Training vouchers, local employment agencies, and policy styles

Journal for Labour Market Research

Table 4 Regression results on the influence of policy styles on conditional voucher award intensity

	Model 1				Model 2				Model 3
	(a)		(b)		(a)		(b)		(a)		(b)
	Coef.		Coef.		Coef.		Coef.		Coef.		Coef.
Reform assessment	0.004	(0.010)	0.006	(0.011)	0.003	(0.010)	0.006	(0.012)	− 0.011	(0.013)	− 0.009	(0.014)
Cooperation	0.020	(0.010)	0.025	(0.012)	0.012	(0.009)	0.010	(0.012)	0.012	(0.011)	0.004	(0.018)
Communication	0.032	(0.008)	0.034	(0.009)	0.017	(0.011)	0.027	(0.012)	0.023	(0.010)	0.023	(0.010)
Avoidance	− 0.011	(0.013)	− 0.008	(0.012)	0.004	(0.011)	− 0.008	(0.012)	− 0.015	(0.011)	− 0.016	(0.011)
Organization	− 0.017	(0.008)	− 0.010	(0.009)	− 0.021	(0.014)	− 0.016	(0.017)	− 0.016	(0.008)	*− 0.015*	(0.009)
Cooperation (additional information (managers only))					0.011	(0.009)	0.011	(0.010)
Avoidance (additional information (managers only))					− 0.019	(0.009)	− 0.020	(0.010)
Assignment criteria	No		Yes		No		Yes		No		Yes
R ²	0.115		0.244		0.098		0.305		0.075		0.198
N	173		173		173		173		173		173

Note: We report robust standard errors in parentheses. Model 1 uses policy-style indicators based on all the information in the survey. In Model 2 we use only survey information provided by managers. In Model 3 we focus on the information reported by caseworkers. In addition, we include information about managers’ and caseworkers’ criteria for assigning training vouchers. The results for each Model are presented in column (b). The policy-style indicators are constructed as dummy variables. For example the assessment dummy equals one if the average assessment of the reform activities is above three, which indicates the center of the scale. Bold numbers indicate significance at least at the 5 % level. Bold italic numbers indicate significance at the 10 % level.