{"title":"Should We Insure Workers or Jobs During Recessions?","authors":"G. Giupponi, Camille Landais, Alice Lapeyre","doi":"10.1257/jep.36.2.29","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"What is the most efficient way to respond to recessions in the labor market? To this question, policymakers on the two sides of the pond gave diametrically opposed answers during the COVID-19 crisis. In the United States, the focus was on insuring workers by increasing the generosity of unemployment insurance. In Europe, instead, policies were concentrated on saving jobs, with the expansion of short-time work programs to subsidize labor hoarding. Who got it right? In this article, we show that far from being substitutes, unemployment insurance and short-time work exhibit strong complementarities. They provide insurance to different types of workers and against different types of shocks. Short-time work can be effective at reducing socially costly layoffs against large temporary shocks, but it is less effective against more persistent shocks that require reallocation across firms and sectors. We conclude that short-time work is an important addition to the labor market policy-toolkit during recessions, to be used alongside unemployment insurance.","PeriodicalId":15611,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Perspectives","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"28","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Economic Perspectives","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.36.2.29","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 28
Abstract
What is the most efficient way to respond to recessions in the labor market? To this question, policymakers on the two sides of the pond gave diametrically opposed answers during the COVID-19 crisis. In the United States, the focus was on insuring workers by increasing the generosity of unemployment insurance. In Europe, instead, policies were concentrated on saving jobs, with the expansion of short-time work programs to subsidize labor hoarding. Who got it right? In this article, we show that far from being substitutes, unemployment insurance and short-time work exhibit strong complementarities. They provide insurance to different types of workers and against different types of shocks. Short-time work can be effective at reducing socially costly layoffs against large temporary shocks, but it is less effective against more persistent shocks that require reallocation across firms and sectors. We conclude that short-time work is an important addition to the labor market policy-toolkit during recessions, to be used alongside unemployment insurance.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Economic Perspectives (JEP) bridges the gap between general interest press and typical academic economics journals. It aims to publish articles that synthesize economic research, analyze public policy issues, encourage interdisciplinary thinking, and offer accessible insights into state-of-the-art economic concepts. The journal also serves to suggest future research directions, provide materials for classroom use, and address issues within the economics profession. Articles are typically solicited by editors and associate editors, and proposals for topics and authors can be directed to the journal office.