2000
DOI: 10.1016/s0047-2727(99)00113-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Extended benefits and the duration of UI spells: evidence from the New Jersey extended benefit program

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

16
218
1
2

Year Published

2003
2003
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 282 publications
(237 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
16
218
1
2
Order By: Relevance
“…However, it is interesting to note that the predicted fall in average unemployment duration associated with a reduction in the length of the UI period through the imposition of a soft constraint is sizeable, i.e., around half a day for every week's reduction. This effect is of the same magnitude as that reported by Card and Levine (2000) on the basis of an extended benefit program in New Jersey, USA. This similarity is intriguing, given that for most job-seekers, the soft constraint imposed in Norway does not really affect the absolute duration limit of UI benefits at all; it only reduces the time until some form of activity is demanded.…”
Section: Activation In Unemployment Insurancesupporting
confidence: 80%
“…However, it is interesting to note that the predicted fall in average unemployment duration associated with a reduction in the length of the UI period through the imposition of a soft constraint is sizeable, i.e., around half a day for every week's reduction. This effect is of the same magnitude as that reported by Card and Levine (2000) on the basis of an extended benefit program in New Jersey, USA. This similarity is intriguing, given that for most job-seekers, the soft constraint imposed in Norway does not really affect the absolute duration limit of UI benefits at all; it only reduces the time until some form of activity is demanded.…”
Section: Activation In Unemployment Insurancesupporting
confidence: 80%
“…However, an enduring concern has been endogenous policy bias, as will arise when more generous UI rules are introduced in anticipation of a deteriorating labor market. More recent studies therefore have either sought to identify legal changes in benefit duration that occur independently of labor market conditions (Card and Levine, 2000;Lalive and Zweimüller, 2004) or to exploit changes in the law that affect several categories of (treated) unemployed workers differently (with no change in benefits for another group of controls) for a reasonably long panel of data (Lalive, van Ours, Zweimüller, 2006;van Ours and Vodopivec, 2006). The results are again consistent with (job search) theory and are economically and statistically significant particularly for benefit duration where stronger disincentive effects are observed.…”
Section: Motivationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The evidence on this point is mixed. While US and UK studies typically provide benefit elasticity estimates (the elasticity of unemployment duration with respect to the level of the unemployment benefit) ranging from 0.2 to 0.9 (Moffitt, 1985;Narendranathan et al, 1985;Katz and Meyer, 1990;Meyer, 1990;Card and Levine, 1998), European elasticity estimates differ widely, from virtually zero (Hujer and Schneider, 1989;Groot, 1990;van den Berg, 1990;Steiner, 1990;Hernaes and Strøm, 1996) to above unity (Abbring et al, 1998;Carling et al (1999).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%