3. Five scenarios: sensitivity and cost-benefit analysis
3.4 The wage-increase model
This model is based on the assumption, that huge numbers of German employees accept service vouchers as a substitute for a yearly wage increase. The negotiated percentage rate (2.5) is "beefed up" by a public subsidy of additional 2 p.c. The basic assumptions here is DM4,125 gross wage of workers per month, i.e.
DM49,500 per year, a gross wage of employees of DM5,000 per month, i.e.
DM60,000 per year. This fixes the average wage per year at DM52,650, after having weighted the relation 70 p.c. workers, 30 p.c. employees and civil servants.
An optimistic scenario would rely on the participation of about 10 million households (there are 9,7 million members of the German trade union federation, DGB). Table 4.1 (p.32) shows that such a great demand might create the equivalent of almost one million jobs. A more realistic variant, however, is the participation of five
million households, giving work to 320,000 people. The cost-benefit balance (table 4.2, p.32) underpins this remarkable result. There are almost no negative redistributional effects of the scheme's costs.
One might nevertheless argue that this model relies on a very improbable assumption: it is hardly imaginable that a trade union accepts the transformation of a wage increase in kind. Besides, the real utilization rate of this voucher might be lower than the assumed 75 per cent since workers and employees do not belong to the "classic" clientele of domestic and family services. On the other hand, this fact might help to change general consumption patterns in favour of this sort of services.
Our final scenario considers the idea to utilize social security contributions in order to finance additional demand for services.
3.5 The contribution-model
About 28 million workers and employees currently pay contributions to the public unemployment insurance scheme. The contribution rate is 6.5 p.c. This means for an average gross wage of DM52,650 a charge of DM3,422 per year.
Table 5.1 (p.33) shows that the assumption of 14 million households could create the impressive number of 582,000 employments. On the other hand, if a more realistic scenario is used, implying 7 million households using 10 p.c. of their contributions, about 170,00 jobs might be created. A quick glance at the pessimistic variant confirmes the impression that the model's job creation rate is highly elastic implying the risk of high deficits for the insurance scheme. Table 5.2, however, shows that no negative distributional effects might emerge.
This is a very interesting, though not very realistic model, because it is based on two unlikely assumptions: first, that many non-frictional unemployed find easily a new job in domestic services, and second, that new created jobs will generate enough inflows to finance the functioning of the social security regime.This rather mi-xed feature is reinforced by the fact that the insurance's budget can only become ba-lanced in a long term since shortfalls in contribution scheme are not immediately compensated by new inflows. This implies, in return, the need for short term subsidies
out of the state's budget. This means additional costs. Besides, one might point out that the scheme has a segmentational impact as the unemployment insurance system finances nearly all employment policies. Shortfalls would therefore mean less funds for specific integration schemes like public employment creation or qualification.
Conclusion
This essay presented five different models of service cheques. Although the tax-relief model is the most prominent one, as applied in France and probably in this country, other variants seem more interesting and even more efficient in promoting employment in family and domestic services. As a means to reinstall the market order, the tax relief model is successful in fighting underground economy;
its job-creating potential is, however, rather poor. The same goes for the employment-policy model, as it is applied in Belgium. Enriching the national policy instruments for reintegrating long term unemployed, this variant cannot resolve the mismatch-problem on the labour market of personal services either.
The industrial policy approach is in many ways more promising is, as represented by the welfare benefit-model, the wage-increase model, and the contributions-model (see table 6). First, they could create considerable numbers of jobs thanks to mass-effect potentials. All of them have also high rates of burden sharing, i.e. the cost of the scheme are more or less equally distributed among members of society. Nevertheless, a distinction must be drawn between these variants: both, the model based on welfare benefits and the scheme using social security contributions suffer from the uncertainty of its effects on the behaviour of the economic agent. It is characteristic for the industrial policy-approach that mass effects go with a high elasticity of output. This means that a small change in crucial variables provokes very different outcomes. The risk of considerable losses in public funds are therefore always imminent.
