Page 86 - ePaper
P. 86
Employment and Social Developments in Europe 2014
Some Member States also decided to Chart 74: Change in the qualifying conditions
link the payment of unemployment ben- for unemployment benefits, 2007–14
efits more closely to activation through
ALMP in order to help and encourage those 100
affected to return to employment quickly. 80
The changes included introducing job seek - 60
ing obligations (e.g. Spain, United King -
dom), compulsory participation in training 40
and other ALMP for certain categories (e.g. Number of weeks 20
Spain, United Kingdom), and stricter sanc- 0
tions for those who refused offers (e.g.
Ireland) (ILO 2014a). -20
-40
The eligibility criteria and the minimum and -60
maximum duration periods are among the AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK
important design features affecting out -
comes. These criteria can be tailored to Sources: MISSOC.
address different objectives. In the United
Kingdom, for example, changes went in
different directions for different aspects Chart 75: Change in the duration of unemployment
— increasing one-off benefits for some benefits for persons with the lowest entitlement, 2007–14
categories, and tightening eligibility and
strengthening conditionality for others. 10
5
A key aspect determining the coverage, 0
stabilisation, protection and investment -5
functions of unemployment benefits
concerns eligibility criteria. In some Mem- Number of months -10
ber States eligibility requirements for -15
obtaining unemployment benefits were -20
relatively relaxed before the recession
(especially in Finland, Greece and Sweden), -25
while in others these had been quite strict -30
(in particular in Lithuania, Portugal and Slo - AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK
vakia). A majority of Member States did not
change the criteria during the crisis, but in Source: MISSOC. *Note that in the case of Slovenia the minimum duration has changed due to a new
category being introduced, so the coverage of the least entitled actually increased.
Denmark, France, Hungary, Italy, Portugal,
Slovakia, Slovenia the criteria were some-
what relaxed, while they were tightened in most vulnerable and those with the lowest all Member States additional schemes of
Ireland and Finland. entitlement was further reduced (Chart 75). social assistance are available, in the form
Only in Italy was the minimum duration of of means-tested benefits, to help them sus -
Across the EU as a whole the proportion unemployment benefits extended for the tain living standards, albeit minimal in some
of the long-term unemployed receiving most vulnerable unemployed categories. Member States. However, social assistance
unemployment benefits fell slightly during schemes are increasingly associated with
the recession, although this overall result The increased coverage of the unemployed activation schemes (job-search support,
was mainly due to substantial reductions with unemployment benefits in Italy in the access to training, individualised support) to
in coverage rates in Sweden, Slovenia and 2010–13 period (Chart 73) was most encourage and support a return to employ-
Hungary. The overall proportion of short- likely a result of the relaxing of eligibility ment wherever possible.
term unemployed persons receiving ben - requirements and of an increase in the
efits remained more or less the same during minimum duration of benefits during the Unfortunately, in some Member States,
the crisis, but with substantial reductions crisis. Others who also relaxed their eligibil- a significant share of people in need of
in Hungary (–15pps) and Sweden (–7pps) ity requirements but reduced the duration income support (working-age people in
against considerable increases in Estonia of their unemployment benefits experi - jobless households that are also poor)
(+20pps), Spain (+12pps) and Lithuania enced a reduction in coverage (e.g. Portugal do not receive standard benefits (unem -
(+10pps). and Slovakia) ( 110 ). ployment benefits, social assistance) and
are at greater risk of long-term exclusion
In most Member States the duration of The longer people stay out of employment, (Chart 77). Despite the fact that all coun-
unemployment benefits for the people with the more entitlements they lose. In nearly tries have now introduced links to activa-
the lowest entitlement (either because of tion in national legislation, the coverage
periods of contribution, type of contract or ( ) No conclusion available for Ireland and the of social assistance remains very low in
110
age) has not changed since the onset of Netherlands due to no data on coverage of some countries, which is likely to under -
the recession. Nevertheless, in a number unemployment benefits. Denmark managed to mine efforts supporting the return of the
increase its coverage whilst also reducing the
of countries the minimum duration for the very long length of its unemployment benefits. most excluded to work.
