The Targeted Wage Subsidy: How Program Design Creates Incentives for “Creaming”

Authors

  • Pam Lahey
  • Peter V Hall

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.25071/1705-1436.74

Abstract

Across most developed nations, including Canada, parallel systems of social welfare and employment insurance have increasingly been replaced by programs that emphasize work as a means to achieve welfare goals within the so-called re-employment framework. Various authors have drawn attention to the tension between the goal of long-term sustainable employment, and re-employment-based strategies that emphasize short-term and stand-alone interventions. In this paper, we focus on the implementation of one such program in Canada, the Targeted Wage Subsidy. This program seeks to place the most marginal qualifying participants in employment by offering employers a financial inducement. By paying close attention to the experiences of those tasked with monitoring and implementing the program in Toronto, we identify various ways in which program design elements may systematically disadvantage the intended recipients. These program delivery mechanisms are shaped both in the practices of implementing agents, as well as by the public accountability framework that enforces rigid timelines and reporting requirements, resulting in a practice commonly referred to by employment service providers as “creaming.” Our observations lead us to question whether the target population is, in fact, the one benefiting from these return-to-work supports.

References

Audras, Rick, and Murrell, David. 2001. Did the 1994/96 Employment Insurance Reforms Improve Labour Market Outcomes for Young People? The Department of Economics: University of New Brunswick.

Buchanan, D and Klassen, T. 2005. “Employment Insurance and Ontario Works (Re)Employment Programming in Toronto”. Research Paper Prepared for the Task Force on Modernizing Income Security for Working Age Adults.

Corak, Miles. 1993. “Unemployment Insurance Once Again: The Incidence of Repeat Participation in the Canadian UI Program, Canadian Public Policy, Vol. 19, No. 2: 162-176. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3551680

Cranford, C.J, Vosko, L.F and Zukewich, N. 2003. “Precarious employment in the Canadian Labour Market: a statistical portrait”, Just Labour, 3: 6-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7202/007495ar

Etherington, D. and Jones, M. 2004. “Beyond contradictions of the workfare state? Denmark, welfare through work, and the promise of job rotation. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Vol. 22, No.1: 129-148. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1068/c28m

Fletcher, Roy. 2004. Demand-led programmes: challenging labour-market inequalities or reinforcing them? Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Vol. 22, No.1: 115-128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1068/c0329

Green, David, and Riddell, Craig. (1991). Design Issues Relating to the Wage Subsidy/Self Sufficiency Project,” Applied Research Branch.

Hum D. and Simpson, W. 1999. “Training and Unemployment.” In K. Battle and S. Torjman (Eds.) Employment Policy Options. Ottawa: Renouf Publishing.

Katz, Lawrence. 1996. Wage Subsidies for the Disadvantaged,” NBER Working Paper Series: 8-40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3386/w5679

Lipsky, Michael. 1980. Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. Russell Sage Foundation: New York. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1288305

MacNeil, Ryan. 2005. “Accountability and Community Economic Development: The Funder-Governed NGO.” Canadian Research Alliance for Community Innovation and Networking (CRACIN), Working Paper No. 2005-3.

Maxwell, Judith. 2004. “Beyond EI., “ Presentation, 37 Parliament, 3rd Session. CPRN.

McQuaid, Ronald W. and Lindsay, Colin. 2005. “The Concept of Employability” Urban Studies, Vol. 42, No. 2: 197-219. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098042000316100

Patton, M. Q. 2002. Variety in Qualitative Inquiry: Theoretical Orientations. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Newbury Park: Sage.

Peck, Jamie and Theodore, Nikolas. 2000. “Beyond Employability,” Cambridge Journal of Economics. Vol. 24 , No. 6:729-749 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/24.6.729

Phillips, S. and Levasseur, K. 2004. “The Snakes and Ladders of Accountability: Contradictions between contracting and collaboration for Canada’s voluntary sector,” Canadian Public Administration: Vol. 47, No. 4: 451-474. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-7121.2004.tb01188.x

Stone, Clarence. 1993. “Whither the Welfare State? Professionalization, Bureaucracy, and the Market Alternative”, Ethics: Vol. 93, No. 3:588-595. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/292470

Torjman, S. 2000. “Survival of the Fittest Employment Policy,” Caledon Social Policy, April 2000. 1-65.

Toronto City Summit Alliance and St. Christopher House 2006. “Time for a Fair Deal,” Report of the Task Force on Modernizing Income Security for Working Age Adults. 1-67.

Downloads

Published

— Updated on 2009-03-01

Versions

  • 2009-03-01 (2)
  • (1)

How to Cite

Lahey, P., & Hall, P. V. (2009). The Targeted Wage Subsidy: How Program Design Creates Incentives for “Creaming”. Just Labour, 13. https://doi.org/10.25071/1705-1436.74

Issue

Section

Contents