The only exception is the wage increase model: since broad sections of society have a strong incentive to use service vouchers as a part of income, mass effects without any destabilizing effects on the public budgets might be attainable. Neverthe-less, the success of such a policy depends on two things: the interest of the agent in seeing nominal wage increases transformed into non-monetary value with an
orienta-ted consumption pattern, and the degree of cooperation between the trade unions and employers in order to conclude such a deal. Both these elements seem barely probable on today's political scene. For two reasons: first, in times of stagnating wage levels, workers are not willing to accept an additional loss of purchasing power to buy consumer goods. Second, the automatic implication of the state in industrial wage deals is not compatible with the general independance of the social partner's negotiations from public authority, as fixed in the German constitution.
The model's implementation chances are therefore rather low. Yet a final judgement of this scheme should consider the experience of the new "Titre-emploi-service" in France. First data should be available early 1997.
table 2: five models in comparison efficiency criteria tax
low high medium very high very high 6.
implementation potential
high medium high low low
The findings presented before lead to the following policy propositions:
• First, once the decision to implement a service cheque system is made, the relation between the social sector, regulated by oligopolized charitable organizations, and domestic services in general should be redefined. Either a deregulation process makes this protected market a commercial one, with associations and private firms competing for the new cheque demand; or a clear separation between public and social services on the one hand, and private and personal services on the other should be made.
• Second, the existing status of legal minor employment ("geringfügige employment") - without any right to social security allowances - should be suppressed in favour of a cheque scheme reducing additional cost for employers. In order to compensate the discriminated non-service sector, manpower-pools for flexible and short-time employment could benefit from tax relief schemes or other forms of public promotion.
• Third, the idea to introduce a tax relief model should be dropped in favour of an industrial policy approach. A model based on welfare benefit transfers might be the best solution, even if unforseen side effects can produce high public deficits.
This risk could be reduced, however, by sociological research effords revealing the effective demand potential for domestic and family services in Germany. The benefiting population could thus better identified, and windfall-effects reduced.
The most promising solution, a combination of private income and public subsidy, should be object of a public debate between employers, trade unions and public authorities.
• Fourth, additionally transaction costs could be saved by using chip-cards instead of old-fashionned paper-cheques. Especially a welfare benefit-model could be based on chip-cards distributed to households and occasionnally recharged by financial institutions.
Besides, any hope to create more than 300,000 jobs by the help of service cheques could prove to ambitious a policy, for the employment potential of personal services is limited by the number of unemployed persons willing to do this kind of low-profile work. Only a process of active revaluation of services as an occupation equal to other professions might change this handicap in the long run.
Tables
Table 1.1: The tax-relief model - sensitivity analysis (three scenarios): employment in persons, cost/benefits in DM
Table 1.2 The tax-relief model: cost-benefit balance in prospective (in DM per person/year), using assumptions of scenario II (see table 1.1)
employee others society
benefit
1. additional income, output 30,938 0 30,938
2. additional income tax / VAT - 4,721 4,721 0
3. additional social security contributions - 13,922 13,922 0
4. reduction of transfer payments - 3,750 3,750 0
5. other benefits + + +
cost
1. tax shortfall 0 21,981 21,981
2. cost of cheque-scheme 0 250 250
3. other costs _ _ _
sum of benefits 8,545 22,393 30,938
sum of cost 0 22,231 22,231
balance 8,545 162 8,707
cost-benefit relation 1.38 1.0 1.4
14 - The "optimistic" scenario I: 120.000 households, no windfall/displacement-effect, 50 p.c jobless reintegration rate
- The "realistic" scenario II: 60.000 households, 25 p.c windfall/displacement-effect, 25 p.c. jobless reintegration rate
- The "pessimistic" scenario III: 30.000 households, 50 p.c windfall/displacement, 10 p.c.
