Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Contents
- List of tables and figures
- List of abbreviations
- Acknowledgements
- one Introduction
- two The right to a minimum income: between Mead and Van Parijs
- three Justifying a minimum income guarantee: the right to personal development
- four The activation dilemma: a comparative study
- five Measuring respect for the right to personal development
- six The employment effectiveness of minimum income schemes
- seven The employment effectiveness of minimum income schemes and their respect for the right to personal development
- eight Conclusion
- Appendix A Methodology for benefit comparison
- Appendix B Unemployment reintegration capacity (URC): sensitivity analysis
- Appendix C Qualitative comparative analysis: laws of Boolean algebra
- References
- Index
- Also available from The Policy Press
six - The employment effectiveness of minimum income schemes
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 January 2022
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Contents
- List of tables and figures
- List of abbreviations
- Acknowledgements
- one Introduction
- two The right to a minimum income: between Mead and Van Parijs
- three Justifying a minimum income guarantee: the right to personal development
- four The activation dilemma: a comparative study
- five Measuring respect for the right to personal development
- six The employment effectiveness of minimum income schemes
- seven The employment effectiveness of minimum income schemes and their respect for the right to personal development
- eight Conclusion
- Appendix A Methodology for benefit comparison
- Appendix B Unemployment reintegration capacity (URC): sensitivity analysis
- Appendix C Qualitative comparative analysis: laws of Boolean algebra
- References
- Index
- Also available from The Policy Press
Summary
Having measured respect for recipients’ right to personal development, we now turn to the schemes’ employment effectiveness. Before moving on to the analysis, we should clarify what is actually meant by employment effectiveness. As mentioned earlier (see Chapter One), activation here means a policy of combining negative and positive incentives with the purpose of helping income support recipients to become self-sufficient through paid employment. This has implications for the measurement of the employment effectiveness of minimum income schemes, in particular regarding the treatment of subsidised work, which cannot be considered to represent a fully self-sufficient form of existence for recipients. In light of this, employment effectiveness here will refer to the schemes’ ability to place recipients in unsubsidised employment.
The story so far
Going through the European literature on the activation of minimum income recipients it can be observed that the existing studies have focused more on the effectiveness of the activation of specific recipient groups, and specific activation programmes, than on the overall employment effectiveness of minimum income schemes. For instance, in Denmark, Ingerslev (1994) found that 50% of social assistance beneficiaries who participated in activation programmes (Youth Benefit Scheme and the Municipal Employment Act) started work or education (see Dahl and Pedersen, 2002, p 4). In 1997, Weise and Brogaard (1997) found that participation in activation increased the employment rate of beneficiaries from 12% to 15% (see Pedersen et al, 2002, pp 11-12). In Norway, Lorentzen and Dahl found that the participation in active labour market policy (ALMP), especially packages that combine wage subsides and training, improves the minimum income recipients’ chances of going into work (2005, pp 35-40).
Nonetheless, there have been some attempts to evaluate the effectiveness of minimum income schemes.In France, Cordazzo (1999) found that in 1995, 24% of a sample of individuals who entered the RMI scheme within the Department of Gironde in 1989 had entered employment (see Enjolras, 2002, p 13). Afsa and Guillemot (1999), on the other hand, found that 61% of people leaving the RMI scheme in 1997 gained a job in the labour market (see Enjolras, 2002, p 16). Demailly (1999) found that, of all households receiving RMI in January 1996, 30% had left the RMI in January 1998.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Activation DilemmaReconciling the Fairness and Effectiveness of Minimum Income Schemes in Europe, pp. 85 - 96Publisher: Bristol University PressPrint publication year: 2008