Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Unintended Displacement Effects of Youth Training Programs in a Directed Search Model

  • Published:
Journal of Labor Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The rise in the productivity of inexperienced young workers suggests a positive partial equilibrium effect of youth training programs on employment. However, in a general equilibrium context, displacement effects that impact other groups of workers could also arise. We build a directed search model to study the unintended displacement effects of youth training programs. We calibrate the model to match data from the US labor market. The model is then used to simulate a policy experiment that resembles a training program that raises the productivity of a targeted group of low-skilled and inexperienced agents. Our counterfactual analysis shows that the policy indeed triggers displacement effects. Consequently, these unintended displacement effects must be taken into account in the evaluation of youth training programs.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. OECD (2010) documents that apprenticeship and other dual vocational education and training programs that aim to foster efficient school-to-work pathways are common in countries such as Austria, Germany, and Switzerland. A report of the the Independent Evaluation Group (IEG 2013) shows that the lending portfolio of the World Bank for youth employment programs covers 57 countries and that Turkey, India, Colombia, Argentina, China, Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya, Tunisia, and Bulgaria are the top ten borrowers. Most projects include interventions in skills development, school-to-work transition, and interventions to foster job creation and work opportunities for young people. J-PAL (2017) describes youth training programs operating in Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, and Mexico. All of the programs considered in these studies target young people who are aged 15–24.

  2. Young workers exhibit a higher probability of unemployment and a higher labor turnover compared to adult workers (ILO 2012). In addition, youth employment seems to be more sensitive to macro-economic fluctuations (Caliendo et al. 2011; Verick 2011; Jaimovich et al. 2013).

  3. We do not model the movements of workers in and out of the labor force. Unemployment is always involuntary in this model.

  4. We use the property of limits \(e^{x}=\lim _{x \to \infty }(1+\frac {x}{n})^{n}\) and Eq. (1).

  5. Equation (5) discards the case in which \(\alpha _{i,j}w_{i,j}>\overline {w}_{i}\) because all workers would apply to such a firm and N would imply that αij = 0, which contradicts \(\alpha _{i,j}w_{i,j}>\overline {w}_{i}\).

  6. Our modeling choice is motivated by the existence of some indivisibilities regarding training policies. For instance, we can conjecture that learning half of the skills needed to perform a specific task could be not very valuable from the viewpoint of firms. In addition, note that the fact that the program equalizes the productivity of youth workers to the productivity of low-skilled adult workers does not imply that it does so by “making them older” or by some other similar channel. In the model, the productivity parameter is unidimensional and, thus, different inputs/channels could generate the same agents’ productivity level.

  7. In “Robustness Analysis”, we study the effects of our policy experiment under an alternative financing method.

  8. Note that the tax rate t is an endogenous variable, whereas the fraction of youth training, δ, is assumed to be the exogenous target of the policy.

  9. This corresponds to 10% of the individuals of this group.

  10. We denote the relative entry costs by K = KhKl. Note that the entry costs impact the equilibrium of the model exclusively through the free entry condition described by Eq. (37). This equation is sufficient to pin down the equilibrium number of firms n and it involves the relative entry costs K together with other exogenous parameters of the model.

  11. We thank an anonymous referee for pointing this issue out.

  12. In this case, we solve the symmetric competitive equilibrium of the model by setting t = 0. All of the remaining characteristics of the policy experiment discussed in “The Policy Experiment” remain unchanged.

  13. This result corresponds to Lemma 1 in Shi (2002).

References

  • Bonnal L, Fougère D, Sérandon A (1997) Evaluating the impact of french employment policies on individual labour market histories. Rev Econ Stud 64 (4):683–713

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brodaty T, Crépon B, Fougère D (2001) Using matching estimators to evaluate alternative youth employment programs: evidence from france, 1986–1988. In: Econometric evaluation of labour market policies. Springer, pp 85–123

  • Caliendo M, Künn S, Schmidl R (2011) Fighting youth unemployment: the effects of active labor market policies. IZA Discussion Paper No. 6222

  • Heckman JJ, LaLonde RJ, Smith JA (1999) The economics and econometrics of active labor market programs. Handb Labor Econ 3:1865–2097

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckman JJ, Lochner LJ, Todd PE (2008) Earnings functions and rates of return. J Hum Capital 2(1):1–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IEG (2013) Youth employment programs: an evaluation of world bank and international finance corporation support

