More jobs and better pay

Spotlight on Employment
OECD Directorate for Employment, Labour and Social Affairs

Click to enlarge.

Tightening up on benefit claims is one way of reducing dependency and raising employment. But governments can do more to make jobs themselves pay better, too. 

It may sound like a truism to say that work should pay. But does it pay as much as it could, particularly for people on very low incomes? This is precisely what governments have been asking as they bid to get people off benefits and into employment.

And how can governments influence pay to make it more attractive? As it happens, they can do quite a lot, particularly where low-skilled labour is concerned.

There are two broad approaches, the choice of which largely depends on a country’s situation. On the one hand are countries with relatively high minimum wages like France or the Netherlands, where public effort focuses on alleviating social security charges on employers and making labour less costly to hire, while preserving social protection. On the other hand are countries with lower minimum wages and low charges on employers, like Britain and the US, where the policy focus has been on boosting individual disposable incomes via tax credits, rebates and so on.

The problems seem straightforward. For a start, the market wage available to the low-skilled is sometimes too low, compared with welfare benefits, to encourage labour supply. Indeed, some poorer households often move between work and welfare without ever escaping from poverty. Governments can try to make work pay by modifying taxes, minimum wages and other employment-conditional benefits. And if they want to improve out-of-work benefits, in-work benefits may have to be improved even more. Hiring has to be affordable for employers, of course, since if non-wage labour costs, like social contributions, rise, so the demand for low-skilled workers becomes squeezed. This balance also affects discussions about the minimum wage and how to strike a balance between decent pay and affordable costs.

Which of the two main approaches is more effective? That depends. For a start, each approach has to be judged against its particular context, and likewise, it is not certain that, say, the British approach would work as well in Germany, or vice versa.

That said, cost is obviously a good place to start to look when judging performance. At first sight, it looks as if the employment-conditional system is pricier. The British programme for instance costs about 1% of GDP, and though it produced 100,000 extra jobs, the French employer-oriented programme is estimated to have cost half that amount for about the same yield (or more) in employment. In fairness, the British system is part of a much broader approach to redistribution through targeting benefits to low and middle income families, so it cannot be judged simply on the number of new jobs it appears to create. A closer look at policy performance is needed to see where the different approaches deliver and where they fall down.

Take employment-conditional benefits first. These have been around for quite a while, since the 1970s in the US and the UK, which used them mainly to redistribute income rather than boost employment per se. However, if they are not closely targeted, their effects on employment appear limited, at least in relation to what may be a prohibitive cost for every job created.

Employment-conditional benefits are generally directed at families with low incomes, particularly those with children. The amounts paid can be quite high and are not time-limited. The UK system provides employment-conditional benefits for jobs paying up to £58,000 sterling (about US$90,000). The credit applies to salaries as high as this because it is part of a general system of boosting incomes of families with children, not just employment. Recipients have to work a minimum number of hours to qualify.

Tax credits appear to be effective in encouraging lone-parent families and households where no-one works to go to work. This is no bad thing, since lone parents are among the groups with the highest level of joblessness in many OECD countries. In the UK, for instance, there is a very clear “spike” in the hours worked by single mothers in particular, as they reach the number of hours required (24 hours per week) to become eligible for the tax credit.

However, one drawback is that low hours limit their career prospects compared with full-time employment. Moreover, both the US Earned Income Tax Credit and the UK’s Working Family Tax Credit are reported to have actually lowered the employment rate of married women with working spouses. Why? Because benefits are income-tested, they raise marginal tax rates on families above a modest income level. The effect is concentrated on second earners, who can face these high marginal tax rates as soon as they enter the workforce, increasing the incentive to have just one bread winner and less gross earnings so as not to lose the credit.

It seems that employment-conditional benefits work best when they are restricted to bringing in individuals who have little incentive to work otherwise, which is how they are used in France and the Netherlands, where employment rather than redistribution is the aim, where people leaving welfare are targeted and where time limitations on claims may also apply.

For improving pay more broadly, these countries have preferred cuts in employer charges, not least because in these countries such costs are relatively high. The main beneficiaries tend to be very low-skilled workers. However, the approach has drawbacks. For instance, reductions in employer charges tend to apply not just to new recruits, but to longstanding members of the workforce as well. This clearly deprives public budgets of legitimate funding from these employees. Moreover, as the payroll tax reductions come from hiring low-skilled workers, employers may be tempted to forego taking on more skilled recruits, as well as resisting wage increases at the lower end. They may also decide to hire more part-time workers.

Still, the wage-cost subsidy approach appears to produce jobs. In France, policies to cut charges introduced in 1993 created at least 100,000 jobs – some calculate as many as 400,000 – for a total annual cost of 0.5% of GDP. But evaluations of a Dutch system that was expected to produce similar results showed mixed effects on employment, though the low level of the subsidy may have been to blame, and it has since been tripled.

So, while it seems that reducing employers’ social security contributions can boost employment for the low paid, the approach seems to cover too many workers and sometimes the subsidy goes to employers that do not need it.

One way around these problems is to introduce tighter targeting, including actual wage subsidies. Though they carry running costs, such subsidies are a sensible approach and are widely used as they can help particular groups like the long-term unemployed or older workers. The take-up rate of targeted schemes is poor in some cases, and can stigmatise particular target groups, compromising their career chances. Also, their temporary nature can increase labour turnover if employers fill the same post using the subsidy. This can be overcome though, by, for instance, stopping benefit to employers that take advantage, or including training requirements that may bind the employee more closely to the firm.