84
Some Member States also decided to Chart 74: Change in the qualifying conditions
link the payment of unemployment ben- for unemployment benefits, 2007–14
efits more closely to activation through
ALMP in order to help and encourage those 100
affected to return to employment quickly. 80
The changes included introducing job seek - 60
ing obligations (e.g. Spain, United King -
dom), compulsory participation in training 40
and other ALMP for certain categories (e.g. Number of weeks 20
Spain, United Kingdom), and stricter sanc- 0
tions for those who refused offers (e.g.
Ireland) (ILO 2014a). -20
-40
The eligibility criteria and the minimum and -60
maximum duration periods are among the AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK
important design features affecting out -
comes. These criteria can be tailored to Sources: MISSOC.
address different objectives. In the United
Kingdom, for example, changes went in
different directions for different aspects Chart 75: Change in the duration of unemployment
— increasing one-off benefits for some benefits for persons with the lowest entitlement, 2007–14
categories, and tightening eligibility and
strengthening conditionality for others. 10
5
A key aspect determining the coverage, 0
stabilisation, protection and investment -5
functions of unemployment benefits
concerns eligibility criteria. In some Mem- Number of months -10
ber States eligibility requirements for -15
obtaining unemployment benefits were -20
relatively relaxed before the recession
(especially in Finland, Greece and Sweden), -25
while in others these had been quite strict -30
(in particular in Lithuania, Portugal and Slo - AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK
vakia). A majority of Member States did not
change the criteria during the crisis, but in Source: MISSOC. *Note that in the case of Slovenia the minimum duration has changed due to a new
category being introduced, so the coverage of the least entitled actually increased.
Denmark, France, Hungary, Italy, Portugal,
Slovakia, Slovenia the criteria were some-
what relaxed, while they were tightened in most vulnerable and those with the lowest all Member States additional schemes of
Ireland and Finland. entitlement was further reduced (Chart 75). social assistance are available, in the form
Only in Italy was the minimum duration of of means-tested benefits, to help them sus -
Across the EU as a whole the proportion unemployment benefits extended for the tain living standards, albeit minimal in some
of the long-term unemployed receiving most vulnerable unemployed categories. Member States. However, social assistance
unemployment benefits fell slightly during schemes are increasingly associated with
the recession, although this overall result The increased coverage of the unemployed activation schemes (job-search support,
was mainly due to substantial reductions with unemployment benefits in Italy in the access to training, individualised support) to
in coverage rates in Sweden, Slovenia and 2010–13 period (Chart 73) was most encourage and support a return to employ-
Hungary. The overall proportion of short- likely a result of the relaxing of eligibility ment wherever possible.
term unemployed persons receiving ben - requirements and of an increase in the
efits remained more or less the same during minimum duration of benefits during the Unfortunately, in some Member States,
the crisis, but with substantial reductions crisis. Others who also relaxed their eligibil- a significant share of people in need of
in Hungary (–15pps) and Sweden (–7pps) ity requirements but reduced the duration income support (working-age people in
against considerable increases in Estonia of their unemployment benefits experi - jobless households that are also poor)
(+20pps), Spain (+12pps) and Lithuania enced a reduction in coverage (e.g. Portugal do not receive standard benefits (unem -
(+10pps). and Slovakia) ( 110 ). ployment benefits, social assistance) and
are at greater risk of long-term exclusion
In most Member States the duration of The longer people stay out of employment, (Chart 77). Despite the fact that all coun-
unemployment benefits for the people with the more entitlements they lose. In nearly tries have now introduced links to activa-
the lowest entitlement (either because of tion in national legislation, the coverage
periods of contribution, type of contract or ( ) No conclusion available for Ireland and the of social assistance remains very low in
110
age) has not changed since the onset of Netherlands due to no data on coverage of some countries, which is likely to under -
the recession. Nevertheless, in a number unemployment benefits. Denmark managed to mine efforts supporting the return of the
increase its coverage whilst also reducing the
of countries the minimum duration for the very long length of its unemployment benefits. most excluded to work.
84
