Unemployment, Intervention and Capabilities · Unemployment, Intervention and Capabilities. ... power of case workers ... profiles of working lives

CIT4-CT-2006-028549 QUIT/SOFI Sep. 2010

Integrated project CIT4‐CT‐2006‐028549 co‐funded by the European Commission

Unemployment, Intervention and Capabilities

The Cases of Germany and Spain – Outline of Comparative Work

WP3: Palma, Spain, 30th Sep. 2010


(SOFI)Peter BartelheimerRené

Büttner

Tanja

Schmidt

(QUIT)Martí

López

Andreu

Joan Miquel

Verd


Integrated project CIT4‐CT‐2006‐028549 co‐funded by the European CommissionIntegrated project CIT4‐CT‐2006‐028549 co‐funded by the European Commission

1.

Institutional

intervention

and capabilities

in situations

of unemployment–

Theoretical

model

and concepts

2.

Resources and conversion

factors

– German and Spanish

national contexts

compared

–

The

institutional

side

of unemployment–

Labour markets

3.

Methods

and data–

From

(quantitative) clusters

to (qualitative) cases

4.

Possible

results

and conclusions

Structure of presentation



•

Genoa

WP3 meeting, March

2010–

First joint

presentation, first

mixed

team

meeting

•

Berlin, July

2010–

Second mixed

team

meeting

•

Palma WP3 meeting, September 2010–

Second joint

presentation, third

mixed

team

meeting

•

CAPRIGHT Final Conference, Nantes–

Presentation

of results, fourth

mixed

team

meeting

to edit

paper

•

»Transfer«

paper–

December

2010; moved

forward

from

June

2011

Palma – Nantes – »Transfer« – A plan for joint work



(1) Institutional

intervention

and capabilities in situations

of unemployment

Theoretical

model

and concepts



The

standard

model

of social

policy

evaluation

Recognised

needs

of population

at risk

Policy

objectives

Input Operation,

ProcessOutput

Outcomes

for

population

at risk

Effects

on policy

objectivesEfficiency

Effectiveness

Utility



Capabilities

in individual

working

lives

– a shift

in policy

evaluation

paradigm

•

Individual

outcomes

as evaluation

criterion

(»basis of judgement«)–

Do programs promote access to otherwise inaccessible functionings?

–

Do programs enlarge capability sets (options, counterfactual functionings)?•

Policy objectives–

To what extent do programs pre-define capabilities or functionings?

–

Do policies

take

diversity

of needs

into

account?•

Inputs–

How

sensitive are

entitlements

to unequal

life courses

as cumulative

(dis-) advantages•

Process–

Do services

leave

clients

room

for

co-production, agency

and choice?

•

Outcomes–

Do outputs

correct

inequalities

in capability

sets

over

life course?



Institutional

intervention

and capabilities in situations

of unemployment

State at t Unemployment

spell

Life course

profile

past

cumulative

functionings,

sets

of options, conversion

factors

Capability

set

(real options) –

increase

due

to intervention?

Institutional

resources, conversion

factors

State at t+1

chosen

real option

intervention

personal resources, conversion

factors

Labour market

conditions

Welfare

state

context

Effects

on life course

profile

future

cumulative

functionings,

sets

of options, conversion

factors



Capability

space

in situations

of unemployment

•

Three

subsets

of options

to end unemployment–

transition

into

employment

–

training

(e.g. to improve

employability)–

exit

from

labour

force (options

outside

of paid

work)

•

Informational

base

of judgement

at odds

with EU activation

policy

–

All individual

options

to cope

with

unemployment

are

equally acceptible

–

EU activation

policy

gives

priority

to earliest

possible

transition

into employment



Resources specific

to situations

of unemployment

•

Resources of Public Employment

Service (PES)–

financial

supports

(cash transfers) for

labour

market

reasons

•

based

on labour

force status

(unemployment

status, job seeker)•

functions: search

subsidy

and income

support

•

terms

of entitlement: insurance

benefits, means

tested

assistance (allowance)

•

level

(average

rates, replacement

rates), duration–

client services (main activitty

job-search related)

•

based

on labour

force status

(unemployment

status, job seeker)–

»active«

measures

(main

activity

other

than

job-search

related)

•

can

result

in change

of labour

force status•

Other

resources

–

family

support, networks



Conversion

factors

specific

to situations

of unemployment

•

Personal conversion

factors, e.g.–

working

life profile: e.g. prior

education

& training

career, work

experience, professional

orientation–

family

and household

situation, gender

arrangements

for

care

work

•

Societal

conversion

factors, e.g. –

labour

market

conditions

–

conditions

of use

for

employment

service

resources.•

rules

of entitlement

(benefit

/ allowance)

