- Page 1: i Evaluation of the Australian Wage
- Page 6 and 7: vi The job subsidy Special Youth Em
- Page 8 and 9: Table of contents Table of contents
- Page 10 and 11: 6.3 Discussion.....................
- Page 12 and 13: Table 5.2 Summary statistics for at
- Page 14 and 15: xiv Glossary ABS Australian Bureau
- Page 16 and 17: xvi validity for the robustness of
- Page 18 and 19: 2 The first study presented in Chap
- Page 20 and 21: 4 subsidies were not separately eva
- Page 22 and 23: 6 available. For example, in Austra
- Page 24 and 25: 8 (1) applying to all of a firm’s
- Page 26 and 27: 10 The labour market for low-skill
- Page 28 and 29: 12 The labour demand in a period th
- Page 30 and 31: 14 employed anyway. The displacemen
- Page 32 and 33: 16 coefficients in the model. As be
- Page 34 and 35: 18 and the possible impact of repea
- Page 36 and 37: 20 This identifying assumption is v
- Page 38 and 39: 22 1.3.4 Observables and unobservab
- Page 40 and 41: 24 was carried out. In this respect
- Page 42 and 43: 26 environments. As the former sect
- Page 44 and 45: 28 2: Australian literature review
- Page 46 and 47: 30 2.1 Review of Australian wage su
- Page 48 and 49: 32 For those aged over 45 and simil
- Page 50 and 51: 34 showed employment entry flows fo
- Page 52 and 53:
36 out that in 1989-90 there were s
- Page 54 and 55:
38 accepted part of the labour mark
- Page 56 and 57:
40 working, looking for work and ab
- Page 58 and 59:
42 targeted minority groups. The SY
- Page 60 and 61:
44 characteristics of the programme
- Page 62 and 63:
46 Table 2.3 Average junior award r
- Page 64 and 65:
48 eligibility for programmes. Elig
- Page 66 and 67:
50 Table 2.4 SYETP rates, period an
- Page 68 and 69:
52 15-24…employers are expected t
- Page 70 and 71:
54 or on the general CES vacancy di
- Page 72 and 73:
56 Hawke Government, a Labour gover
- Page 74 and 75:
58 Table 2.6 SYETP annual expenditu
- Page 76 and 77:
60 the CES. In support of this they
- Page 78 and 79:
62 A regional analysis of NSW regis
- Page 80 and 81:
64 Table 2.10 Average duration of u
- Page 82 and 83:
66 Table 2.11 Unemployment, labour
- Page 84 and 85:
68 earnings between juniors and adu
- Page 86 and 87:
70 Many of the labour market featur
- Page 88 and 89:
72 additionally noted that the aver
- Page 90 and 91:
74 Table 2.15 Distribution of SYETP
- Page 92 and 93:
76 Table 2.16 Completion of SYETP p
- Page 94 and 95:
78 For the placement data, higher c
- Page 96 and 97:
80 who completed job-based programm
- Page 98 and 99:
82 SYETP at 53.6 per cent, 45.6 per
- Page 100 and 101:
84 Table 2.19 Baker (1984) Estimate
- Page 102 and 103:
86 still much lower for the most-di
- Page 104 and 105:
88 participant, were excluded from
- Page 106 and 107:
90 An advantage over earlier SYETP
- Page 108 and 109:
92 However, the Richardson (1998) e
- Page 110 and 111:
94 3: Study 1 Replication In this s
- Page 112 and 113:
96 those who did not. Modelling onl
- Page 114 and 115:
98 Φ = cumulative distribution fun
- Page 116 and 117:
100 possible the same people with w
- Page 118 and 119:
102 which the employment equation w
- Page 120 and 121:
104 the quality of this enabled the
- Page 122 and 123:
106 (-4.19) (-4.20) Longest job by
- Page 124 and 125:
108 Table 3.1 Part B Selection/part
- Page 126 and 127:
110 (2.26) (2.26) Sales 0.190 0.190
- Page 128 and 129:
112 4.1 Differences between the tre
- Page 130 and 131:
114 Table 4.1 Difference between tr
- Page 132 and 133:
116 4.3 Theory underlying propensit
- Page 134 and 135:
118 The treatment parameter, θ, ca
- Page 136 and 137:
120 method is also known as the sin
- Page 138 and 139:
122 In finding a counterfactual mat
- Page 140 and 141:
124 It is interesting to look at th
- Page 142 and 143:
126 (0.33) Not employed -0.39 (1.08
- Page 144 and 145:
128 4.7 Common support for the trea
- Page 146 and 147:
130 10 Treated propensity scores, U
- Page 148 and 149:
132 4.8 Results of Matching: one-to
- Page 150 and 151:
134 In general, all the results pas
- Page 152 and 153:
136 4.8.2 Mean standardised bias st
- Page 154 and 155:
138 calculation for age is very low
- Page 156 and 157:
140 As would be expected where the
- Page 158 and 159:
142 Table 4.8 Employment effects of
- Page 160 and 161:
144 might give an approximation mea
- Page 162 and 163:
146 of the SYETP treatment group, t
- Page 164 and 165:
148 (6) a i * = d ‘ R i + ε i wh
- Page 166 and 167:
150 indicated that even significant
- Page 168 and 169:
152 Richardson (1998) is then exten
- Page 170 and 171:
154 interview date, those who ever
- Page 172 and 173:
156 natural attrition have missing
- Page 174 and 175:
158 s.d. Those Table 5.2 Summary st
- Page 176 and 177:
160 5.5.3 Sample reduction by SYETP
- Page 178 and 179:
162 Table 5.3 Summary statistics of
- Page 180 and 181:
164 5.5.3.2 The effect of sample re
- Page 182 and 183:
166 Table 5.4 Difference between tr
- Page 184 and 185:
168 been higher, and the location o
- Page 186 and 187:
170 Table 5.5 Summary statistics fo
- Page 188 and 189:
172 5.6 Accounting for non-response
- Page 190 and 191:
174 The greatest effect of the weig
- Page 192 and 193:
176 5.6.1 Survey design and non-res
- Page 194 and 195:
178 Table 5.5a draws a distinction
- Page 196 and 197:
180 The first group of cases droppe
- Page 198 and 199:
182 Father manager, professional, 0
- Page 200 and 201:
184 Table 5.8 Probit of SYETP parti
- Page 202 and 203:
186 professional (0.60) (0.83) (0.7
- Page 204 and 205:
188 weighting, both the weighted (c
- Page 206 and 207:
190 outcomes and SYETP participatio
- Page 208 and 209:
192 5.8 Model of the probability of
- Page 210 and 211:
194 Table 5.9: Probit results used
- Page 212 and 213:
196 5.9 Attrition Weights from the
- Page 214 and 215:
198 Table 5.10: Performance of attr
- Page 216 and 217:
200 reduced the need to account for
- Page 218 and 219:
202 duration of Pre-June 1984 unemp
- Page 220 and 221:
204 Table 6.1, Part B Selection/par
- Page 222 and 223:
206 resp 14 (1.66) (1.27) Catholic
- Page 224 and 225:
208 6.2.2 Effects of weighting PSM
- Page 226 and 227:
210 reasonable for smaller calipers
- Page 228 and 229:
(0.02) Longest job by 1984 none lon
- Page 230 and 231:
214 1 1 Fra ctio n .5 Fra ctio n .5
- Page 232 and 233:
216 10 Treated propensity scores, U
- Page 234 and 235:
218 6 Treated propensity scores Unt
- Page 236 and 237:
220 As both the Heckman bivariate p
- Page 238 and 239:
222 7: Study 5 Sensitivity analysis
- Page 240 and 241:
224 heteroskedasticity of the resid
- Page 242 and 243:
226 (0.32) (0.32) (0.32) Year 12 of
- Page 244 and 245:
228 Table 7.1, Part B Selection/par
- Page 246 and 247:
230 (-2.14) (-2.14) (-2.41) Mothers
- Page 248 and 249:
232 the employment equation, and th
- Page 250 and 251:
234 this is mostly because there is
- Page 252 and 253:
236 7.2 Varying the Propensity Scor
- Page 254 and 255:
238 Table 7.3 Weighted Probit used
- Page 256 and 257:
240 Manager/professional/paraprofes
- Page 258 and 259:
242 The magnitude of the employment
- Page 260 and 261:
244 Table 7.6 shows the results of
- Page 262 and 263:
246 information, whereas in the old
- Page 264 and 265:
248 analysis was however strongly a
- Page 266 and 267:
250 (1.75) Country town before aged
- Page 268 and 269:
252 Treated propensity scores, Epan
- Page 270 and 271:
254 separate these from the wide di
- Page 272 and 273:
256 A series of empirical studies w
- Page 274 and 275:
258 evaluations, as shown in the re
- Page 276 and 277:
260 Appendix 1 Data appendix Table
- Page 278 and 279:
262 Description Derivation and deta
- Page 280 and 281:
264 Table A2.0a Univariate probit f
- Page 282 and 283:
266 Not employed -0.08 -0.02 (0.41)
- Page 284 and 285:
(1.32) (1.32) CEP referrals 1984 0.
- Page 286 and 287:
270 Table A2.1 Means and bias after
- Page 288 and 289:
272 mtrad Tradesperson 0.03 0.02 0.
- Page 290 and 291:
274 hq9_84 Year 9 of school or less
- Page 292 and 293:
276 Table A2.2 Applying Different m
- Page 294 and 295:
278 (1.62) (1.30) (1.46) (1.01) Sal
- Page 296 and 297:
280 (0.04) (0.43) (0.66) (0.17) 3 y
- Page 298 and 299:
282 Table A2.4 Summary statistics f
- Page 300 and 301:
1 year 0.06 (1.70) 2 years 0.06 (1.
- Page 302 and 303:
286 Table A2.5b Univariate probit o
- Page 304 and 305:
288 Mother post-school qualificatio
- Page 306 and 307:
290 Father 0.24 1.13 0.259 Manager/
- Page 308 and 309:
292 Father Plant operative -0.15 -0
- Page 310 and 311:
294 Father Tradesperson -0.16 -0.71
- Page 312 and 313:
296 Father Plant operative -0.15 -0
- Page 314 and 315:
298 Father Plant operative 0.16 0.7
- Page 316 and 317:
300 Father Plant operative -0.16 -0
- Page 318 and 319:
302 Bibliography AIMA (1985) "Reduc
- Page 320 and 321:
Friedlander, D.; Greenberg, D.H. an
- Page 322 and 323:
Gujurati, D.N. (1988) "Basic Econom
- Page 324 and 325:
Kesteven, S. (1987) "Commonwealth e
- Page 326 and 327:
Merrilees, W.J. (1984) "Do Wage sub
- Page 328 and 329:
Schmertmann, C. P. (1994) "Selectiv
- Page 330:
314