積極勞動市場的政策組合與再就業成效

The Policy Portfolio of Active Labor Market Policy and its Reemployment Effectiveness

10.30388/BLR.202107_(32).0002

許雲翔(Yun-Hsiang Hsu)；廖興中(Hsin-Chung Liao)

積極勞動市場政策 ； 政策組合 ； 事件時序分析法 ； active labor market policy ； policy portfolio ； event history analysis

政大勞動學報

32期（2021 / 07 / 01）

39 - 72

繁體中文

全球化的推進使各國受惠，但國內市場亦暴露於外部衝擊，積極勞動市場政策成為減緩衝擊的重要選擇。由於受衝擊失業者主為就業弱勢，政策採用一次性與制度性的公共就業或工資補貼等組合，增加不同族群接觸政策資源的機會，過渡至下一份工作。本研究串連登記與勞保行政資料，以事件時序分析法分析政策組合下的再就業成效，發現一次性公共就業的再就業及維持效果較工資補貼為低，再就業機率低於同為公共就業，但為制度性的多元就業開發方案。研究進一步發現七成參與者為就業弱勢族群，其中教育程度偏低、原住民及中高齡等三個族群的失業者，在政策結束後的再就業機率，各別均較同時參與的一般失業者為低。為減緩就業弱勢參與後更趨弱勢的負面效應，研究建議調整政策組合中一次性公共就業比重，增加職業訓練及就業媒合項目，深入思考經濟衝擊下弱勢族群長期低度就業問題。

The advancement of globalization has benefited all countries, but the domestic market has also been exposed to external shocks. Active labor market policies have become an important option for mitigating shocks. Because the unemployed who are affected are mainly vulnerable to unemployment, the policy adopts a combination of one-time and institutional public employment or wage subsidies to increase the opportunities of different groups to contact policy resources. This study links registration and labor insurance administrative data, analyzes the effect of reemployment under the policy portfolio by event time series analysis, and finds that the odds of reemployment of one-time public employment is lower than that of wage subsidies. The study further found that over 70% of the participants are disadvantaged groups in labor market. Among the three groups of unemployed people with low education, aboriginals, and middle and senior aged groups, the odds of reemployment is lower than the unemployed who participated at the same time. In order to alleviate the negative effects to these disadvantaged unemployed after participation, the research suggests to adjust the proportion of one-time public employment in the policy portfolio, increase vocational training and employment matching projects, and reconsider the underemployment problem of disadvantaged groups under the economic shock.

