzenberger et al. 2010).

  14. The take-up rate is 86 % from 2003 to 2006 (Kruppe 2009). A simple correction would be to weight the treatment effect by the inverse take-up rate, see Bloom (1984). Assuming a positive impact of voucher Footnote 4 continued

    receipt, our results can, therefore, be seen as a lower bound of the institutional effect (which includes the voucher effect).

  15. We implement an imputation procedure for the educational and vocational attainment variables that is similar to the imputation procedure “IP1” in Fitzenberger et al. (2006). However, we only apply this procedure in case of missing information at the (fictitious) program entry.

  16. We include annual GDP growth rates for the 16 federal states since more disaggregated data is not available.

  17. Note that the potential number of matched pairs in the two-step matching approach is determined by the sample size of participants in 2003, which is 1,319 individuals.

  18. Additionally, we test whether our matching procedure generates comparable samples following the framework of Heckman and Hotz (1989). Mueser et al. (2007) apply a similar approach in the context of binary treatment. Focusing on the pre-training employment status, we see that both one-step and two-step matching procedures generate comparison groups with employment probabilities prior to participation which are very close to those of the treatment groups.

  19. Of course excluding participants who entered public training programs in the first quarter of 2003 implies that we also exclude participants who entered public training programs in the first quarter of 2002 as well as corresponding non-participants based on our matching algorithm.

  20. While participating—or being ”locked-in” in the program—individuals probably reduce their search activities for new jobs (van Ours 2004).

  21. When considering realized earnings, i.e., earnings conditional on being employed, we find that the introduction of the voucher and related institutional changes—next to an increased employment probability—also lead to better job matches for the participants, measured by on average higher monthly earnings in the new job.

  22. We consider completed in-plant training and off-the-job training as well as degrees from a vocational school, a technical school, a university, or a university of applied sciences as vocational degrees.

  23. For a broader and more general overview about the German system of secondary school tracks, the apprenticeship system, and vocational degrees which can be obtained, see for example Winkelmann (1996) and Dustmann (2004).

  24. The business cycle might affect the composition of the unemployed who are eligible for training. While our sensitivity analysis explicitly accounts for differences in the business cycle in different regions of Germany, it may not be able to control for changes in the global trend.

References

  • Abadie A, Imbens GW (2006) Large sample properties of matching estimators for average treatment effects. Econometrica 74(1):235–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abadie A, Imbens GW (2008) On the failure of the bootstrap for matching estimators. Econometrica 76(6):1537–1557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnow BS (2000) Vouchers for federal targeted training programs. In: Peterson GE, Reischauer RD, Steuerle CE, Doorn Ooms V (eds) Vouchers and the provision of public services. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnow BS (2009) Vouchers in U.S. Vocational Training Programs: An Overview of What We Have Learned. J Labour Market Res 42(1):71–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell S, Orr L (2002) Screening (and creaming?) Applicants to job training programs: the AFDC homemaker-home health aide demonstration. Labour Econ 9(2):279–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biewen M, Fitzenberger B, Osikominu A, Waller M (2007) Which program for whom? Evidence on the comparative effectiveness of public sponsored training programs in Germany. IZA discussion paper 2885, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Bonn

  • Bloom H (1984) Accounting for no-shows in experimental evaluation designs. Eval Rev 8(2):225–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruttel O (2005) Delivering active labor market policy through vouchers: experiences with training vouchers in Germany. Int Rev Adm Sci 71(3):391–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caliendo M (2009) Income support systems, labor market policies and labor supply: the German experience. IZA discussion paper 4665, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Bonn

  • Caliendo M, Kopeinig S (2008) Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching. J Econ Surv 22(1):31–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caliendo M, Hujer R, Thomsen SL (2008) The employment effects of job creation schemes in Germany: a microeconometric evaluation. In: Millimet DL, Smith JA, Vytlacil EJ (eds) Estimating and evaluating treatment effects in econometrics, advances in econometrics, vol 21. Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, pp 383–430

    Google Scholar 

  • Card D, Hyslop DR (2005) Estimating the effects of a time-limited earnings subsidy for welfare-leavers. Econometrica 73(6):1723–1770

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dustmann C (2004) Parental background, secondary school track choice, and wages. Oxf Econ Papers 56(2):209–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dustmann C, Meghir C (2005) Wages, experience and seniority. Rev Econ Stud 72(1):77–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzenberger B, Osikominu A, Völter R (2006) Imputation rules to improve the education variable in the IAB employment subsample. Schmollers Jahrbuch 126(3):405–436

