Evaluation of the Australian Wage Subsidy Special Youth ...
Evaluation of the Australian Wage Subsidy Special Youth ... Evaluation of the Australian Wage Subsidy Special Youth ...
90 An advantage over earlier SYETP analyses is that the comparison group was nonparticipants rather than participants in other programmes. This allows the more pertinent question for evaluation to be asked: instead of whether the programme was effective relative to another programme to whether the programme was effective in improving post-programme employment in an absolute sense compared to non-participants. Retention in the post-programme job is addressed through sample selection for those where continuous employment to the end of 1986 was not the case. This has potential to introduce the need to further model the selection process of retention or tenure in the one job, as it may be endogenous. Essentially, it selects a sample with short tenure jobs, and durations are censored at 1986. This might introduce other difficulties related to duration modelling and censoring of spells too. Richardson (1998), in relation to concerns for the sample reduction, examines the means of the retained amongst the treated and comparisons, and the effect on size of the treated sample against that of the comparisons. The conclusion of no bias problems relies on the observation that the retained are a similar share of treated and of comparisons, and that the proportion of SYETP before and after sample reduction is the same. This examination is more related to balance of the retention characteristic in the treated and comparison groups than whether retention is related to participation in SYETP.
91 2.3.5 General discussion Some general observations are apparent in comparing the SYETP analyses. All analyses of SYETP proceeded with survey data to enable the recording of post-programme employment. The earlier analyses of SYETP did not have a non-participant comparison group, whereas the Richardson (1998) analysis did. The results enable a gauge of whether participation in the SYETP programme was effective in improving post-programme employment. All analyses found positive effects. Three key themes emerge from the past analyses of SYETP. These relate to accounting for selection into programme participation, non-response in the observational data used, and controlling for differences in individual characteristics between the comparison and treatment groups. These themes are further developed in the later chapters of this study. In the following discussion, the past SYETP literature is assessed with regard to these points. Richardson (1998) is the evaluation of SYETP motivating this current study. The format of the Richardson (1998) evaluation forms a key basis for our analyses, which are contained in the later chapters starting with the Replication Study. In brief, Richardson used a Heckman bivariate probit which controlled for programme selection to analyse the SYETP using ALS panel data. A strong positive effect on post-programme employment was found. In this review, this evaluation is considered to contain the most sophisticated analysis of SYETP to date, allowing for both programme selection and individual characteristics. This evaluation also showed evidence that accounting for selection into SYETP participation in the modelling of employment was important in two ways: by testing the correlation coefficient and finding it statistically significant; and by showing the comparison to the unadjusted univariate employment results, which were also very different despite the employment equation being otherwise specified identically. The modelling of the effects on employment was the best developed of those evaluations reviewed, since it took into account selection into programme participation.
- Page 55 and 56: 39 differences in characteristics t
- Page 57 and 58: 41 Matching methods are theoretical
- Page 59 and 60: 43 2.2 SYETP implementation As SYET
- Page 61 and 62: 45 In July1978, the subsidy was cal
- Page 63 and 64: 47 In January 1979, variations were
- Page 65 and 66: 49 benefits were paid at a slightly
- Page 67 and 68: 51 2.2.3 SYETP operation Earlier re
- Page 69 and 70: 53 ceiling constraints’ applied t
- Page 71 and 72: 55 Award Conditions for employment
- Page 73 and 74: 57 Harris (2001) claims that during
- Page 75 and 76: 59 display boards listed details of
- Page 77 and 78: 61 restriction was used. If there w
- Page 79 and 80: 63 to the end of the 1980’s. An o
- Page 81 and 82: 65 for teens overall had risen, emp
- Page 83 and 84: 67 for Australia using data from th
- Page 85 and 86: 69 training, can provide a form of
- Page 87 and 88: 71 employer survey estimates were t
- Page 89 and 90: 73 provisions for SYETP and extende