jobless reintegration rate
Table 2.1: The welfare benefit-model - sensitivity analysis (three scenarios):
employment in persons, costs/benefits in DM
scenario15 employment budget
Table 2.2 The welfare benefit-model: cost-benefit balance in prospective (in DM per person/year), using assumptions of scenario II (see table 2.1)
employee others society
benefit
1. add. income, output 30,938 0 30,938
2. add. income tax / VAT - 4,721 4,721 0
3. add. social security contributions - 13,922 13,922 0
4. reduction of transfer payments - 3,750 3,750 0
5. other benefits + + +
cost
1. budget outflow 0 27,498 27,498
2. cost of voucher-scheme 0 100 100
3. cost of pool coordination 300 300
4. other costs _ _ _
sum of benefits 8,545 22,393 30,938
sum of cost 0 27,898 27,898
balance 8,545 - 5,505 3,040
cost-benefit relation 1.38 0.80 1.11
15 - The "optimistic" scenario I: 150 p.c. additional demand, 100 p.c. utilization rate, no windfall/displacement-effect, 50 p.c. jobless reintegration.
- The "realistic" scenario II: 100 p.c additional demand, 75 p.c. utilization rate, 25 p.c.
windfall/displacement effect, 25 p.c. jobless reintegration rate.
- The "pessimistic" scenario III: 50 p.c. addtional demand, 50 p.c. utilization rate, 50 p.c.
windfall/displacement-effect, 10 p.c. jobless reintegration rate.
Table 3.1: The employment-policy model - sensitivity analysis (three scenarios)
Table 3.2 The employment-policy model: cost-benefit balance in prospective (in DM per person/year), using assumptions of scenario II (see table 3.1)
unemployed others society
benefit
1. add. income, output 2,500 0 2,500
2. add. VAT - 375 375 0
3. add. social security contributions 0 0 0
4. reduction of transfer payments 0 0 0
5. other benefits + + +
cost
1. budget outflow 0 556 556
2. add. accident insurance 0 19 19
3. cost of voucher-scheme 0 100 100
4. cost of pool coordination 0 300 300
5. other costs _ _ _
sum of benefits 2,125 375 2,500
sum of cost 0 975 975
balance 2,125 - 600 1,525
cost-benefit relation 6.67 0.38 2.56
16 - The "optimistic" scenario I: 600.000 households, 250 h/year service demand, no windfall/displacement-effect
- The "realistic" scenario II: 300.000 households, 150 h/year service demand, 25 p.c.
windfall/displacement effect
- The "pessimistic" scenario III: 150.000 households, 100 h/year service demand, 50 p.c.
windfall/displacement-effect
Table 4.1: The wage-increase model - sensitivity analysis (three scenarios):
employment in numbers, cost in DM
scenario17 employment budget
Table 4.2 The wage-increase model: cost-benefit balance in prospective (in DM per person/year), using assumptions of scenario II (see table 4.1)
employee others society
benefit
1. add. income, output 30,938 0 30,938
2. add. income tax / VAT - 4,721 4,721 0
3. add. social security contributions - 13,922 13,922 0
4. reduction of transfer payments - 3,750 3,750 0
5. other benefits + + +
cost
1. budget outflow 0 13,135 13,135
2. cost of voucher-scheme 0 100 100
3. cost of pool coordination 0 0 0
4. other costs _ _ _
sum of benefits 8,545 22,393 30,938
sum of cost 0 13,235 13,235
balance 8,545 9,158 17,703
cost-benefit relation 1.38 1.69 2.34
17 - The "optimistic" scenario I: 10 million households, 150 p.c. additional demand, 100 p.c. utilization rate, no windfall/displacement-effect, 50 p.c. jobless reintegration rate.
- The "realistic" scenario II: 5 million households, 100 p.c. additional demand, 75 p.c. utilization rate, 25 p.c. windfall/displacement effect, 25 p.c. jobless reintegration rate.
- The "pessimistic" scenario III: 2.5 million households, 50 p.c. additional demand, 50 p.c.
utilization rate, 50 p.c. windfall/displacement-effect, and 10 p.c. jobless reintegration rate.