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzenberger B, Osikominu A, Völter R (2008) Get training or wait? Long-run employment effects of training programs for the unemployed in West Germany. Annales d’Economie et de Statistique 91/92:321–355

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzenberger B, Osikominu A, Paul M (2010) The heterogeneous effects of training incidence and duration on labor market transitions. IZA discussion paper 5269, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Bonn

  • Flores C, Flores-Lagunes A, Gonzalez A, Neuman T (2012) Estimating the effects of length of exposure to instruction in a training program: the case of job corps. Rev Econ Stat 94(1):153–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fortin NM, Lemieux T, Firpo S (2011) Decomposition methods in economics. In: Ashenfelter O, Card D (eds) Handbook of labor economics, vol 4A, chap 1. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 1–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman M (1962) The role of government in education. In: Capitalism and freedom, chap 6. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

  • Görlitz K (2010) The effect of subsidizing continuous training investments—evidence from German establishment data. Labour Econ 17(5):789–798

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ham JC, Li X, Reagan PB (2011) Matching and semi-parametric IV estimation, a distance-based measure of migration, and the wages of young men. J Econ 161(2):208–227

    Google Scholar 

  • Heckman JJ, Hotz VJ (1989) Choosing among alternative nonexperimental methods for estimating the impact of social programs: the case of manpower training. J Am Stat Assoc 84(408):862–874

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckman JJ, Heinrich C, Smith JA (1997) Assessing the performance of performance standards in public bureaucracies. Am Econ Rev 87(2):389–395

    Google Scholar 

  • Heckman JJ, Ichimura H, Smith JA, Todd PE (1998) Characterizing selection bias using experimental data. Econometrica 66(5):1017–1098

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckman JJ, Heinrich C, Smith JA (2002) The performance of performance standards. J Human Resour 37(4):778–811

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hipp L, Warner ME (2008) Market forces for the unemployed? Training vouchers in Germany and the USA. Social Policy Adm 42(1):77–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Hujer R, Thomsen SL, Zeiss C (2006) The effects of vocational training programmes on the duration of unemployment in Eastern Germany. All Stat Arch 90(2):299–322

    Google Scholar 

  • Imbens GW (2004) Nonparametric estimation of average treatment effects under exogeneity: a review. Rev Econ Stat 86(1):4–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Imbens GW, Wooldridge JM (2009) Recent developments in the econometrics of program evaluation. J Econ Lit 47(1):1–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobi L, Kluve J (2007) Before and after the Hartz reforms: the performance of active labour market policy in Germany. J Labour Market Res 40(1):45–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Kluve J (2010) The effectiveness of European active labor market policy. Labour Econ 17(6):904–918

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kluve J, Schneider H, Uhlendorff A, Zhao Z (2012) Evaluating continuous training programs using the generalized propensity score. J R Stat Soc Ser A 175(2):587–617

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruppe T (2009) Bildungsgutscheine in der aktiven Arbeitsmarktpolitik. Sozialer Fortschritt 58(1):9–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ladd HF (2002) School vouchers: a critical review. J Econ Perspect 16(4):3–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaLonde RJ (2003) Employment and training programs. In: Moffitt R, Feldstien M (eds) Means tested transfer programs in the U.S. University of Chicago Press for the National Bureau of Economic Research, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Lechner M, Smith JA (2007) What is the value added by caseworkers? Labour Econ 14(2):135–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lechner M, Wunsch C (2008) What did all the money do? On the general ineffectiveness of recent West German labour market programmes. Kyklos 61(1):134–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lechner M, Wunsch C (2009) Are training programs more effective when unemployment is high? J Labor Econ 27(4):653–692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lechner M, Wunsch C (2011) Sensitivity of matching-based program evaluations to the availability of control variables. IZA discussion paper 5553, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Bonn

  • Lechner M, Miquel R, Wunsch C (2007) The curse and blessing of training the unemployed in a changing economy: the case of East Germany after unification. Ger Econ Rev 8(4):468–509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lechner M, Miquel R, Wunsch C (2011) Long-run effects of public sector sponsored training in West Germany. J Eur Econ Assoc 9(4):742–784

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leuven E, Sianesi B (2003) PSMATCH2: stata module to perform full Mahalanobis and propensity score matching, common support graphing, and covariate imbalance testing. Statistical software components. Boston College Department of Economics, available at http://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s432001.html

  • Mueser PR, Troske KR, Gorislavsky A (2007) Using state administrative data to measure program performance. Rev Econ Stat 89(4):761–783

