SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Marmara Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 42 - Sayı: 2

SOCIAL TRANSFERS AND UNEMPLOYMENT DURATION: AN EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF THE EU AND TURKEY

Fadime İrem DOĞAN
Pages
247–264
Publication Date
2020-12-31
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In the 2009-09 period, the empirical results show that in all three countries studied, receipt of social transfers prolongs the duration of unemployment, except for the Netherlands, where the opposite is true.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study investigates the impact of social transfers on labor force participation in three countries (Turkey, the Netherlands and Spain) across two different labor markets—namely, Turkey and the EU.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Specifically, the study assesses exit from unemployment to employment through an Accelerated Failure Time (AFT) model, drawing on panel data from the Income and Living Conditions Survey (SILC and EUSILC) over two periods (2006–09 and 2011–141) broken down by month (i.e. 48 months in each period).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In the 2009-09 period, the empirical results show that in all three countries studied, receipt of social transfers prolongs the duration of unemployment, except for the Netherlands, where the opposite is true.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:2006 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Social Transfers · Labor Supply · Unemployment Duration

Abstract

This study investigates the impact of social transfers on labor force participation in three countries (Turkey, the Netherlands and Spain) across two different labor markets—namely, Turkey and the EU. In conducting the comparative analysis, the focus is on impacts across different periods. Specifically, the study assesses exit from unemployment to employment through an Accelerated Failure Time (AFT) model, drawing on panel data from the Income and Living Conditions Survey (SILC and EUSILC) over two periods (2006–09 and 2011–141) broken down by month (i.e. 48 months in each period). In the 2009-09 period, the empirical results show that in all three countries studied, receipt of social transfers prolongs the duration of unemployment, except for the Netherlands, where the opposite is true. These findings regarding social transfers also indicate that the probability of leaving unemployment is higher for those receiving a variety of transfers (education, disability, old age, survivors, etc.) for all countries in the 2011–14 period.

🔖

Cite This Article

DOĞAN, F. İ. (2020). SOCIAL TRANSFERS AND UNEMPLOYMENT DURATION: AN EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF THE EU AND TURKEY. Marmara Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 42 - Sayı: 2, 247–264. https://ajindex.com/articles/371945

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. ACEMOGLU, D., & Restrepo, P. (2017). Robots and jobs: Evidence from US labor markets. AHMAD, N., Svarer, M., & Naveed, A. (2019). The Effect of Active Labour Market Programmes and Benefit Sanctions on Reducing Unemployment Duration. Journal of Labor Research, 1-28.
  2. AHN, N., & Ugidos‐Olazabal, A. (1995). Duration of unemployment in Spain: Relative effects of unemployment benefit and family characteristics. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 57(2), 249-264.
  3. AHN, N., De La Rica, S., & Ugidos, A. (1999). Willingness to move for work and unemployment duration in Spain. Economica, 66(263), 335-357.
  4. ALSASUA, J., Bilbao‐Ubillos, J., & Olaskoaga, J. (2007). The EU integration process and the convergence of social protection benefits at national level. International Journal of Social Welfare, 16(4), 297-306.
  5. ARENDT, J. N., & Kolodziejczyk, C. (2019). The Effects of an Employment Bonus for Long-Term Social Assistance Recipients. Journal of Labor Research, 1-16.
  6. ARRANZ, J. M., & García-Serrano, C. (2014). Duration and recurrence of unemployment benefits. Journal of Labor Research, 35(3), 271-295.
  7. AUTOR, D. H., Levy, F., & Murnane, R. J. (2003). The skill content of recent technological change: An empirical exploration. The Quarterly journal of economics, 118(4), 1279-1333.
  8. BARGAIN, O., & Doorley, K. (2013). Putting structure on the RD design: social transfers and youth inactivity in France. BENTOLILA, S., & Blanchard, O. J. (1990). Spanish unemployment. Economic Policy, 5(10), 233-281.
  9. BOVER, O., Arellano, M., & Bentolila, S. (2002). Unemployment duration, benefit duration and the business cycle. The Economic Journal, 112(479), 223-265.
  10. BRYNJOLFSSON, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. WW Norton & Company. CLEVES, M. (2008). An introduction to survival analysis using Stata. Stata Press.
  11. CONTINI, B., & Quaranta, R. (2017). Explaining Non-Employment Magnitude and Duration: The Case of Italy. COX, D. R. (1972). Regression models and life-tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), Vol. 34, No. 2. (1972), pp. 187-220. DĂNĂCICĂ, D. E., & Mazilescu, R. (2014). Long-term unemployment spells and exit states of men in Romania and Hungary. Procedia Economics and Finance, 8, 236-245.
  12. DEVINE, T. J., & Kiefer, N. M. (1991). Empirical labor economics: the search approach. Oxford University Press on Demand. DOĞAN, F. İ. (2019). UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS AND UNEMPLO