Does job search work?

History suggests plans to make the jobless look harder for jobs might not work.
This new paper by Barbara Petrongolo studied the impact of the introduction of Jobseekers Allowance in 1996, which required the unemployed to search harder for jobs.
She found that tougher search requirements did succeed in getting people off unemployment benefits initially.
But she found that the people subjected to the tougher rules worked fewer hours 12 months later, and those that were in work earned less than those who had been subject to the less stringent Unemployment Benefit rules.
Tougher search requirements, she says “were not successful in getting people into new, lasting jobs.”
One reason for this is that they tempted people to take the first job that came along, rather than wait for ones for which they were more suited. The upshot was that people went into low-earning work, or jobs that didn’t last.
Also, many of those who left unemployment either went onto incapacity benefit or into the black economy.
This research corroborates what we all suspect - that the idea that benefit reform will get a million people into work is just phooey, except perhaps in the sense that the work is very temporary.
But then, unless James Purnell is very stupid, his reforms are only a box-ticking exercise intended to placate right -wingers.

Comments

[Charlieman]

When jobs are in short supply, those who have a relatively secure one are going to be less inclined to apply for an alternative. Swapping jobs may even be beneficial to the national economy. But an authoritative welfare regime will discourage job swapping further -- better to stay where you are than take a risk.

[kinglear]

The sad thing is that this government only thinks in terms of ticking boxes ( the Baby P) case is a classic example - every box was endlessly ticked and look what happened)

[Rohan]

As much as I admire your posts on other subjects you're talking rubbish on welfare reform as per normal.

Firstly the million people into work is meant to come from Incapacity Benefit recipients (of which there are 2.6 million or so).

This study from the PSI & IFS(http://www.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rports2007-2008/rrep435.pdf) shows that the main intervention to increase requirements on recipients (they had to attend 6 interviews) led to a sutained increase in a person's chances of employment. The increase was from 28% to 35% chance of work 18 months after coming onto benefits.

The White Paper appears to suggest the number of interviews that incapacity benefit claimants will need to attend will double, and in addition they will be required to undertake some training or other preperation for returning to work. that would seem to be a logical extension of a policy that has been shown (after a long term study) to work.

I'd call that a fairly sensible and well thought out approach but seeing as your thinking on welfare reform doen't go much beyond an ill defined citizans income (not payable to migrants) I suppose you must be right.

Whether the changes will make a difference of one million by 2015 is more doubtful but there is likely to be a considerable impact given the available evidence.

Also the concept of a job that 'suits'a person is patronising in the extreme. I don't work in my job because it 'suits me' - I work to support myself and my family. And I'm glad i do. I also think it is fair that in return for receiving benefits people should be asked to take steps that help them engage with the labour market. And it would seem that is a widely supported view. Democracy hey? What a bitch.

[jameshigham]

In the interim, I wonder if there could not be a two tier incentive scheme. those willing to work and retrain would get a higher rate of benefit.

[Bruce]

It will create employment. There are lots of extra government jobs involved in its implementation. Jobs that previously unemployed people would be well-qualified to do, perhaps.

[Braindrained]

"The upshot was that people went into low-earning work, or jobs that didn’t last."

Look love, when you dumped a mixed economy for a 'service economy' based solely in the London and SE England, i.e. the most expensive area of the country, you (the voters, not you personally!) destroyed pretty much everything that was not low-earning, temporary work. You now have a 'coolie' economy based on an ever-increasing number of immigrants from poor countries, who are the only people desperate enough to be tempted by crap jobs and wages offered by the Arfur Daleys. Needless to say they soon realise they can't survive any better than the natives on crap pay, so each wave of immigrants gravitates (like the natives) to welfare, the black economy or crime, to be replaced by the next wave of desperate third-worlders, who soon realise ..., and so on. The only ones (native Brit or recent emigrant)who have the skills, energy and survival skills emigrate to less insane countries. I meet plenty of brown and white skinned Britons here in Australia. Now we have to stop our own greedy, short-sighted politicians panting to lead us down the same primrose path to perdition.

[SearchPeople]

That makes no sense to make it harder to find and get jobs and yet have layed back unemployment rules and regulations. I think most people will take the path of least resistance.

[job search]

The government doesn't seem to be very keen on the life of the people.
job search
http://www.jobofmine.com/

[Jeff]

The bottom line is job seekers need to expand on the tools they use to find a job, including contacting companies and hiring managers directly.

Jeff,

http://www.jobsearchpage.com

[Job Tips]

If certain people want to be enabled, living off unemployment and just plain being lazy, that's them. It's a burden the workforce will have to carry. Me, I cannot imagine that kind of mentality, that kind of life, I would want to move up. So job search is a great tool for those of us that do want to find a job!
http://www.browselocaljobs.com/