Abstract
The American system of unemployment insurance (UI) is often cited as a model for potential European unemployment re-insurance schemes. While oversimplified comparisons are to be avoided, there are lessons Europe can learn from US federal-state relations regarding UI. We distinguish three aspects of the US system: first, in the 1930s the federal government was able to solve a collective action problem that impeded the development of state-level UI programs; second, during the 1950s Congress enacted a federal backstop for depleted state UI trust funds that are used to finance regular UI benefits; third, in the 1970s the federal government added an extra layer of UI to the state system, based on an intergovernmental co-financing of benefits which intensifies during crises and thus reinforces protection and stabilization where and when it is most needed. The second and third aspects now exercise European interest, which is about buttressing national systems with a supranational layer of insurance. The American experience shows that federal-state cooperation has overcome problems of collective action and enhanced stabilization. It proved to be of great importance in the Great Recession to effectively expand the protection of unemployed workers and to backstop state UI programs in a period of high and rising unemployment and thereby to contribute in a relevant way to the stabilization efforts of the Obama Administration. However, there are also some structural weaknesses in the American system. With a view to what might be developed in the EU, we identify two risks when an extra layer of unemployment protection is added at the supranational level. First, depending on the set-up of the system, federal-level financing of UI can lead to retrenchment of state-level efforts in terms of UI schemes and macroeconomic stabilization. Second, state-level retrenchment can lead to divergence between state UI programs. The US UI model is vulnerable to these two risks, although this may not be its main current challenge. Simultaneously, these risks – and the other problems besetting the American model – are not insurmountable. We draw both positive and cautionary lessons from the American experience. A lesson is that minimum requirements regarding generosity and coverage levels of UI programs are fundamental prerequisites for any supranational re-insurance.
Highlights
In 2012, the report on the future of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU), presented by the presidents of the European Council, the European Commission, the Eurogroup and the European Central Bank, suggested to create a macroeconomic shock absorption mechanism: “an insurance-type system between Euro Area countries”
The SPD EU-election program explicitly calls for a European fund to reinsure national unemployment systems (SPD, 2019) and senior SPD politicians3 including Vice-Chancellor Scholz refer to the US unemployment insurance (UI) system as a model
Opinion research shows public support for cross-border risk sharing when unemployment hits Member States, but this support crucially depends on the design features of such schemes in particular adequate benefits, incentives to take up employment and active support for the unemployed
Summary
The reference to UI in debates about the need for a Eurozone-level macroeconomic shock absorption mechanism is not happenstance. The effectiveness of the stabilization capacity of EMU member states depends on a whole cluster of policy principles: adequate unemployment benefits; sufficient coverage rates of the unemployed with benefits; no labor market segmentation and no proliferation of employment relations that leave part of the labor force poorly insured against unemployment; and effective activation of unemployed individuals The implementation of such a cluster of principles in each EMU Member State is a matter of common concern. The supranational (or federal) commitment enhances macroeconomic stabilization on the aggregate level, the states’ own effort diminishes The extent of this ‘retrenchment risk’ and its exact shape depend on the design of the supranational or federal commitment and on the preferences and attitudes state leaders might have concerning the protection of the unemployed as shown in the Appendix. These risks have to be examined when we consider the design of a European scheme
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
