Evaluation of the Australian Wage Subsidy Special Youth ...

Evaluation of the Australian Wage Subsidy Special Youth ... Evaluation of the Australian Wage Subsidy Special Youth ...

02.06.2014 Views

30 2.1 Review of Australian wage subsidy evaluation evidence The brief overseas review in the first chapter showed relatively few evaluations of wage subsidies exist, and empirical evidence for wage subsidies is not well founded. As this section will show, wage subsidy programs in Australia also have little publicly available evaluation evidence. Microeconomic evaluation is selected, using individual data, addressing the issue of whether the subsidy leads to better employment experience for participants after the program ends. The evidence is limited to published items that can be accessed by the public. Only recent evidence is compiled, corresponding approximately to the period starting with the 1980’s and onward, since this is the period of the later analysis. However it becomes evident in reviewing the literature that in fact most programs only started within the 1970’s, and publicly available evaluation work occurred mostly in the mid-1980’s and l990’s. Paterson (1982) in discussing evaluation activities in Australia pointed out that “…In Australia government involvement in the area of manpower programs is a relatively new phenomenon. Experience with manpower program evaluation is therefore limited.” (Paterson (1982): 1). The timing of this statement marked the general beginning of Australian evaluation activities and publications. Wage subsidies form only a part of the array of labour market programs available, and so evaluation of these in turn forms only a small part of the existing Australian evaluation literature available. Evaluation evidence for other program types such as training for Australia can be found generally reviewed in Webster (1998, 1997a). Although subsidised apprenticeships were available, for example CRAFT (Commonwealth Rebate for Apprenticeship Full-time Training), these are not dealt with as they are deemed to be mostly a training subsidy. 4 Also not covered are programs with 4 In support of this, in references such as Kesteven (1987) and Hoy (1983) they are categorized as education programs. The design did allow for a small amount of on-the-job training. For example Merrilees (1984) refers to wage subsidies in CRAFT for this reason, however the grand focus was apprenticeship training.

31 limited applications, such as for special needs groups only, for example the disabled or Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. This is because the limited application means such programs were not reasonably comparable i.e. a wage subsidy targeted to a reasonable extent of the population as the SYETP was. Because so few wage subsidy evaluations exist, some information about the existence of other wage subsidy programs in Australia is also provided even if no evaluation evidence could be found for them. SYETP is covered separately in the next section. However, SYETP was the first widespread wage subsidy program applied in Australia and so also the first wage subsidy program in Australia for which evaluation attempts were made. SYETP was not the only employment based program of ‘work experience’ available that was subsidy based, in 1983. Other, usually brief programmes, have also operated, sometimes alongside SYETP. SYETP was however by far the largest subsidy, making up 69.2 cent of all new programme placements (flow only) in 1980/81 (BLMR (1983) p16, table 3.1, final column). More recently, other subsidy programmes have been evaluated and the details of these are now presented. 2.1.1 Adult Wage Subsidy Scheme The list of labour market programmes compiled by Routley (1984) describes the Adult Wage Subsidy Scheme (AWSS), which was introduced during 1983. This programme briefly coexisted with SYETP within the National Employment and Training System (NEAT), an active labour market programme combining training and wage subsidies. Chapman (1985) p101 points out that AWSS was introduced by the outgoing Fraser Liberal government in response to the Australian recession starting after 1981, and initially retained by the incoming Hawke Labour government. Subsidies in amounts of up to $125 per week, for an up to 52 week period, were available to long term unemployed, further defined as “…adults who have been unemployed for a lengthy period” (Routley (1984): 3). BLMR (June 1984) p168 indicates that AWSS operated in a similar fashion to the extended SYETP in 1983-4, with a 17 week period at $100 per week followed by another 17 week period at $75 per week. Those aged over 24 with 8 of the last 12 months registered with the CES as unemployed and away from full-time education were eligible.

30<br />

2.1 Review <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australian</strong> wage subsidy evaluation evidence<br />

The brief overseas review in <strong>the</strong> first chapter showed relatively few evaluations <strong>of</strong> wage<br />

subsidies exist, and empirical evidence for wage subsidies is not well founded. As this<br />

section will show, wage subsidy programs in Australia also have little publicly available<br />

evaluation evidence. Microeconomic evaluation is selected, using individual data,<br />

addressing <strong>the</strong> issue <strong>of</strong> whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> subsidy leads to better employment experience for<br />

participants after <strong>the</strong> program ends. The evidence is limited to published items that can be<br />

accessed by <strong>the</strong> public.<br />

Only recent evidence is compiled, corresponding approximately to <strong>the</strong> period starting<br />

with <strong>the</strong> 1980’s and onward, since this is <strong>the</strong> period <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> later analysis. However it<br />

becomes evident in reviewing <strong>the</strong> literature that in fact most programs only started within<br />

<strong>the</strong> 1970’s, and publicly available evaluation work occurred mostly in <strong>the</strong> mid-1980’s<br />

and l990’s. Paterson (1982) in discussing evaluation activities in Australia pointed out<br />

that “…In Australia government involvement in <strong>the</strong> area <strong>of</strong> manpower programs is a<br />

relatively new phenomenon. Experience with manpower program evaluation is <strong>the</strong>refore<br />

limited.” (Paterson (1982): 1). The timing <strong>of</strong> this statement marked <strong>the</strong> general beginning<br />

<strong>of</strong> <strong>Australian</strong> evaluation activities and publications.<br />

<strong>Wage</strong> subsidies form only a part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> array <strong>of</strong> labour market programs available, and so<br />

evaluation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se in turn forms only a small part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> existing <strong>Australian</strong> evaluation<br />

literature available. <strong>Evaluation</strong> evidence for o<strong>the</strong>r program types such as training for<br />

Australia can be found generally reviewed in Webster (1998, 1997a).<br />

Although subsidised apprenticeships were available, for example CRAFT<br />

(Commonwealth Rebate for Apprenticeship Full-time Training), <strong>the</strong>se are not dealt with<br />

as <strong>the</strong>y are deemed to be mostly a training subsidy. 4 Also not covered are programs with<br />

4 In support <strong>of</strong> this, in references such as Kesteven (1987) and Hoy (1983) <strong>the</strong>y are categorized as<br />

education programs. The design did allow for a small amount <strong>of</strong> on-<strong>the</strong>-job training. For example Merrilees<br />

(1984) refers to wage subsidies in CRAFT for this reason, however <strong>the</strong> grand focus was apprenticeship<br />

training.

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!