Previous studies have shown mixed results concerning the effects of participation in active labour market policy programmes (ALMPs) on the longer-term scars in the form of poor income development and low job stability following the end of an unemployment spell. Most previous studies, however, have been limited both in the time frame used and to particular programmes. We argue that human capital investments are long-term investments and should therefore also be investigated from a long-term perspective. ALMP training and ALMPs as subsidised employment also represent different types of human capital investments that may produce effects that are differently distributed over time. In order to handle these issues, this article uses a longitudinal register-based dataset in which all long-term (more than six months) unemployed Swedes in 1993, who had no labour market problems in 1992, were followed for ten years. We found positive effects of ALMP participation concerning both the probability of reaching pre-unemployment incomes and a reduction in the hazard of exiting the labour market, while the effect on the probability of having an unemployment-free year was mixed. The effects of the two forms of ALMPs were differently distributed over time, with ALMP employment having an immediate effect that decreased relatively quickly and ALMP training having a longer-term effect.

This is an accepted version of a paper published in Journal of Education and Work. This paper has been peer-reviewed but does not include the final publisher proof-corrections or journal pagination.Citation for the published paper: Nordlund, M., Stehlik, T., Strandh, M. (2012) "Investment in second-chance education for adults and income development in Sweden" Journal of Education and Work, : 1-25 URL: http://dx

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundRecent findings suggest that the mental health costs of unemployment are related to both short- and long-term mental health scars. The main policy tools for dealing with young people at risk of labor market exclusion are Active Labor Market Policy programs for youths (youth programs). There has been little research on the potential effects of participation in youth programs on mental health and even less on whether participation in such programs alleviates the long-term mental health scarring caused by unemployment. This study compares exposure to open youth unemployment and exposure to youth program participation between ages 18 and 21 in relation to adult internalized mental health immediately after the end of the exposure period at age 21 and two decades later at age 43.MethodsThe study uses a five wave Swedish 27-year prospective cohort study consisting of all graduates from compulsory school in an industrial town in Sweden initiated in 1981. Of the original 1083 participants 94.3 % of those alive were still participating at the 27-year follow up. Exposure to open unemployment and youth programs were measured between ages 18–21. Mental health, indicated through an ordinal level three item composite index of internalized mental health symptoms (IMHS), was measured pre-exposure at age 16 and post exposure at ages 21 and 42.Ordinal regressions of internalized mental health at ages 21 and 43 were performed using the Polytomous Universal Model (PLUM). Models were controlled for pre-exposure internalized mental health as well as other available confounders.ResultsResults show strong and significant relationships between exposure to open youth unemployment and IMHS at age 21 (OR = 2.48, CI = 1.57–3.60) as well as at age 43 (OR = 1.71, CI = 1.20–2.43). No such significant relationship is observed for exposure to youth programs at age 21 (OR = 0.95, CI = 0.72–1.26) or at age 43 (OR = 1.23, CI = 0.93–1.63).ConclusionsA considered and consistent active labor market policy directed at youths could potentially reduce the short- and long-term mental health costs of youth unemployment.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12889-015-2496-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

This study focuses on how the effects from investments in Active Labour Market Policy programmes (ALMPs) may be differently distributed due to the age and educational level of participants. Outcomes were measured as the chance of labour market inclusion, labour market stability and postunemployment incomes. This longitudinal study captures long-term effects among 50,000 Swedes who entered unemployment in 1993. While the youngest gained most from ALMP-training, the oldest were best helped by ALMPemployment in reducing the risk of labour market exit. The lowest educated gained much from ALMP participation, although the effects were weaker than expected: those with a higher education gained more in terms of labour market stability from ALMP-training compared with the less educated persons. This result was interpreted in terms of a springboard effect, meaning that ALMP-training pushes higher educated people into further education in the regular educational arena.

Nordlund M. What works best when? The role of active labour market policy programmes in different business cycles Int J Soc Welfare 2011: 20: 43–54 © 2009 The Author, Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare. At what point in a business cycle do long‐term unemployed persons gain most from participation in active labour market policy programmes (ALMP) as compared with openly unemployed persons? This article studies this question from the perspective of individual human capital with the hazard of labour market exit and chances of future labour market stability and equal post‐unemployment income as output variables. All the long‐term unemployed in Sweden were followed on a four‐year basis, with 1993 (recession) and 1999 (boom) as starting years. The study shows mainly positive effects among participants regardless of the state of the market. However, ALMP training has a ‘bridging’ effect over different labour market conditions, and a quick return to the regular labour market is, therefore, not as important for the success of participation as it is among ALMP employment participants.

No abstract