02.06.2014 Views

Evaluation of the Australian Wage Subsidy Special Youth ...

Evaluation of the Australian Wage Subsidy Special Youth ...

Evaluation of the Australian Wage Subsidy Special Youth ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

122<br />

In finding a counterfactual match for <strong>the</strong> participant, it is possible that <strong>the</strong>re is no<br />

comparison group individual with a similar propensity score. This is termed <strong>the</strong> common<br />

support problem. The crux <strong>of</strong> common support is <strong>the</strong> identification and removal <strong>of</strong> treated<br />

individuals for which <strong>the</strong> propensity indicates no close match is available in <strong>the</strong><br />

comparison group. Imposing common support ensures that <strong>the</strong> observed characteristics <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>the</strong> participants are close to that <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> non-participants.<br />

4.5 Estimating <strong>the</strong> probability <strong>of</strong> participation for SYETP<br />

Initially, <strong>the</strong> main aim is to repeat <strong>the</strong> formulation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Richardson (1998) specification<br />

as much as possible. In consideration <strong>of</strong> what variables to include in <strong>the</strong> propensity score<br />

estimation, it is <strong>the</strong>n deemed appropriate to apply <strong>the</strong> probit modelling <strong>of</strong> SYETP in as<br />

much as possible <strong>the</strong> same specification used by Richardson (1998).<br />

The results for <strong>the</strong> probit analysis, which is unweighted 80 , are shown in Table 4.2. The<br />

variables, which are all constructed using 1984 data, are: gender, age, marital status,<br />

children, partner’s employment, ethnicity, location, type <strong>of</strong> schooling, qualification level,<br />

longest job held, CEP referrals, proportion <strong>of</strong> time spent unemployed prior to June 1984,<br />

urban/rural area grew up in, number <strong>of</strong> siblings had, standard <strong>of</strong> spoken English, attitude<br />

towards women in work, parental occupation and whe<strong>the</strong>r parent held a post-school<br />

qualification, and religion brought up in. These are all <strong>the</strong> variables in <strong>the</strong> participation<br />

equation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> bivariate probit estimated in chapter 3.<br />

The variables in <strong>the</strong> model are central to <strong>the</strong> credibility <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> CIA. In regard to labour<br />

market evaluation, pre-programme labour market history is considered <strong>the</strong> most<br />

important explanatory variable, and this is part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> model applied here. In addition, <strong>the</strong><br />

family background and attitudinal variables might be considered useful to help capture<br />

o<strong>the</strong>rwise unobservable characteristics such as motivation that could influence<br />

80 The aim here is to find equivalent estimates for <strong>the</strong> bivariate probit model <strong>of</strong> Richardson (1998) using<br />

PSM. Weighting is applied to both models in chapter 6.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!