Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35966833›Full record

ArticleJournal for labour market research2022

Germany and the United States in coronavirus distress: internal versus external labour market flexibility.

Alexander Herzog-Stein, Patrick Nüß, Lennert Peede, Ulrike Stein

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal for labour market research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Alexander Herzog-SteinMacroeconomic Policy Institute (IMK), Georg-Glock-Str. 18, 40474 Düsseldorf, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5396-0633
Patrick NüßKiel University, Wilhelm-Seelig-Platz 1, 24118 Kiel, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7832-0870
Lennert PeedeUniversity of Muenster, Schlossplatz 2, 48149 Münster, Germany.
Ulrike SteinMacroeconomic Policy Institute (IMK), Georg-Glock-Str. 18, 40474 Düsseldorf, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Germany and the United States pursued different economic strategies to minimise the impact of the Coronavirus Crisis on the labour market. Germany focused on safeguarding existing jobs through the use of internal flexibility measures, especially short-time work (STW). The United States relied on a mix of external flexibility and income protection. On this basis, we use macroeconomic time series to examine the German strategy of securing employment through internal flexibility by contrasting it with the chosen strategy in the United States. In Germany, temporary cyclical reductions in working hours are mainly driven via STW. US unemployment rose at an unprecedented rate, but unlike in previous recessions, it was mostly driven by temporary layoffs. However, a closer look at the blind spots of the chosen strategies in both countries showed that despite the different approaches, people in weaker labour market positions were less well protected by the chosen strategies.

Indexed as

Coronavirus recessionCovid-19 pandemicExternal flexibilityGreat recessionInternal flexibilitySafeguarding employmentShort-time workTemporary layoffsUnemploymentWorking-time reduction

Identifiers

PMID35966833
PMCPMC9364861

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.