  • ILO (2012) The Youth Employment Crisis: A Call for Action. ILO Publishing

  • J-PAL (2017) Skills for youth program review paper, Cambridge

  • Jaimovich N, Pruitt S, Siu HE (2013) The demand for youth: Explaining age differences in the volatility of hours. Am Econ Rev 103(7):3022–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin JP (2015) Activation and active labour market policies in oecd countries: stylised facts and evidence on their effectiveness. IZA J Labor Policy 4(1):4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moen E (1997) Competitive search equilibrium. J Polit Econ 105(2):385–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2010) Off to a good start? Jobs for youth. OECD Paris

  • Richardson K, Berg GJ (2013) Duration dependence versus unobserved heterogeneity in treatment effects: Swedish labor market training and the transition rate to employment. J Appl Econom 28(2):325–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shi S (2002) A directed search model of inequality with heterogeneous skills and skill-based technology. Rev Econ Stud 69(2):467–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shimer R (2005) The assignment of workers to jobs in an economy with coordination frictions. J Polit Econ 113(5):996–1025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verick S (2011) The impact of the global financial crisis on labour markets in oecd countries: Why youth and other vulnerable groups have been hit hard. In: From the great recession to labour market recovery. Springer, pp 119–145

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francisco Parro.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix A

Appendix A

In this appendix, we discuss the system of equations that solve the symmetric competitive equilibrium of the model.

A.1 Queue lengths

In equilibrium, adult highly skilled workers have no incentives to apply to low-tech firms because those firms offer them the same expected wage to both low- and highly skilled workers since they produce the same output. Therefore, we have that \(q_{s,l}^{*}= 0\) in equilibrium.Footnote 13 Then, by using this condition, we can solve the following maximization problems:

$$ \begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} \max {\Pi}_{h} = (1-e^{-q_{s,h}})\{\theta_{1}Z-w_{s,h}\}+e^{-q_{s,h}}(1-e^{-q_{u,h}})\{Z-w_{u,h}\} \\+ e^{-q_{s,h}-q_{u,h}}(1-e^{-q_{y,h}}) \{\theta_{2}Z-w_{y,h}\} \end{array} $$
(13)

such that:

$$ \begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} w_{s,h}&=& \frac{\overline{w}_{s}q_{s,h}}{1-e^{-q_{s,h}}} \end{array} $$
(14)
$$ \begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} w_{u,h}&=& \frac{\overline{w}_{u} q_{u,h}}{e^{-q_{s,h}} (1-e^{-q_{u,h}})} \end{array} $$
(15)
$$ \begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} w_{y,h}&=& \frac{ \overline{w}_{y} q_{y,h}}{e^{-q_{s,h}-q_{u,h}} (1-e^{-q_{y,h}})} \end{array} $$
(16)
$$ \begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} \max {\Pi}_{l} = (1-e^{-q_{u,l}})\{Z-w_{u,l}\} + e^{-q_{u,l}}(1-e^{-q_{y,l}}) \{\theta_{2}Z-w_{y,l}\} \end{array} $$
(17)

such that:

$$ \begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} w_{u,l} &=& \frac{\overline{w}_{u} {q_{u,l}}}{(1-e^{-q_{u,l}})} \end{array} $$
(18)
$$ \begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} w_{y,l} &=& \frac{\overline{w}_{y}q_{y,l}}{e^{-q_{u,l}}(1-e^{-q_{y,l}})} \end{array} $$
(19)

We first solve for the application queue as a function of y, 𝜃1, 𝜃2, \(\overline {w}_{s}\), \(\overline {w}_{u}\) and \(\overline {w}_{j}\).

$$ \begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} q_{s,h} &=& Ln \left( \frac{Z(\theta_{1}-1)}{\overline{w}_{s}-\overline{w}_{u}} \right) \end{array} $$
(20)
$$ \begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} q_{u,h} &=& Ln \left( \frac{1-\theta_{2}}{\theta_{1}-1} \frac{\overline{w}_{s}-\overline{w}_{u}}{\overline{w}_{u}-\overline{w}_{y}} \right) \end{array} $$
(21)
$$ \begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} q_{y,h} &=& Ln \left( \frac{\theta_{2}}{1-\theta_{2}} \frac{\overline{w}_{u}-\overline{w}_{y}}{\overline{w}_{y}} \right) \end{array} $$
(22)
$$ \begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} q_{s,l} &=& 0 \end{array} $$
(23)
$$ \begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} q_{u,l} &=& Ln \left( \frac{Z(1-\theta_{2})}{\overline{w}_{u}-\overline{w}_{y}} \right) \end{array} $$
(24)
$$ \begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} q_{y,l} &=& Ln \left( \frac{\theta_{2}}{1-\theta_{2}} \frac{\overline{w}_{u}-\overline{w}_{y}}{\overline{w}_{y}} \right) \end{array} $$
(25)

