English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Most evaluation studies for Germany’s active labor market policy (ALMP) indicate that subsidized employment programs in the public sector (public works programs, “Arbeitsbeschaffungsmaßnahmen”) and publicly funded training programs have, on average, no or even negative effects on individual re‐employment probabilities. This paper provides possible explanations for the ineffectiveness of these programs, where we focus on heterogeneous treatment effects, which are not accounted for in the German evaluation studies due to lack of data, and locking‐in effects, in particular related to the relatively high level of income support for participants in these programs. Since there is very little direct evidence on these effects for Germany to date, we draw on results from evaluation studies for other European countries. We argue that the success of ALMP is to a large extent determined by design features like the targeting of particular groups and the incentives from the co‐ordination with unemployment insurance as well as the incentives of program administrators and local governments.

Was kann die Aktive Arbeitsmarktpolitik in Deutschland aus der Evaluationsforschung in anderen europäischen Ländern lernen?