•

degree

of individualisation, discretionary

power of case

workers•

governance

of public

employment

service

–

Public perception

of unemployment



(2) Resources and conversion

factors

– German and Spanish

national context

compared

The

institutional

side

of unemployment

Labour markets



Resources for unemployed in Germany

•

Change of path

in labour

market

policy–

»Hartz«

reforms

(2003-2005)

•

Two-tier

system

of public

employment

service–

Federal Employment

Agency (minority

system):

•

Unemployed

with

contributory

earnings-related

unemployment benefit I (67%, resp. 60% of last gross

earnings, duration

6 to 24 months)•

Unemployed

/ job seekers

not

entitled

to income

support–

Co-governed

local

job centers

(majority

system):

•

Unemployed

entitled

to (reformed) unemployment benefit II (means-tested

pooled

family

income, €

359 subsistance

flat

rate + rent

+ supplements)•

All job offers

are

considered

suitable•

Less

preservation

of status

and employability

–

Strict

activation, adaptation

of job-seekers

to market

needs–

Compulsory

participation

in counseling

and active

measures

–

sanctions

for

non-compliance

with

individual

integration

contracts



Resources for unemployed in Spain

•

Contributory benefit–

Income support (min. 12 months = 4 months; max. 66 months = 24 months) 70% resp. 60% of medium wage

–

Entitlements to benefits not exhausted are preserved•

Occupational training–

Poorly provided by Public Emplyoment

Service

–

Training mostly provided by other institutions•

Conditionality (compromiso

de actividad):

–

Formally obligation to follow training and individual plan, but this isn’t the case in practice (weak and decentralised

active policies).

•

Unemployment allowance–

75% of minimum national wage (€

624 for special collectives,

six months duration•

Extraordinary »benefit«–

€

420 for unemployed without benefit, six months duration



Labour markets compared (1)

•

The Spanish labor market is more turbulent

Indicator Year, source Germany Spain

Share of fixed-term contracts 2008, EU-SILC 10,84% 33,66%

Job tenure 2006, Eurobarometer 38,00% 28,00%

Job loss 2005-2006, EU-SILC 4,15% 4,79%

•

This also affects the nature of unemployment–

Spain has lower

long-term

unemployment


Unemployment

rate 2005, Eurostat 10,70% 9,20%

Long-term unemployment rate 2005, Eurostat 5,90% 2,20%



Labour markets in comparison (2)

•

Subjective

perception

of labour market

risks


Subjective job security 2006, Eurobarometer 90,0 86,0

Confidence in finding a new job 2006, Eurobarometer 5,6 6,3

•

Difference between insiders and outsiders is more important in Germany, while in Spain the segment of those ‘in-between’

is larger


Share of active population without stable inclusion in the labor

market 2005-2006, EU-SILC 17,42% 21,47%




•

Gender

difference: German women

more

often

economically

»active«, but

not

in case

of motherhood, and often

only

part-time.


Difference of male and female activity rates 2005, EUROSTAT

80,6% 69,0%

Difference of male and female activity rates 2005, EUROSTAT

13% 23,4%

Share of economically active mothers of children aged 3 to 5

2005, OECD

54,8% 54,2%

Share of female part-time 2005, EUROSTAT

45,6% 23,2%

Difference of male and female part-time employment

2005, EUROSTAT

-35,7% -19,7%

Share of involuntary part-timers 2005,

OECD

17,7% 30,5%




•

Difference

in unmployment

»history«: Recent convergence of unemployment rates from different starting points.

Unemployment rates in Germany and Spain (%)

0

5

10

15

20

25

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Deutschland Spanien

•

People may

have

developed

different expectations, and different coping strategies

in the

two

countries.