Note that qs, h + qu, h = qu, l and qy, h = qy, l. We can solve the equilibrium queues as functions of the exogenous variables πs, πu, πy, πh and of the endogenous variable n:

$$ \begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} q_{s,h} &=& \frac{n \pi_{s}}{\pi_{h}} \end{array} $$
(26)
$$ \begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} q_{u,h} &=& (\pi_{u}+\pi_{s})n-\frac{\pi_{s} n}{\pi_{h}} \end{array} $$
(27)
$$ \begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} q_{y,h} &=& \pi_{y} n \end{array} $$
(28)
$$ \begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} q_{s,l} &=& 0 \end{array} $$
(29)
$$ \begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} q_{u,l} &=& (\pi_{u}+\pi_{s})n \end{array} $$
(30)
$$ \begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} q_{y,l} &=& \pi_{y} n \end{array} $$
(31)

Finally, it is feasible to calculate the reservation wages, \(\overline {w}_{s}\), \(\overline {w}_{u}\) and \(\overline {w}_{y}\), as functions of the exogenous πs, πu, πy, πh, and of the endogenous variable n, by appropriately combining (20)–(31).

$$ \begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} \overline{w}_{s} &=& Z (\theta_{1}-1) e^{-\frac{\pi_{s}n}{\pi_{h}}}+Z(1-\theta_{2}) e^{-(\pi_{u}+\pi_{s})n}+\theta_{2}Ze^{-n} \end{array} $$
(32)
$$ \begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} \overline{w}_{u} &=& Z(1-\theta_{2}) e^{-(\pi_{u}+\pi_{s})n}+\theta_{2}Ze^{-n} \end{array} $$
(33)
$$ \begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} \overline{w}_{y} &=& Z\theta_{2}e^{-n} \end{array} $$
(34)

A.2 Free entry condition

By replacing Eqs. (26)–(34), into the profit function described by (06) for j ∈{h, l}, and imposing the free entry condition, we have

$$ \begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} \frac{K_{l}}{Z} = 1-(1+(1-\theta_{2})(\pi_{u}+\pi_{s})n-\theta_{2})e^{-(\pi_{u}+\pi_{s})n} \\ -(\theta_{2}(\pi_{u}+\pi_{s})n+\theta_{2}+\theta_{2}\pi_{y}n)e^{-n}, \end{array} $$
(35)

for the case of low-tech firms. Following an analogous procedure for high-tech firms, we get

$$ \begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} \frac{K_{h}}{Z} = (\theta_{1}-\theta_{1}e^{-\frac{\pi_{s}n}{\pi_{h}}}-(\theta_{1}-1)e^{-\frac{\pi_{s}n}{\pi_{h}}}\frac{\pi_{s}n}{\pi_{h}}+e^{-\frac{\pi_{s}n}{\pi_{h}}} ) \\ -((1+(1-\theta_{2})(\pi_{u}+\pi_{s})n-\theta_{2})e^{-(\pi_{u}+\pi_{s})n} +(\theta_{2}(\pi_{u}+\pi_{s})n+\theta_{2}+\theta_{2}Zn)e^{-n}). \\ \end{array} $$
(36)

Moreover, the previous equation can be rewritten as follows

$$ \frac{K_{h}-K_{l}}{(\theta_{1}-1)Z} = 1-e^{\frac{-\pi_{s}n}{\pi_{h}}}-e^{-\frac{\pi_{s}n}{\pi_{h}}}\frac{\pi_{s}n}{\pi_{h}}. $$
(37)

In this model, given the exogenous parameters, the equilibrium value n is obtained by solving (37). Once the equilibrium value for n has been computed, the expected wages \(\overline {w}_{s}^{*}\), \(\overline {w}_{u}^{*}\) and \(\overline {w}_{y}^{*}\), and the application queues are determined by substituting that value of n back into the system (26)–(34).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gómez, M., Parro, F. Unintended Displacement Effects of Youth Training Programs in a Directed Search Model. J Labor Res 40, 230–247 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12122-019-09284-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12122-019-09284-1

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation