Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T16:07:50.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Measuring Unemployment Insurance Generosity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Stéphane Pallage ,
Lyle Scruggs  and
Christian Zimmermann
Stéphane Pallage*
Affiliation:
Département des Sciences Économiques ESG, Université du Québec è Montréal, PO Box 8888 Downtown Station, Montreal, QC, H3C 3P8, Canada
Lyle Scruggs
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Connecticut and Russell Sage Foundation, 365 Fairfield Way, Room 431, U-1024, Storrs, CT 06269 e-mail: [email protected]
Christian Zimmermann
Affiliation:
Economic Research Division, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, IZA, RCEA and CESifo, PO Box 442, St. Louis, MO 63166-0442 e-mail: [email protected]
*
e-mail: [email protected] (corresponding author)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Unemployment insurance policies are multidimensional objects, with variable waiting periods, eligibility duration, benefit levels, and asset tests, making intertemporal or international comparisons very difficult. Furthermore, labor market conditions, such as the likelihood and duration of unemployment, matter when assessing the generosity of different policies. In this article, we develop a new methodology to measure the generosity of unemployment insurance programs with a single metric. We build a first model with all characteristics of the complex unemployment insurance policy. Our model features heterogeneous agents that are liquidity constrained but can self-insure. We then build a second model, similar in all aspects but one: the unemployment insurance policy is one-dimensional (no waiting periods, eligibility limits, or asset tests, but constant benefits). We then determine which level of benefits in this second model makes society indifferent between both policies. We apply this measurement strategy to the unemployment insurance program of the United Kingdom.

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , Autumn 2013 , pp. 524 - 549
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Authors' note: We thank the editor, Vera Troeger, and two referees for very useful comments that have helped make this article stronger. All results found in this article can be replicated using the codes and data available at http://hdl.handle.net/1902.1/21425. The views expressed are those of individual authors and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, the Federal Reserve System, or the Board of Governors.