•

Activation

regimes

and response

to EU employment

strategy–

Germany: paradigm

shift

to »activating«

labour

market

•

PES supports

enforce

a specific

type

of functioning

–

Spain: little

effect

on policy

(non-compliance

with

»activation«)

•

Basic income

support–

Germany: Basic assistance

as most

important

income

support

•

Norm of family

support

reintroduced

–

Spain: dominance

of contributive

benefit, weak

basic

assistance•

Compensated

by

strong

role

of family

support

•

Social

construction

of unemployment–

Germany: »voluntary/unvoluntary«

unemployment: blame

on individual

–

Spain: accepted

social

responsability

for

unemployment

as a collective

risk

National context

of unemployment

experience

– Germany and Spain as contrasting

cases



(3) Methods

and data

From

(quantitative) clusters

to (qualitative) cases



•

Comparative

re-analysis

of quantitative / qualitative research

data•

First (quantitative) stage: establish

profiles

of working

lives

–

Research function•

Define

different biographical

contexts

for

unemploment

eperience•

Entry

point for

selecting

typologically

representative

individual

cases–

Data base: longitudinal survey

data

•

Spain: Panel Survey

on Inequalities

in Catalonia

(PaD)–

Five waves

2001/02, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006•

Germany: German Socio-economic

Panel (GSOEP)–

Waves

1984-2007, retrospective

biographical

data

•

Second (qualitative stage): reconstruct

individual

working

lives–

Spain: Narrative biographical

interviews

n=18

–

Germany: Reconstruction

of case

stories

(biographies) from

GSOEP n=10

Mixed method

approach




Longitudinal data for Germany (1): Main employment age, individual cluster solution

•

GSOEP birth cohorts: 1951-1955, 1961-1965, 1971-1975–

monthly observation 1991-1995, 2001-2005, age 31-50, N=3832

•

Analysis based on monthly employment status–

Full-time, part-time, unemployment, family work, other

•

Method of analysis: sequences, optimal matching, clustering•

Main employment age clusters:

–

M1) Continuous fulltime employment (52,1%; m>f)–

M2) Part-time employment (12,3%; f>m)–

M3) Discontinuous path (13,3%; f>m)–

M4) Precarious path (11,0%; f>m)–

M5) Family work cluster (11,3%;f)




Longitudinal data for Germany (2): Another cluster solution, accounting for children

•

Main employment age clusters, households with children <16 years–

MC1) Continuous fulltime employment with children (23,9%; m>f)•

≈Continuous fulltime employment (M1)–

MC4) Continuous fulltime employment without children (5,4%; m>f)•

≈

Continuous fulltime employment (M1)–

MC7) Continuous adult fulltime employment without children (30,1%; m=f)•

≈

Continuous fulltime employment (M1)–

MC5) Continuous part-time employment with children (11,2%; f)•

≈

Part-time employment (M2)–

MC3) Discontinuity fulltime employment with children (6,9 %; f)•

≈

Discontinuous path (M3), Precarious path (M4)–

MC2) Precarious unemployment cluster with and without children (11,9 %; f)•

≈

Part-time employment (M2), Discontinuous path (M3), Precarious path (M4), Family work cluster (M5)

–

MC6) Family-worker with children (10,7%; f)•

≈

Family work cluster (M5)




Longitudinal data for Germany (3): controlling for patterns of transition into adulthood

•

GSOEP birth cohorts: 1968-1971, 1973-1976–

monthly observations 2001-2006, age 17-30, N=545

•

Analysis based on multidimensional states, status dimensions–

Working live

–

Household formation–

Family formation

–

Parenthood•

Method of analysis: sequences, optimal matching, clustering

•

Clusters of transition from youth to adulthood: –

Y1) Long / recurrent education, late household formation

(18,3%, m > f)

–

Y2) Stable labour

market integration, late household formation

(20,2%,m > f)–

Y3) Labour

market integration, household formation

(12,1% m=f)

–

Y4) Training and employment, late family formation

(15,2% m=f)–

Y5) Training and employment with early family formation

(24,2% f > m)

–

Y6) Family formation, parenthood, short/intermittent employment (9,9%, f>m)




Longitudinal data for Germany (4): transition from youth to main employment age

•

Persons who are in both samples: born 1973-1975, N=79

M/Y Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Total

M1 6 13 10 5 7 0 41

M2 4 0 1 1 0 2 8

M3 2 2 1 1 2 0 8

M4 2 1 0 3 6 3 15

M5 0 0 0 0 4 3 7

Total 14 16 12 10 19 8 79




From German clusters to cases

•

Cases with unemployment included in both cluster analysis •

Youth clusters:

–

Y4: Training and employment, late family formation•

share with at least one spell: 35,5%; share of total time: 6,8% –

Y5: Training and employment with early family formation•

share with at least one spell: 19% + 35,3%; share of total time: 3,8%

•

Main employment clusters: –

M3: Discontinuous path•

share with at least one spell: 60,4%; share of total time: 12,5%–

M4: precarious path•

share with at least one spell: 54,9%; share of total time: 23,7%

•

Biographical description–

constructed from all available survey items

•

Special interest in working lives covering unemployment support change in 2005




Longitudinal data for Spain (1)