- Page 91 and 92: 75 withdrawals occurred at similar
- Page 93 and 94: 77 Table 2.17 State usage of progra
- Page 95 and 96: 79 2.3.1 Stretton (1982, 1984) 53 S
- Page 97 and 98: 81 Stretton attributed the success
- Page 99 and 100: 83 included in the employment model
- Page 101 and 102: 85 completers. Their argument was t
- Page 103 and 104: 87 was an issue for the data. Unlik
- Page 105: 89 Table 2.21 Richardson (1998) Est
- Page 109 and 110: 93 Controlling for differences in i
- Page 111 and 112: 95 taken by a previous researcher a
- Page 113 and 114: 97 If employability is assumed to b
- Page 115 and 116: 99 suitability of the underlying as
- Page 117 and 118: 101 Heckman, Lalonde and Smith (199
- Page 119 and 120: 103 effect on employment relative t
- Page 121 and 122: 105 Table 3.1, Part A Employment eq
- Page 123 and 124: 107 (-1.80) (-1.80) Tradesperson -0
- Page 125 and 126: 109 duration of Pre-June 1984 unemp
- Page 127 and 128: 111 4: Study 2 Propensity score mat
- Page 129 and 130: 113 Propensity score matching provi
- Page 131 and 132: 115 4.2 Propensity score matching m
- Page 133 and 134: 117 covariates that influence the a
- Page 135 and 136: 119 (7) E(Y c | D=1) = E P(X) {E[Y
- Page 137 and 138: 121 For CIA to be plausible, a ‘r
- Page 139 and 140: 123 employment and programme partic
- Page 141 and 142: Highest qualification in 1984 (1.56
- Page 143 and 144: 127 4.6 Distribution of the propens
- Page 145 and 146: 129 Figure 4.3 Histograms of estima
- Page 147 and 148: 131 Table 4.5 Summary statistics fo
- Page 149 and 150: 133 Table 4.5, that the variance of
- Page 151 and 152: 135 Table 4.6 Matching results, Sin
- Page 153 and 154: 137 Table 6.3 using Swedish data wi
- Page 155 and 156: 139 matching is the ability to weed
91<br />
2.3.5 General discussion<br />
Some general observations are apparent in comparing <strong>the</strong> SYETP analyses. All analyses<br />
<strong>of</strong> SYETP proceeded with survey data to enable <strong>the</strong> recording <strong>of</strong> post-programme<br />
employment. The earlier analyses <strong>of</strong> SYETP did not have a non-participant comparison<br />
group, whereas <strong>the</strong> Richardson (1998) analysis did. The results enable a gauge <strong>of</strong> whe<strong>the</strong>r<br />
participation in <strong>the</strong> SYETP programme was effective in improving post-programme<br />
employment. All analyses found positive effects.<br />
Three key <strong>the</strong>mes emerge from <strong>the</strong> past analyses <strong>of</strong> SYETP. These relate to accounting<br />
for selection into programme participation, non-response in <strong>the</strong> observational data used,<br />
and controlling for differences in individual characteristics between <strong>the</strong> comparison and<br />
treatment groups. These <strong>the</strong>mes are fur<strong>the</strong>r developed in <strong>the</strong> later chapters <strong>of</strong> this study.<br />
In <strong>the</strong> following discussion, <strong>the</strong> past SYETP literature is assessed with regard to <strong>the</strong>se<br />
points.<br />
Richardson (1998) is <strong>the</strong> evaluation <strong>of</strong> SYETP motivating this current study. The format<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Richardson (1998) evaluation forms a key basis for our analyses, which are<br />
contained in <strong>the</strong> later chapters starting with <strong>the</strong> Replication Study. In brief, Richardson<br />
used a Heckman bivariate probit which controlled for programme selection to analyse <strong>the</strong><br />
SYETP using ALS panel data. A strong positive effect on post-programme employment<br />
was found. In this review, this evaluation is considered to contain <strong>the</strong> most sophisticated<br />
analysis <strong>of</strong> SYETP to date, allowing for both programme selection and individual<br />
characteristics. This evaluation also showed evidence that accounting for selection into<br />
SYETP participation in <strong>the</strong> modelling <strong>of</strong> employment was important in two ways: by<br />
testing <strong>the</strong> correlation coefficient and finding it statistically significant; and by showing<br />
<strong>the</strong> comparison to <strong>the</strong> unadjusted univariate employment results, which were also very<br />
different despite <strong>the</strong> employment equation being o<strong>the</strong>rwise specified identically. The<br />
modelling <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> effects on employment was <strong>the</strong> best developed <strong>of</strong> those evaluations<br />
reviewed, since it took into account selection into programme participation.
Change language