Table 5.1: The contributions-model - sensitivity analysis (three scenarios):
employment in numbers, cost/benefit in DM
scenario18 employment budget
581,818 5,000 m 1,200 m 11,400 m 8,594 29,563
scenario II
Table 5.2 The wage-increase model: cost-benefit balance in prospective (in DM per person/year), using assumptions of scenario II (see table 5.1)
employee others society
benefit
1. add. income, output 30,938 0 30,938
2. add. income tax / VAT - 4,721 4,721 0
3. add. social security contributions - 13,922 13,922 0
4. reduction of transfer payments - 3,750 3,750 0
5. other benefits + + +
cost
1. budget outflow 0 15,938 15,938
2. cost of voucher-scheme 0 250 250
3. cost of pool coordination 0 0 0
4. other costs _ _ _
sum of benefits 8,545 22,393 30,938
sum of cost 0 16,188 16,188
balance 8,545 6,205 14,750
cost-benefit relation 1.38 1.38 1.91
18 - The "optimistic" scenario I: 14 million households, additional demand: 150 p.c., windfall/displacement: 0 p.c., reintegration rate: 50 p.c.
- The "realistic" scenario II: 7 million households, additional demand: 100 p.c., windfall/displacement:
25 p.c., reintegration rate: 25 p.c.
- The "pessimistic" scenario III: 3.5 million households, additional demand: 50 p.c., windfall/displacement: 50 p.c., reintegration rate: 10 p.c.
Examples of calculation 1. Tax-relief model
Scenario I ("optimistic")
- wages: 120,000 households x DM12,500 = DM1,500 m - employment: 1,500 m / 25 / 1,650 = 36,364 jobs - tax shortfall: 120,000 x DM5,000 = DM600 m - social charges: DM1,500 m / 100 x 45 = DM675 m - taxes: 1,500 m / 100 x 15 = DM225 m
- VAT: 1,500 m - 675 m - 225 m = 600 m / 100 x 15 = DM90 m
- transfer savings: 36,364 / 100 x 50 (reintegration of unemployed) = 18,182 x 39,250 = DM714 m - federal budget: - 600 m + 225 m + 90 m = - 285 m / 36,364 = - DM7,837
- public budget: - 285 m + 675 m + 714 m = DM1,100 m / 36,364 = DM30,250
Scenario II ("realistic")
- wages: 60,000 households x DM12,500 = 750 m / 100 x 75 (windfall, substitution) = DM563 m
- employment: 563 m / 25 / 1,650 (full-time) = 13,648 jobs - tax shortfall: 60,000 x 5,000 DM = DM300 m
- social charges: 563 m / 100 x 45 = DM253 m - taxes: 563 m / 100 x 15 = DM84 m
- VAT: 563 m - 253 m- 84 m = 226 m / 100 x 15 = DM34 m
- transfer savings: 13,648 / 100 x 25 (reintegration) = 3 412 x 39 250 = DM134 m - federal budget: - 300 m + 84 m + 34 m = - 182 m / 13,648 = - DM13,335 - public budget: - 182 m + 253 m + 134 m = 205 m / 13,648 = DM15,021
Scenario III ("pessimistic")
- wages: 30,000 x DM12,500 = DM375 m / 100 x 50 (windfall, substitution)
= DM188 m
- employment: 188 m / 25 / 1,650 (full- time) = 4,558 jobs - tax shortfall: 30,000 x 5,000 DM = DM150 m
- social charges: 188 m DM / 100 x 45 = DM85 m - taxes: 188 m / 100 x 15 = DM28 m
- VAT: 188 m - 85 m - 28 m = 75 m / 100 x 15 = DM11 m
