Page 85 - ePaper
P. 85
Chapter 1: The legacy of the crisis: resilience and challenges
Chart 72 illustrates the amount of ben- Chart 73: Unemployment benefit coverage
efits received by a single person during of short-term and long-term unemployed
the early stages of unemployment, and
after they have been unemployed for Short-term unemployed
more than 12 months, which shows how 90
replacement rates vary with the dura- 80 2007 2010 2013
tion of unemployment. Such variations 70
between countries are even greater for 60
very long spells of unemployment with 50
many Member States providing only lim - %
ited support while others maintain high 40
levels of income replacement. Likewise, 30
entitlement rules vary greatly across 20
Member States, whatever the level of 10
benefits, and the share of the unem- 0
ployed who actually receive unemploy- IT RO PL MT SK HR BG SE CY LT LV SI EL HU UK LU CZ EE PT ES FR DK FI BE DE AT EU-25
ment benefits, as reported through the
EU-LFS, illustrates this diversity.
Long-term unemployed
100
The level and efficiency of the sup- 90 2007 2010 2013
port provided by unemployment benefit 80
schemes depends on their design and 70
the degree to which they are conditional 60
on engaging in activation measures. %
Between 2011 and 2013 almost a third 50
of Member States (including Belgium, 40
Spain, Italy, Croatia, Slovenia and United 30
Kingdom) modified their unemployment 20
benefit arrangements primarily by: tight - 10
ening eligibility requirements, reducing 0 CZ CY BG PL SK IT LV EE EL SI HR RO SE LT LU HU ES PT MT FR UK DK BE DE FI AT EU-25
the amount of benefits received, intro-
ducing means testing, making them
conditional on undertaking active job Source: Eurostat, EU-LFS, DG EMPL calculations.
searches and linking the level of ben- Note: IE, HR and NL: not covered. No data for UK in 2010. STU stands for short-term unemployed
(less than 12 months) and LTU stands for long-term unemployed (unemployed 12 months or more).
efits to the duration of unemployment EU-25 =EU-28 minus NL, IE, UK (and AT in 2013). The coverage rate is the ratio of the unemployed
(EMCO 2014). who received unemployment benefits or assistance and those who did not receive them in each
category of unemployment duration (STU and LTU).
These changes impacted more on the
long-term unemployed than on the effectiveness of the unemployment ben- Germany, the Netherlands and Poland),
short-term unemployed (Chart 73) with efits scheme in protecting people against often following collective bargaining
coverage rates in 2013 for the long-term income shocks, but also imply a limited negotiations. Given that these countries
unemployment across the EU as a whole stabilisation impact on the economy. are among those whose labour markets
being some 11 pps below pre-crisis Likewise, the level of income support proved relatively more resilient to the
levels, although this average outcome will also impact on the effectiveness of recession, they highlight the contribu-
resulted from reductions in 12 Mem- activation schemes. tion of well-designed unemployment
ber States against increases in 13 Mem - benefit arrangements. In particular, the
ber States. This compared with no overall Expansionary measures that increased introduction of partial unemployment
change for the short-term unemployed the opportunity to claim unemployment benefits is seen to have been an impor-
in the EU as a whole but, again, these benefits have included a reduction in the tant policy innovation that helped many
results reflect reductions in 8 Mem- required period of contribution in order Member States weather the recession
ber States and increases in 17 others. to be eligible (e.g. Latvia) and the exten- (ILO 2014a; more detail in Section 5.4.2).
Member States with the most generous sion of unemployment benefits to new
length of unemployment benefits, such categories such as non-regular work- On the other hand, contraction
as Belgium, Germany and Finland, saw ers (e.g. Germany), the self-employed measures taken during the recession
increased take-up by the unemployed, (e.g. Austria), or those who would oth- included: tightening entitlement condi-
with increased coverage for the long- erwise have exhausted their rights tions for unemployment benefits (e.g. Ire -
term unemployed as they became aware (e.g. Latvia, Spain; ILO, 2014a). Some land, United Kingdom); an increase in
of the possibilities and the need to utilise Member States increased the levels of the number of contributions needed in
them due to their prolonged unemploy- benefits or provided one-off benefits to order to qualify (e.g. Ireland); reductions
ment duration. some groups (e.g. France, United King- in the maximum length of period for
dom). Partial unemployment benefits in receiving unemployment benefits (e.g.
Low coverage rates, and low ben- order to maintain people in their existing Czech Republic, Portugal); and reduction
efit rates, not only reflect a lack of jobs were also introduced (e.g. France, in their levels (e.g. Romania) (ILO 2014a).