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neal D (2002) How vouchers could change the market for education. J Econ Perspect 16(4):25–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neyman JS (1923) On the application of probability theory to agriculture experiments. Essay on principles. Section 9. Roczniki Nauk Rolniczych Tom X:1–51 (Ann Agric Sci), translated in: Neyman JS, Dabrowska DM, Speed TP (1990) Stat Sci 5(4):465–472

  • Rinne U, Schneider M, Uhlendorff A (2011) Do the skilled and prime-aged unemployed benefit more from training? Effect heterogeneity of public training programs in Germany. Appl Econ 43(25):3465–3494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB (1983) The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70(1):41–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB (1985) Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. Am Stat 39(1):33–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy AD (1951) Some thoughts on the distribution of earnings. Oxf Econ Papers 3(2):135–146

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin DB (1973) The use of matched sampling and regression adjustment to remove bias in observational studies. Biometrics 29:185–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin DB (1974) Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. J Educ Psychol 66(5):688–701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin DB (2006) Matched sampling for causal effects, 1st edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider H, Uhlendorff A (2006) Die Wirkung der Hartz-Reform im Bereich der beruflichen Weiterbildung. J Labour Market Res 39(3–4):477–490

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider H, Brenke K, Jesske B, Kaiser L, Rinne U, Schneider M, Steinwede J, Uhlendorff A (2007) Evaluation der Maßnahmen zur Umsetzung der Vorschläge der Hartz-Kommission—Bericht 2006. IZA Research Report 10, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Bonn

  • Sianesi B (2004) An evaluation of the active labor market programmes in Sweden. Rev Econ Stat 86(1):133–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith JA, Todd PE (2005a) Does matching overcome LaLonde’s critique of non-experimental estimators? J Econ 125(1–2):305–353

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith JA, Todd PE (2005b) Rejoinder. J Econ 125(1–2):365–375

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephan G (2008) The effects of active labor market programs in Germany: an investigation using different definitions of non-treatment. Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik 228(5–6):586–611

    Google Scholar 

  • Steuerle CE (2000) Common issues for voucher programs. In: Peterson GE, Reischauer RD, Steuerle CE, Doorn Ooms V (eds) Vouchers and the provision of public services. Brookings Institution Press, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsiatis A (2006) Semiparametric theory and missing data, 1st edn. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • van Ours JC (2004) The locking-in effect of subsidized jobs. J Comp Econ 32(1):37–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winkelmann R (1996) Employment prospects and skill acquisition of apprenticeship-trained workers in Germany. Ind Labor Relat Rev 49(4):658–672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winterhager H, Heinze A, Spermann A (2006) Deregulating job placement in Europe: a microeconometric evaluation of an innovative voucher scheme in Germany. Labour Econ 13(4):505–517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao Z (2008) Sensitivity of propensity score methods to the specifications. Econ Lett 98(3):309–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the anonymous referees, Marton Csillag, Bernd Fitzenberger, Steffen Künn, Peter R. Mueser, Núria Rodríguez-Planas, Jeffrey A. Smith, Hilmar Schneider, Marc Schneider, and conference participants in Bonn, Kiel, London, Mannheim, Munich, Nuremberg, and Oslo for valuable discussions and helpful comments. We also thank infas and especially Doris Hess and Helmut Schröder for providing supplementary information about the reform under study. Arne Uhlendorff thanks DIW DC where part of this research was pursued. Zhong Zhao acknowledges financial support from the Capacity Building Project for the Economics Discipline Group at Beijing Municipal Universities (2010–2012). All remaining errors are our own.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Schaumburg-Lippe-Straße 5-9, 53113 , Bonn, Germany

    Ulf Rinne, Arne Uhlendorff & Zhong Zhao

  2. University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany

    Arne Uhlendorff

  3. IAB, Nuremberg, Germany

    Arne Uhlendorff

  4. DIW, Berlin, Germany

    Arne Uhlendorff

  5. Renmin University of China, Beijing, China

    Zhong Zhao

Authors
  1. Ulf Rinne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arne Uhlendorff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zhong Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ulf Rinne.

Additional information

The data used in this paper originate from the evaluation of public training programs as part of the evaluation of the proposals of the Hartz Commission. Schneider et al. (2007) contains details.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rinne, U., Uhlendorff, A. & Zhao, Z. Vouchers and caseworkers in training programs for the unemployed. Empir Econ 45, 1089–1127 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-012-0662-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-012-0662-5

Keywords

JEL Classification