- transfer savings: 4,558 / 100 x 10 (reintegration) = 456 x 39,250 = DM18 m - federal budget: - 150 m + 28 m + 11 m = - 111 m / 4,558 = - DM24,353 - public budget: - 111 m + 85 m + 18 m = - DM8 m / 4,558 = - DM1,755
2. Welfare-benefit model
Scenario I ("optimistic")
- wages: 10 m households x DM1,200 DM = DM12,000 m x 2,5 (additional demand) = DM30,000
- employment: 30,000 / 25 / 1,650 (full-time) = 727,273 jobs - subsidy: 10 m x DM1,200 = DM12,000
- social charges: 30,000 / 100 x 45 = DM13,500 - taxes: 30,000 / 100 x 15 = DM4,500
- VAT: 30,000 - 13,500 - 4,500 = DM12,000 / 100 x 15 = DM1,800
- transfer savings: 727,273 / 100 x 50 (reintegration) = 363,637 x DM39,250
= DM14,300 m
- federal budget: - 12,000 + 4,500 m + 1,800 m = - 5,700 m / 727,272 = - DM7,837 - public budget: - 5,700 m + 13,500 m + 14,300 m = 22,100 m / 727,272
= DM30,387
Scenario II ("realistic")
- wages: 10 m households x DM1,200 = DM12,000 m / 100 x 75 (utilization) =
9,000 m x 2 (additional demand) = DM18,000 m / 100 x 75 (windfall, substitution) = DM13,500 m - employment: 13,500 / 25 / 1,650 (full-time) = 327,273 jobs
- subsidy: DM9,000 m
- social charges: 13,500 m / 100 x 45 = DM6,100 m - taxes: DM13,500 m / 100 x 15 = DM2,000 m
- VAT: 13,500 m - 6,1 - 2,000 m = 5,400 m / 100 x 15 = DM810 m
- transfer savings: 327,273 / 100 x 25 (reintegration) = 81,818 x DM39,250 = DM3,200 m - federal budget: - 9,000 m + 2,000 m + 810 m = - DM6,200 m / 327,273 = - DM18,944 - public budget: - 6,200 m + 6,100 m + 3,100 m = 3,300 m / 327,273 = DM9,472
Scenario III ("pessimistic")
- wages: 10 m x DM1,200 / 2 (utilization) x 1,5 (additional demand) = DM9,000 m / 2 (windfall, substitution) = DM4,500 m
- employment: DM4,500 m / 25 / 1,650 (full-time) = 109,091 jobs - subsidy: DM6,000 m
- social charges: 4,500 m / 100 x 45 = DM2,000 m - taxes: 4,500 m / 100 x 15 = DM675 m
- taxes: 4,500 m - 2,000 m - 675 m = DM1,800 m / 100 x 15 = DM270 m
- transfer savings: 109,091 / 10 = 10,909 (reintegration) x DM39,250 = DM428 m - federal budget: - 6,000 m + 675 m + 270 m = - DM5,100 m / 109,091 = DM46,750 - public budget: - 5,100 m + 2,000 m + 428 m = - 2,700 m DM / 109,091 = DM24,750
3. Employment-policy model
Scenario I ("optimistic")
- wages: 600,000 households x 250 x 15 = DM2,300 m - employment: 2,300 m / 15 / 1,650 (full-time) = 92,929 jobs - tax shortfall: 600,000 x 250 DM = DM150 m
- accident insurance: 2,300 m / 100 x 5 = DM115 m - public "profit": 600,000 x 250 x DM5 = DM750 m
- VAT: 600,000 x 250 x DM10 = 1,500 m / 100 x 15 = DM225 m
- federal budget bzw. public budget: - DM 150 m - 115 m + 750 m + 225 m = DM710 m / 92,929 = DM7,640
Scenario II ("realistic")
- wages: 300,000 households x 150 x 15 = 675 m / 100 x 75 (windfall, substitution)
= DM506 m
- employment: 506 m / 15 / 1,650 (full-time) = 20,444 jobs - tax shortfall: 300,000 x DM250 = DM75 m
- accident insurance: 675 m / 100 x 5 = DM34 m - public "profit": 300,000 x 150 x DM5 = DM225 m