References

Allan, James P., and Scruggs, Lyle. 2004. Political partisanship and welfare state reform in advanced industrial societies. American Journal of Political Science 48(3): 496–512.Google Scholar
Allard, Gayle. 2005. Measuring the changing generosity of unemployment benefits: Beyond existing indicators. Instituto de Empresa Business School Working Paper 05–18.Google Scholar
Atkinson, A. B., and Micklewright, John. 1985. Unemployment benefits and unemployment duration: A study of men in the United Kingdom in the 1970s. London: Suntory-Toyota International Center for Economics and Related Disciplines.Google Scholar
Bellman, Richard E. 1954. The theory of dynamic programming. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
Botero, Juan, Djankov, Simeon, Porta, Rafael, Lopez-De-Silanes, Florencio, and Shleifer, Andrei. 2004. The regulation of labor. Quarterly Journal of Economics 119(4): 1339–82.Google Scholar
Brooks, Clem, and Manza, Jeff. 2006. Why do welfare states persist? Journal of Politics 68(4): 816–27.Google Scholar
Castles, Francis. 1998. Comparative public policy: Patterns of post-war transformation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Clasen, Jochen, and Siegel, Nico A. 2007. Comparative welfare state analysis and the “dependent variable problem.” In Investigating welfare state change: The “dependent variable problem” in comparative analysis, eds. Clasen, Jochen and Siegel, Nico A., 3–12. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Clayton, Richard, and Pontusson, Jonas. 1998. Welfare-state retrenchment revisited: Entitlement cuts, public sector restructuring, and inegalitarian trends in advanced capitalist societies. World Politics 51: 67–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esping-Andersen, Gosta. 1990. The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Garrett, Geoffrey. 1998. Partisan politics in the global economy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gilardi, Fabrizio. 2010. Who learns from what in policy diffusion processes? American Journal of Political Science 54(3): 650–66.Google Scholar
Green-Pedersen, Christoffer, and Haverland, Markus. 2002. The new politics and scholarship of the welfare state. Journal of European Social Policy 12 (February): 243–51.Google Scholar
Hagedorn, Marcus, and Manovskii, Iourii. 2008. The cyclical behavior of equilibrium unemployment and vacancies revisited. American Economic Review, American Economic Association 98(4): 1692–706.Google Scholar
Hansen, Gary D., and Imrohoroğlu, Ayse. 1992. The role of unemployment insurance in an economy with liquidity constraints and moral hazard. Journal of Political Economy 100(1): 118–42.Google Scholar
Heckman, James. 2007. Comments on are protective labor market institutions at the root of unemployment? A critical review of the evidence by David Howell, Dean Baker, Andrew Glyn, and John Schmitt. Capitalism and Society 2(1):article 5.Google Scholar
Hicks, Alexander. 1999. Social democracy and welfare capitalism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Hopenhayn, Hugo A., and Nicolini, Juan Pablo. 1997. Optimal unemployment insurance. Journal of Political Economy 105(2): 412–38.Google Scholar
Howell, David R., Baker, Dean, Glyn, Andrew, and Schmitt, John. 2007. Are protective labor market institutions at the root of unemployment? A critical review of the evidence. Capitalism and Society 2(1):article 1.Google Scholar
Huber, Evelyne, and Stephens, John. 2001. Welfare states and production regimes in the era of retrenchment. In The new politics of the welfare state, ed. Pierson, Paul, 107–45. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Institute for Fiscal Studies. 2006. Fiscal facts: Benefit tables for income support and supplementary benefits. http://www.ifs.org.uk/ff/indexben.php (accessed June 10, 2007).Google Scholar
Kenworthy, Lane. 1999. Do social-welfare polcies reduce poverty? A cross-national assessment. Social Forces 77(3): 1119–39.Google Scholar
Kitschelt, Herbert. 2001. Partisan competition and welfare state retrenchment: When do politicians choose unpopular policies? In The new politics of the welfare state, ed. Pierson, Paul, 265–302. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kolmogorov, A. N., and Fomin, S. V. 1975. Introductory real analysis. Minneola, NY: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Layard, Richard, Nickel, Stephen, and Jackman, Richard. 1991. Unemployment: Macroeconomic performance and the labour market. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ljungqvist, Lars, and Sargent, Thomas J. 1998. The European unemployment dilemma. Journal of Political Economy 106(3): 514–50.Google Scholar
Martin, John P. 1996. Measures of replacement rates for the purpose of international comparisons: A note. OECD Economic Studies 26: 99–115.Google Scholar
Mendoza, Enrique, Razin, Assaf, and Tesar, Linda. 1994. Effective tax rates in macroeconomics: Cross-country estimates of tax rates on factor incomes and consumption. Journal of Monetary Economics 34(3): 297–323.Google Scholar
OECD. 2012a. The historic OECD summary measure of benefit entitlements, 1961–2005. OECD summary measure of benefit entitlements. http://www.oecd.org/els/benefitsandwagesstatistics.htm (accessed October 15, 2012).Google Scholar
OECD. 2012b. NRR summary measure of benefit entitlements (including SA and HB). OECD summary measure of benefit entitlements. http://www.oecd.org/els/benefitsandwagesstatistics.htm (accessed October 15, 2012).Google Scholar
Osberg, Lars. 2009. Canada's declining social safety net: The case for EI reform. Ottawa: Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives.Google Scholar
Pallage, Stephane, and Zimmermann, Christian. 2001. Voting on unemployment insurance. International Economic Review 42(4): 903–23.Google Scholar
Pierson, Paul. 1994. Dismantling the welfare state? Reagan, Thatcher, and the politics of retrenchment. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pierson, Paul. 1996. The new politics of the welfare state. World Politics 48: 143–79.Google Scholar
Scruggs, Lyle. 2004. Welfare state entitlements data set: A comparative institutional analysis of eighteen welfare states. Version 1.0b, http://sp.uconn.edu/∼scruggs/wp.htm (accessed October 15, 2012).Google Scholar
Scruggs, Lyle. 2006. The generosity of social insurance, 1971–2002. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 22(3): 349–64.Google Scholar
Shavell, Steven, and Weiss, Laurence. 1979. The optimal payment of unemployment insurance benefits over time. Journal of Political Economy 87(6): 1347–62.Google Scholar
Shimer, Robert. 2005. The cyclical behavior of equilibrium unemployment and vacancies. American Economic Review 95(1): 25–49.Google Scholar
Starke, Peter. 2006. The politics of welfare state entrenchment: A literature review. Social Policy & Administration 40(1): 104–20.Google Scholar
Stephens, John D., Huber, Evelyne, and Ray, Leonard. 1999. The welfare state in hard times. In Continuity and change in contemporary capitalism, eds. Kitschelt, Hebert, Lange, Peter, Marks, Gary, and Stephens, John D., 164–93. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar