EconPapers    
Economics at your fingertips  
 

Unemployment Benefits and Work Incentives: The U.S. Labor Market in the Great Recession (revised)

David Howell () and Bert Azizoglu

Working Papers from Political Economy Research Institute, University of Massachusetts at Amherst

Abstract: This working paper has been published in the Oxford Review of Economic Policy, volume 27, no. 2 (summer 2011).Revised May 2011In response to rapidly rising long-term unemployment, unemployment insurance (UI) eligibility extensions were enacted that raised the regular 26-week limit to as many as 99 weeks for some workers. As extended program claimants increased to over 6 million, the ‘laws of economics’ have been invoked to argue that this extended eligibility carries much of the blame for the persistence of the long-term unemployment crisis. Our assessment of this orthodox work disincentive account has three main parts. The first considers what theory suggests: predictions of large work disincentive effects follow from a model that focuses attention on the “value of unemployment” (when benefits replace earned income and workers prefer “leisure” to work); disincentive effects are likely to be much smaller when the focus shifts to the “value of employment” (there are large nonpecuniary benefits to holding a job, and substantial social, psychological and future employment costs to idleness) and to institutional realities of the UI system, which require acceptance of reasonable job offers. The second part reviews the empirical evidence on the timing of the exit of unemployed workers into employment around the time of UI benefit exhaustion, the main evidence used in support of large-scale disincentive effects; we conclude that recent research shows little or no empirical support for such “spikes”. The third part explores current evidence of work disincentive effects; we find no support for such labor supply effects in the 2007-10 data on UI claimants, hires, job openings, and labor flows. If the extensions have raised long-term unemployment, it seems most likely due to maintaining labor market participation, not to work disincentives.

Date: 2011
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (4) Track citations by RSS feed

Downloads: (external link)
https://per.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/working_papers ... 00/WP257_revised.pdf (application/pdf)
Our link check indicates that this URL is bad, the error code is: 500 Can't connect to per.umass.edu:443 (No such host is known. )

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:uma:periwp:wp257_revised

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Working Papers from Political Economy Research Institute, University of Massachusetts at Amherst Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Judy Fogg ( this e-mail address is bad, please contact ).

 
Page updated 2022-05-17
Handle: RePEc:uma:periwp:wp257_revised