1. 王永慈(2007)。積極促進”（activation）概念的解析。東吳社會工作學報，16，151-173。
   連結：
2. 陳盈方,呂建德,葉秀珍(2013)。朝向積極勞動市場政策（1996-2011）：台灣政黨的差異與趨同。台灣社會學，26，37-96。
   連結：
3. 傅從喜(2006)。我國公共服務擴大就業計畫之再就業效果評析：從積極勞動市場的角度。社會政策與社會工作學刊，10(1)，115-149。
   連結：
4. 劉宜君,林昭吟,辛炳隆(2008)。我國促進就業措施評估機制之探討─政策德菲法之應用。臺大社工學刊，18，43-88。
   連結：
5. 劉麗娟,汪銘生,黃國良,王道鵬,何柏正(2009)。高雄地區多元就業開發方案政策評估：由多元就業團體角度分析。政大勞動學報，25，1-56。
   連結：
6. Abraham, K. G., & Houseman, S. N. ,2013, Short-Time Compensation as a Tool to Mitigate Job Loss? Evidence on the U.S. Experience during the Recent Recession （SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2048540）. Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2048540
7. Auer, P.(2010).What’s in a Name? The Rise (and Fall?)of Flexicurity.Journal of Industrial Relations,52(3),371-386.
8. Auer, P.,Efendioglu, U.,Leschke, J.(2008).Active Labour Market Policies around the World: Coping with the Consequences of Globalization （Second edition）.Geneva:ILO.
9. Balducchi, D.,Wandner, S.(2016).Putting Short-Time Compensation to Work: How Employers Can Avert Layoffs and Reduce Training Costs.Employment Research Newsletter,23(4)
10. Box-Steffensmeier, J. M.,Jones, B. S.(2004).Event History Modeling: A Guide for Social Scientists.Cambridge University Press.
11. Card, D.,Kluve, J.,Weber, A.(2018).What Works? A Meta Analysis of Recent Active Labor Market Program Evaluations.Journal of the European Economic Association,16(3),894-931.
12. Clasen, J.,Clegg, D.(2006).Beyond Activation Reforming European Unemployment Protection Systems in Post-Industrial Labour Markets.European Societies,8(4),527-553.
13. Council of Economic Advisers(2009).The Economic Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment of 2009.
14. Crato, N.(ed.),Paruolo,P.(ed.)(2019).Use of Administrative Data for Counterfactual Impact Evaluation of Active Labour Market Policies in Europe: Country and Time Compariso Data-Driven Policy Impact Evaluation: How Access to Microdata is Transforming Policy Design.Springer International Publishing.
15. Hijzen, A. C.,Kappeler, A.,Pak, M.,Schwellnus, C.(2017).Labour Market Resilience: The Role of Structural and Macroeconomic Policies.OECD.
16. Lavertu, S.(2016).We All Need Help: “Big Data” and the Mismeasure of Public Administration.Public Administration Review,76(6),864-872.
17. Lødemel, I.,Dahl, E.(2001).Public Works Programs in Korea: A Comparison to Active Labor Market Policies and Workfare in Europe and the US.Labor Market Reforms in Korea: Policy Potions for the Future,WashingtonD:
18. Malley, M(2014).Doing What Works: Governing in the Age of Big Data.Public Administration Review,74(5),555-556.
19. Martin, J. P.(2015).Activation and active labour market policies in OECD countries: stylised facts and evidence on their effectiveness.IZA Journal of Labor Policy,4(1),4.
20. Mergel, I.,Rethemeyer, R. K.,Isett, K.(2016).Big Data in Public Affairs.Public Administration Review,76(6),928-937.
21. Mueser, P. R.,Troske, K. R.,Gorislavsky, A.(2007).Using State Administrative Data to Measure Program Performance.Review of Economics and Statistics,89(4),761-783.
22. Ninno, C.,Subbarao, K.,Milazzo, A.(2009).Social Protection and Labor Policy and Technical NotesSocial Protection and Labor Policy and Technical Notes,The World Bank.
23. OECD. ,2020, OECD Employment Outlook 2020. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/employment-outlook/2020/.
24. Radhika, L.,Steve, M.,Maikel, L.-K.,Daniel, K.(2010).Public works and employment programmes: Towards a long-term development approach.International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth,66
25. Rettore, E.,Trivellato, U.(2019).The Use of Administrative Data to Evaluate the Impact of Active Labor Market Policies: The Case of the Italian.Data-Driven Policy Impact Evaluation: How Access to Microdata is Transforming Policy Design
26. Volden, C.(2006).States as Policy Laboratories: Emulating Success in the Children’s Health Insurance Program.American Journal of Political Science,50(2),294-312.
27. Vooren, M.,Haelermans, C.,Groot, W.,Brink, H. M.(2019).The Effectiveness of Active Labor Market Policies: A Meta-Analysis.Journal of Economic Surveys,33(1),125-149.
28. 朱貽莊(2012)。評析臺灣公共服務方案對改善工作貧窮現象的影響。社區發展季刊，140，249-262。
29. 行政院經濟建設委員會(2013)。,行政院經濟建設委員會。
30. 行政院經濟建設委員會(2011)。,行政院經濟建設委員會。
31. 行政院經濟建設委員會(2009)。,行政院經濟建設委員會。
32. 吳姿慧(2011)。我國「無薪休假」之現況與爭議問題：以德國短工制度（Kurzarbeit）為參照對象。政大法學評論，120，339-415。
33. 李安妮,王雲東(2008).多元就業開發方案進用人員職業能力提升情形暨後續就業狀況調查計畫.行政院勞工委員會職業訓練局.
34. 林昭吟,徐美,辛炳隆,劉宜君(2007).我國促進就業措施對就業的影響分析研究.行政院經濟建設委員會.
35. 林昭吟,徐美,林桂碧及傅從喜(2004).公共服務擴大就業計畫執行成效評估（含中小企業人力協助執行計畫）.行政院經濟建設委員會.
36. 林昭吟,許雲翔(2008)。我國促進就業措施之理念、內容與成效：以多元就業開發方案為例。政府審計季刊，29(1)
37. 林萬億(2012).臺灣的社會福利：歷史與制度的分析.台北:五南.
38. 游美惠,柯伯昇(2008)。國小校長職位晉遷的事件史分析：性別和家庭照顧責任的探討。臺灣社會學刊，40，45-88。
39. 詹火生,林昭禛(2009)。財團法人國家政策研究基金會研究報告財團法人國家政策研究基金會研究報告,財團法人國家政策研究基金會。
40. 劉冬(2016)。臺灣大學社會工作學研究所。
41. 劉宜君,辛炳隆,馬財專(2011).促進就業計畫效益評估.行政院研究發展考核委員會.
42. 賴偉文,許雲翔,鄧惠中(2016)。勞動部勞動力發展署委託研究勞動部勞動力發展署委託研究,勞動部勞動力發展署。
43. 薛承泰(1993)。事件時序分析法。人口研究通訊，14，18-24。
44. 藍科正(2004)。公共服務擴大就業計畫的社會價值初探：嘉義市建設局受僱者的調查分析。公共服務擴大就業計畫研討會