Active Labor Market Policy Evaluations: A Meta-Analysis

48 Pages Posted: 12 Jul 2010 Last revised: 11 Sep 2010

See all articles by David Card

David Card

University of California, Berkeley - Department of Economics; Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA); National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)

Jochen Kluve

Humboldt University of Berlin; RWI; IZA

Andrea Weber

Vienna University of Economics and Business; Austrian Institute of Economic Research (WIFO); Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA); CESifo (Center for Economic Studies and Ifo Institute)

Multiple version iconThere are 3 versions of this paper

Date Written: July 2010

Abstract

This paper presents a meta-analysis of recent microeconometric evaluations of active labor market policies. Our sample contains 199 separate "program estimates" - estimates of the impact of a particular program on a specific subgroup of participants - drawn from 97 studies conducted between 1995 and 2007. For about one-half of the sample we have both a short-term program estimate (for a one-year post-program horizon) and a medium- or long-term estimate (for 2 or 3 year horizons). We categorize the estimated post-program impacts as significantly positive, insignificant, or significantly negative. By this criterion we find that job search assistance programs are more likely to yield positive impacts, whereas public sector employment programs are less likely. Classroom and on-the-job training programs yield relatively positive impacts in the medium term, although in the short-term these programs often have insignificant or negative impacts. We also find that the outcome variable used to measure program impact matters. In particular, studies based on registered unemployment are more likely to yield positive program impacts than those based on other outcomes (like employment or earnings). On the other hand, neither the publication status of a study nor the use of a randomized design is related to the sign or significance of the corresponding program estimate. Finally, we use a subset of studies that focus on post-program employment to compare meta-analytic models for the "effect size" of a program estimate with models for the sign and significance of the estimated program effect. We find that the two approaches lead to very similar conclusions about the determinants of program impact.

Suggested Citation

Card, David E. and Kluve, Jochen and Weber, Andrea Michaela, Active Labor Market Policy Evaluations: A Meta-Analysis (July 2010). NBER Working Paper No. w16173. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1636642

David E. Card (Contact Author)

University of California, Berkeley - Department of Economics ( email )

Room 3880
Berkeley, CA 94720-3880
United States
510-642-5222 (Phone)
510-643-7042 (Fax)

Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA)

P.O. Box 7240
Bonn, D-53072
Germany

National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)

1050 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138
United States

Jochen Kluve

Humboldt University of Berlin ( email )

Spandauer Str. 1
Berlin, D-10099
Germany

RWI ( email )

Essen
Germany

IZA

P.O. Box 7240
Bonn, D-53072
Germany

Andrea Michaela Weber

Vienna University of Economics and Business ( email )

Welthandelsplatz 1
Vienna, 1020
Austria

Austrian Institute of Economic Research (WIFO) ( email )

P.O. Box 91
Wien, A-1103
Austria

Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA)

P.O. Box 7240
Bonn, D-53072
Germany

CESifo (Center for Economic Studies and Ifo Institute)

Poschinger Str. 5
Munich, DE-81679
Germany

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
111
Abstract Views
976
rank
59,598
PlumX Metrics