- VAT: 300,000 / 100 x 75 = 225,000 x 150 x 10 = DM338 m / 100 x 15 = DM51 m - federal budget, respectively public budget: - 75 m - 34 m + 225 m + 51 m = DM167 m / 20,444 = DM8,169
Scenario III ("pessimistic")
- wages: 150,000 households x 100 x 15 = DM225 m / 2 (windfall, substitution) = DM113 m - employment: 113 m / 15 / 1,650 (full-time) = 4,566 jobs
- tax shortfall: 150,000 x 250 = DM38 m
- accident insurance: 225 m / 100 x 5 = DM11 m - public "profit": 150,000 x 100 x DM5 = DM75 m
- VAT: 150,000 / 2 = 75,000 x 100 x 10 = DM75 m DM / 100 x 15 = DM11 m - federal budget, respectively public budget: - 38 m - 11 m + 75 m + 11 m = DM 37 m / 4,566 = DM8,103
4. Wage-increase model
Scenario I ("optimistic")
- wages: 10 m households x DM2,369 = DM23,700 m x 2,5 = DM59,300 m - employment: 59,300 m / 25 / 1,650 = 1,4 m jobs
- social charges: DM59,300 m / 100 x 45 = DM26,700 m - taxes: 59,300 m / 100 x 15 = DM8,900 m
- VAT: 59,300 m - 26,7 - 8,900 m = 23,700 m / 100 x 15 = DM3,600 m - subsidy: 52,650 / 100 x 2 = DM1,053 x 10 m = DM10,500 m
- transfer savings: 1,4 m / 2 x 39,250 (reintegration) = DM27,500 m
- federal budget: - 10,500 m + 8,900 m + 3,600 m = 2 ,000 m / 1,4 m = DM1,429 - public budget: 2,000 m + 26,700 m + 27,500 m = 56,200 m / 1,4 m = DM40,143
Scenario II ("realistic")
- wages: 5 m households x DM2,369 = 11,800 m / 100 x 75 (utilization) = DM8,900 m x 2 (additional demand) = DM17,800 m / 100 x 75 (windfall, substitution)
= DM13,400 m
- employment: 13,400 m / 25 / 1,650 = 324,848 jobs - social charges: 13,400 m / 100 x 45 = DM6,000 m - taxes: 13,400 m / 100 x 15 = DM2,000 m
- VAT: 13,400 m - 6,000 m - 2,000 m = 5,400 m / 100 x 15 = DM810 m - subsidy: 52,650 / 100 x 2 = 1,053 DM x 5 m / 100 x 75 = DM3,900 m
- transfer savings: 324,848 / 4 = 81,212 x DM39,250 (reintegration) = DM3,200 m - federal budget: - 3,900 m + 2,000 m + 810 m = - DM1,100 m / 324,848 = DM3,386 - public budget: - 1,100 m + 6,000 m + 3,200 m = DM8,100 m / 324,848 = DM24,935
Scenario III ("pessimistic")
- wages: 2,5 m households x DM2,369 = DM5,900 m / 2 (utilization) = DM2,950 m x 1,5 (additional demand) = DM4,400 m / 2 (windfall, substitution) = DM2,200 m
- employment: DM2,200 m / 25 / 1,650 (full-time) = 53,333 jobs - social charges: DM2,200 m / 100 x 45 = DM990 m
- taxes: DM2,200 m / 100 x 15 = DM330 m
- VAT: 2,200 m - 990 m - 330 m = DM880 m / 100 x 15 = DM132 m - subsidy: 52,650 / 100 x 2 = DM1,053 x 2,5 m / 2 = DM1,300 m - transfer savings: 53,333 / 10 x 39,250 (reintegration) = DM209 m
- federal budget: - 1,300 m + 330 m + 132 m = - DM838 m / 53,333 = - DM15,713 - public budget: - 838 m + 990 m + 209 m = 361 m DM / 53,333 = DM6,769
5. Contributions model
Scenario I ("optimistic")
- wages: 14 m households x DM3,422 / 100 x 20 (part of contributions) = 9,600 m x 2,5 (additional demand) = DM24,000 m
- employment: 24,000 m / 25 / 1,950 (full-time) = 581,818 jobs - contributions shortfall: DM9,600 m