In short, the jury is still out on how best to make work really pay, the choice of strategy being a matter of context and judgement. Two lessons seem clear from all approaches. First, that some form of minimum wage is a key part of the “making-work-pay” toolbox. But it is a tricky element, since although a floor for wages can help reduce poverty and inequality, if set too high it can raise wages for the very unskilled to untenable levels, and so keep them in unemployment. On the other hand, lowering minimum wages may make staying out of work seem more attractive to many. Again, the way forward may be to cut employers’ non-wage labour costs at or around the minimum wage level, so that take-home pay is maximised at no expense to the firm.

The second lesson is that striking the right work/life balance is a vital part of the task, particularly when it comes to disadvantaged groups. Take female workers. Those countries with the highest overall labour market participation rates are those where women’s participation is also high. Of course not all women want to go out to work. Yet, policies which help to reconcile work and family life may be needed in the case of mothers with young children who want to work – as Nordic countries have long demonstrated. Childcare support is one such lure.

This type of thinking applies to almost any disadvantaged or minority group, whether sick, old or ethnic, and taking account of all these demands is important in building a complete package to make work pay.

Reference

OECD (2003), Employment Outlook, Paris

©OECD Observer No 239, September 2003




Economic data

GDP growth: +0.6% Q4 2017 year-on-year
Consumer price inflation: 2.6% May 2018 annual
Trade: +2.7% exp, +3.0% imp, Q4 2017
Unemployment: 5.4% Mar 2018
Last update: 06 Jul 2018

E-Newsletter

Stay up-to-date with the latest news from the OECD by signing up for our e-newsletter :

Twitter feed

Suscribe now

<b>Subscribe now!</b>

To receive your exclusive paper editions delivered to you directly


Online edition
Previous editions

Don't miss

  • Watch the webcast of the final press conference of the OECD annual ministerial meeting 2018.
  • International co-operation, inclusive growth and digitalisation lead the themes of the 2018 OECD Forum in Paris on 29-30 May, under the banner of What brings us together www.oecd.org/forum. It is held alongside the annual OECD Ministerial Council Meeting on 30-31 May, chaired this year by France with a focus on multilateralism www.oecd.org/mcm.
  • Listen to the "Robots are coming for our jobs" episode of The Guardian's "Chips with Everything podcast", in which The Guardian’s economics editor, Larry Elliott, and Jeremy Wyatt, a professor of robotics and artificial intelligence at the University of Birmingham, and Jordan Erica Webber, freelance journalist, discuss the findings of the new OECD report "Automation, skills use and training". Listen here.
  • Do we really know the difference between right and wrong? Alison Taylor of BSR and Susan Hawley of Corruption Watch tell us why it matters to play by the rules. Watch the recording of our Facebook live interview here.
  • Has public decision-making been hijacked by a privileged few? Watch the recording of our Facebook live interview with Stav Shaffir, MK (Zionist Union) Chair of the Knesset Committee on Transparency here.
  • Can a nudge help us make more ethical decisions? Watch the recording of our Facebook live interview with Saugatto Datta, managing director at ideas42 here.
  • Ambassador Aleksander Surdej, Permanent Representative of Poland to the OECD, was a guest on France 24’s English-language show “The Debate”, where he discussed French President Emmanuel Macron’s speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos.
  • The fight against tax evasion is gaining further momentum as Barbados, Côte d’Ivoire, Jamaica, Malaysia, Panama and Tunisia signed the BEPS Multilateral Convention on 24 January, bringing the total number of signatories to 78. The Convention strengthens existing tax treaties and reduces opportunities for tax avoidance by multinational enterprises.
  • Rousseau
  • Do you trust your government? The OECD’s How's life 2017 report finds that only 38% of people in OECD countries trust their government. How can we improve our old "Social contract?" Read more.
  • Papers show “past coming back to haunt us”: OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurria tells Sky News that the so-called "Paradise Papers" show a past coming back to haunt us, but one which is now being dismantled. Please watch the video.
  • When someone asks me to describe an ideal girl, in my head, she is a person who is physically and mentally independent, brave to speak her mind, treated with respect just like she treats others, and inspiring to herself and others. But I know that the reality is still so much different. By Alda, 18, on International Day of the Girl. Read more.
  • Globalisation’s many benefits have been unequally shared, and public policy has struggled to keep up with a rapidly-shifting world. The OECD is working alongside governments and international organisations to help improve and harness the gains while tackling the root causes of inequality, and ensuring a level playing field globally. Please watch.
  • Read some of the insightful remarks made at OECD Forum 2017, held on 6-7 June. OECD Forum kick-started events with a focus on inclusive growth, digitalisation, and trust, under the overall theme of Bridging Divides.
  • Checking out the job situation with the OECD scoreboard of labour market performances: do you want to know how your country compares with neighbours and competitors on income levels or employment?
  • Trade is an important point of focus in today’s international economy. This video presents facts and statistics from OECD’s most recent publications on this topic.
  • The OECD Gender Initiative examines existing barriers to gender equality in education, employment, and entrepreneurship. The gender portal monitors the progress made by governments to promote gender equality in both OECD and non-OECD countries and provides good practices based on analytical tools and reliable data.
  • Interested in a career in Paris at the OECD? The OECD is a major international organisation, with a mission to build better policies for better lives. With our hub based in one of the world's global cities and offices across continents, find out more at www.oecd.org/careers .
  • Visit the OECD Gender Data Portal. Selected indicators shedding light on gender inequalities in education, employment and entrepreneurship.

Most Popular Articles

OECD Insights Blog

NOTE: All signed articles in the OECD Observer express the opinions of the authors
and do not necessarily represent the official views of OECD member countries.

All rights reserved. OECD 2018