•

Inequalities Panel (PaD) for Catalonia, 2001-2006 •

Cluster analysis of people employed at least one time in the period, between 25-65 years old (884 cases)

•

Variables of the cluster analysis–

Frequencies of unemployment, fixed-term contract, inactivity and non-

formal training–

Transitions from unemployment to employment, from fixed-term to open-

ended contract, and increase in education level•

Paths:–

Linear (40,6%)

–

Professional (21,4%)–

Female discontinuity (7,9%)

–

Precarious (21%)–

Chronic temporality (9,2%)




Longitudinal data for SpainPaths (25-65)

Unemp. ABCDE

Fixed term ABCDE

Inact. ABCDE

Unempl. trans. AE

Contract trans. AE

Non-

formal

training

Educ. trans.

A-E

Linear Mean ,07 ,03 ,08 -,04 ,00 ,06 ,21N 359 359 359 359 359 359 359

Prof Mean ,09 ,02 ,06 ,02 ,00 1,38 ,01N 186 186 186 186 186 186 186

Female disc.

Mean ,27 ,33 3,06 ,13 ,01 ,17 ,04N 70 70 70 70 70 70 70

Prec.Mean ,57 1,72 ,42 ,08 ,03 ,45 ,10N 189 189 189 189 189 189 189

Ch. temp

Mean ,11 4,06 ,11 ,06 -,40 ,70 ,25N 80 80 80 80 80 80 80

Total Mean ,20 ,78 ,39 ,02 -,03 ,49 ,13N

884 884 884 884 884 884 884




From clusters to cases, interviews considered

•

Unemployment incidence differs by path–

Precarious path: 34,4%, female discontinuity: 27%, chronic temporality: 10%

•

More that two spells occur only in precarious path•

Majority of population under 40 in non-standard paths–

Linear: 5.9%, Professional (7%). Only Precarious more than two times.

•

Biographical interviews to be taken from which paths?–

Precarious path

•

de-standardization of traditional working class paths•

massive incorporation of women with medium-low education level•

higher presence of unemployment.–

Chronic temporality

•

Higher education level, fixed term and atypical contractual forms•

Unemployment lower and less sporadic.–

Linear path

•

for contrasting unemployment experience –

Female discontinuity?

•

Older women of traditional working class



Grid for

comparative

analysis

of cases: unemployment

in individual

working

lives

•

Time / age (recorded

changes, at least annual

information)–

Transitions, subjective

information

on options, motives

and aspirations

•

Professional Life -

Stages and States (functionings)–

Training (state), labour

situation (state), type and amount of income

•

Job search–

Intentions, preferences, actions

•

Professional future–

Personal outlook (capability)

•

Personal life–

Situation (household, partnership, parenthood)

–

Informal work, care work–

Subjective values and concerns

–

Life satisfaction–

Socializing

•

Situation of partner / spouse



(4) Possible

results

and conclusions

Based

on partial analysis

of cases



Pro’s and con’s of Spanish non-compliance with activation

•

Standardized

cash benefit

increases

individual

capability–

Unemployment

benefit

as least conditional

income

support

–

Entitlement

considered

as »savings

account«

for

use

in need–

Many

individual

uses

of paid

free

time

•

Job search

(find employment)•

Occupational

training

(mostly

not

provided

by

PES)•

Additional / continuing

formal education•

Care

work

for

children

or

relatives (women)•

Time out of work

to decide

what

to do next

(higly

educated

workers)–

Contrary

to neoclassics, claimants

remain

active

and labour

market

oriented

•

benefits

prolong

inequality

in capability

sets–

Contributory

benefit

prolongs

acquired

stability

or

precariousness

–

Family

support, weak

»combination

security«

as conversion

factors–

Family

support

not

unconditional

–

benefits

work

for

traditional gender

regime




German public employment service – a model student of »activation«

•

Individualized »taylored«

public employment services and measures–

Services are more present in people’s lives

–

PES as important training provider »correcting«

precarious training careers•

How strong is actual impact of »prescribed«

functionings?

–

What is the relative role of other welfare state programs as collective supports?

–

What other conversion factors intervene?–

How »sustainable«

are effects? Does PES end or administer

precariousness? Are path changes supported?•

Trade-offs between »taylored«

intervention and individual choice

–

Do cases suggest criteria for »capability-friendly«

PES supports



Thank you for listening to a long long presentation

Documents

Unemployment, Intervention and Capabilities · Unemployment, Intervention and Capabilities. ... power of case workers ... profiles of working lives