- social charges: DM24,000 m / 100 x 45 = DM10,800 m - taxes: DM24,000 m / 100 x 15 = DM3,600 m
- VAT: 24,000 m - 10,800 m - 3,600 m = 9,600 m DM / 100 x 15 = DM1,400 m - transfer savings: 581,818 / 2 = 290,909 x DM39,250 (reintegration) = DM11,400 m - federal budget: 3,600 m + 1,400 m = DM5,000 m / 581,818 = DM8,594
- public budget: 5,000 m + 10,800 m - 9,600 m + 11,400 m = DM17,600 m / 581,818 = DM30,250
Scenario II ("realistic")
- wages: 7 m households x DM3,422 / 100 x 20 = 4,800 m x 2 (additional demand) = 9,6 / 100 x 75 (windfall, substitution) = DM7,200 m
- employment: 7,200 m / 25 / 1,650 (full-time) = 174,545 jobs - contributions shortfall: DM4,800 m
- social charges: 7,200 m / 100 x 45 = DM3,200 m - taxes: 7,200 m / 100 x 15 = DM1,100 m
- VAT: 7,200 m - 3,200 m - 1,100 m / 100 x 15 = DM1,700 m
- transfer savings: 174,545 / 4 = 43,636 x DM39,250 (reintegration) = DM856 m - federal budget: 1,100 m + 435 m = DM1,500 m / 174,545 = DM8,594
- public budget: 1,500 m + 3,200 m - 4,800 m + 1,700 m = DM1,600 m / 174,545 = DM9,167
Scenario III ("pessimistic")
- wages: 3,5 m households x DM3,422 / 100 x 20 = 2,400 m x 1,5 (additional demand) = 3,600 m / 2 (windfall, substitution) = DM1,800 m
- employment: 1,800 m / 25 / 1,650 = 43,636 jobs - contributions shortfalll: DM2,400 m
- social charges: 1,800 m / 100 x 45 = DM810 m - taxes: 1,800 m / 100 x 15 = DM270 m
- taxes: 1,800 m - 810 m - 270 m = 720 m / 100 x 15 = DM108 m
- transfer savings: 43,636 / 10 = 4,364 x 39,250 (reintegration) = DM171 m - federal budget: 270 m + 108 m = DM378 m / 43,636 = DM8,663
- public budget: 378 m + 810 m - 2,400 m + 171 m = - 1,000 m / 43,636 = DM22,917
Bibliography
• Aglietta, M. (1984): Evolution et perspectives de la consommation des ménages, Paris, CEPII.
• Appelbaum, E./Schettkat, R. (1995) : Employment and productivity in
industrialized economies, in : International Labour Review, Vol.134, No. 4-5, 1995, S.605-623.
• Appelbaum, E./Schettkat, R. (1996) : Das employmentsproblem der
Industrieländer. Eine Neuinterpretation, Statement für die 1. Internationale
Wirtschaftstagung der SPD: Neue employmentspolitik für Deutschland, 28. August 1996 in Bonn-Bad Godesberg.
Baumol, W. J. (1967) : Macroeconomics of Unbalanced Growth : The Anatomy of Urban Crisis, in : American Economic Review, Juni 1967, S.415-426.
• Centre de Recherche pour l'Etude et l'Observation des Cinditions de Vie (CREDOC) : La consommation "engagée" progresse, in : Revue du CREDOC, 106, März 1996.
• Cette, G./Cueno, P./Eyssartier, D. (1992) : Nouveaux emplois de services. Les dix services de solidarité. Evaluations macroéconomiques, INSEE, Paris.
• Debonneuil, M./Lahidji, R./Banque Indosuez (1994) : "Le chômage en France : une occasion pour changer de société". Intervention au colloque Changement technique, Mondialisation, Emploi - où allons nous ? du Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers, 17-18 novembre 1994.
• Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW) (1996): Keine
Dienstleistungslücke in Deutschland. Ein Vergleich mit den USA anhand von Haushaltsbefragungen, Wochenbericht 14/96, 4.April 1996.
• Direction de l'Animation de la Recherche, des Etudes et des Statistiques (DARES) (1995): Enquète "chèque-emploi-service". Premiers résultats, Kurzfassung eines Berichts für das Ministère du Travail, du Dialogue social de la Participation, Paris, 1995.
• Drohsel, P. (1996) : Hausarbeit und Erwerbsarbeit, in : Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, B3-4, 96, S.40-46.
• Europäische Kommission (1993) : Wachstum, Wettbewerbsfähigkeit, employment.
Herausforderungen und Wege in das 21. Jahrhundert, Weißbuch, Brüssel/Luxembourg.
• F.M. Bator (1960): The Question of Government Spending. Public Needs and Private Wants, New York.
• Fourastié, J. (1954): Die große Hoffnung des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts, Köln, Bund-Verlag, 2.Auflage in Deutsch 1969).
• Fuchs, V.R. (1968): The Service Economy, New York.
• Gershuny, J. (1978): After Industrial Society. The emerging Self-Service Economy, London, 1978.
• Inspection Générale des Affaires Sociales (IGAS) (1995): Le Chèque emploi service. Premiers élements d'évaluation, Bericht für das Ministère du Travail, du Dialogue social et de la participation, Morelle, M.A., Marie, M.C., 1995, Paris.
• Institut für Sozialforschung und Gesellschaftspolitik (ISG) (1993) : Sozialversicherungsfreie employment. Untersuchung im Auftrag des Bundesministers für Arbeit und Sozialordnung, Schlußbericht, Köln, 1993.
• K.J. Arrow (1970): The Organization of Economic Activity. Issues pertinent to the Choice of Market versus Nonmarket Allocation, in: R.H. Haveman/J. Margolis:
Public Expenditures and Policy Analysis, Chicago.
• Knigge, J.A. / Rijnbout, M.J. (1995) : Service Vouchers. An analysis of the job creation potential and feasibility of service vouchers in the Netherlands, EIM, Labour Research, Zoetermeer, 28 February 1995.
• Lahidji, R. (1995): Un circuit court pour developper les services à la personne en France, Banque Indosuez, Etudes Economiques et Financières, Paris, 29.11.1995.
• Laville, J.-L. (1991) : Les services de proximité en Europe, CRIDA-LSCI.
• Lebrun, J.F. / de Sélys, L. (1994) : Service Vouchers. A way of developing local Services, King Baudouin Foundation, October 1994.
• Mishan, E.J. (1975): Benefit-cost Analysis. An Informal Introduction, London, Allen
& Unwin.
• Musgrave, R.A. / Musgrave, P.B. (1973) : Public Finance in Theory and Practice, McGraw-Hill, Kogakusha, 1973.
• Petit, P. (1986) : Slow Growth and the Service Economy, Pinter, London, 1986.
• Scharpf, F.W. (1995): subsidyierte Niedriglohn-employment statt bezahlter Arbeitslosigkeit?, in: Zeitschrift für Sozialreform, 2, S.65-81.
• Seibel, W. (1992) : Funktionaler Dilettantismus. Erfolgreich scheiternde Organisationen im "Dritten Sektor" zwischen Markt und Staat, Baden-Baden, Nomos, 1992.
• Singlemann, J. (1979) : From Agriculture to Services, Sage Publications, Berverly Hills, 1979.
• Syndicat des Entreprises de Services à la personne (SESP) (1996): Quel marché pour les services à la personne?, Présentation de l’étude de marché potentiel réalisée par Demoscopie, Paris.
• Thurow, L.C. (1978) : Psychic Income. Useful or Useless?, in The American Economic Review, 68, S.142-145.
• Weinkopf, C. (1996): Arbeitskräftepools. Überbetriebliche employment im Spannungsfeld von Flexibilität, Mobilität und sozialer Sicherheit, Rainer Hampp Verlag, München und Mering.