83
Chart 72 illustrates the amount of ben- Chart 73: Unemployment benefit coverage
efits received by a single person during of short-term and long-term unemployed
the early stages of unemployment, and
after they have been unemployed for Short-term unemployed
more than 12 months, which shows how 90
replacement rates vary with the dura- 80 2007 2010 2013
tion of unemployment. Such variations 70
between countries are even greater for 60
very long spells of unemployment with 50
many Member States providing only lim - %
ited support while others maintain high 40
levels of income replacement. Likewise, 30
entitlement rules vary greatly across 20
Member States, whatever the level of 10
benefits, and the share of the unem- 0
ployed who actually receive unemploy- IT RO PL MT SK HR BG SE CY LT LV SI EL HU UK LU CZ EE PT ES FR DK FI BE DE AT EU-25
ment benefits, as reported through the
EU-LFS, illustrates this diversity.
Long-term unemployed
100
The level and efficiency of the sup- 90 2007 2010 2013
port provided by unemployment benefit 80
schemes depends on their design and 70
the degree to which they are conditional 60
on engaging in activation measures. %
Between 2011 and 2013 almost a third 50
of Member States (including Belgium, 40
Spain, Italy, Croatia, Slovenia and United 30
Kingdom) modified their unemployment 20
benefit arrangements primarily by: tight - 10
ening eligibility requirements, reducing 0 CZ CY BG PL SK IT LV EE EL SI HR RO SE LT LU HU ES PT MT FR UK DK BE DE FI AT EU-25
the amount of benefits received, intro-
ducing means testing, making them
conditional on undertaking active job Source: Eurostat, EU-LFS, DG EMPL calculations.
searches and linking the level of ben- Note: IE, HR and NL: not covered. No data for UK in 2010. STU stands for short-term unemployed
(less than 12 months) and LTU stands for long-term unemployed (unemployed 12 months or more).
efits to the duration of unemployment EU-25 =EU-28 minus NL, IE, UK (and AT in 2013). The coverage rate is the ratio of the unemployed
(EMCO 2014). who received unemployment benefits or assistance and those who did not receive them in each
category of unemployment duration (STU and LTU).
These changes impacted more on the
long-term unemployed than on the effectiveness of the unemployment ben- Germany, the Netherlands and Poland),
short-term unemployed (Chart 73) with efits scheme in protecting people against often following collective bargaining
coverage rates in 2013 for the long-term income shocks, but also imply a limited negotiations. Given that these countries
unemployment across the EU as a whole stabilisation impact on the economy. are among those whose labour markets
being some 11 pps below pre-crisis Likewise, the level of income support proved relatively more resilient to the
levels, although this average outcome will also impact on the effectiveness of recession, they highlight the contribu-
resulted from reductions in 12 Mem- activation schemes. tion of well-designed unemployment
ber States against increases in 13 Mem - benefit arrangements. In particular, the
ber States. This compared with no overall Expansionary measures that increased introduction of partial unemployment
change for the short-term unemployed the opportunity to claim unemployment benefits is seen to have been an impor-
in the EU as a whole but, again, these benefits have included a reduction in the tant policy innovation that helped many
results reflect reductions in 8 Mem- required period of contribution in order Member States weather the recession
ber States and increases in 17 others. to be eligible (e.g. Latvia) and the exten- (ILO 2014a; more detail in Section 5.4.2).
Member States with the most generous sion of unemployment benefits to new
length of unemployment benefits, such categories such as non-regular work- On the other hand, contraction
as Belgium, Germany and Finland, saw ers (e.g. Germany), the self-employed measures taken during the recession
increased take-up by the unemployed, (e.g. Austria), or those who would oth- included: tightening entitlement condi-
with increased coverage for the long- erwise have exhausted their rights tions for unemployment benefits (e.g. Ire -
term unemployed as they became aware (e.g. Latvia, Spain; ILO, 2014a). Some land, United Kingdom); an increase in
of the possibilities and the need to utilise Member States increased the levels of the number of contributions needed in
them due to their prolonged unemploy- benefits or provided one-off benefits to order to qualify (e.g. Ireland); reductions
ment duration. some groups (e.g. France, United King- in the maximum length of period for
dom). Partial unemployment benefits in receiving unemployment benefits (e.g.
Low coverage rates, and low ben- order to maintain people in their existing Czech Republic, Portugal); and reduction
efit rates, not only reflect a lack of jobs were also introduced (e.g. France, in their levels (e.g. Romania) (ILO 2014a).
83
