internship/apprenticeship, may focus on wage employment, given the complexity of training programs for entrepreneurship, or that the supply of these programs increases during periods of low employment.

**Table 3. Regression analyses with interaction terms: Total association of UB and ALMP indicators with**

**labor market outcomes at different income levels, 2019**

|Dependent<br>|UB and ALMP<br>|Low- and<br>middle-i<br>(LLM|lower-<br>ncome<br>IC)|Upper-m<br>inco<br>(UMI|iddle-<br>me<br>C)|Hig<br>Inco<br>(HI|h-<br>me<br>C)|N|Adj.<br>|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|variables|indicators||d||||d||R2|
|||Coeff.|St.<br>error|Coeff.|St.<br>error|Coeff.|St.<br>error|||
|Unemployment<br>rate|Internship|0.61|0.94|3.9***|1.52|0.97|0.92|117|0.48|
|Elt t|Max. length of UB|-0.20|2.22|-6.1**|2.21|-1.03|1.03|73|0.88|
|mpoymen rae|Trainingincentives|-0.09|0.90|-3.2**|1.46|-1.47|1.69|128|0.91|
||Max. length of UB|-8.99|5.69|-0.02|3.83|2.18*|1.19|72|0.79|
|Employment rate|Counseling|11.0***|3.40|-0.80|3.13|-3.95|2.84|117|0.87|
|in agriculture|Train. incent-subsidy|14.2***|5.17|1.36|5.45|0.41|2.17|84|0.86|
||Train. Incent-reimburs.|12.9***|3.77|-3.47|4.51|-0.37|1.83|84|0.87|
||UB scheme|-1.15|1.97|3.38**|1.57|-0.70|4.28|126|0.44|
|Employment rate|UB w/1year of contrib.|-0.62|3.06|5.0***|1.68|0.81|3.22|127|0.36|
|in industry|Max. length of UB|8.08***|2.61|5.30*|2.90|-3.3**|1.46|75|0.30|
||Counseling|-6.79**|2.61|-0.21|1.66|0.35|2.99|117|0.39|
||Counseling|-4.21**|2.02|1.00|2.99|3.61|3.85|117|0.87|
|Employment rate|Mobilitysupport|-5.15*|2.61|-1.75|2.63|-0.03|1.83|117|0.87|
|in services|Train. incent-subsidy|-11.2**|4.27|-2.93|3.86|-3.07|2.32|84|0.88|
||Train. incent-reimburs.|-14.5**|2.85|-3.08|3.03|-2.19|1.52|84|0.90|
|Slf R|Internship|-2.25|3.53|-12.9**|5.28|-6.1**|2.89|117|0.85|
|e-emp. ate|Trainingincentives|-5.54*|3.00|-12.0**|4.60|0.67|4.72|127|0.87|
||Min. length of contrib.|-1.25|1.00|-0.86|0.67|1.46**|0.65|68|0.54|
||Max. length of UB|0.17|0.80|2.52**|0.97|-1.0**|0.40|74|0.60|
|Productivity|Mobilitysupport|1.96**|0.76|1.60*|0.89|0.10|0.59|116|0.34|
|growth|Internship|1.98**|0.93|0.45|1.04|-0.95|0.62|116|0.35|
||National skills fund|-0.47|0.76|2.19***|0.77|-1.06*|0.57|126|0.37|
||Train. incent-reimburs.|1.87**|0.81|-1.44*|0.82|-0.35|0.49|83|0.46|

Source: See Table A9 in the appendix for the definition and source of the indicators used in the regression analyses. Robust standard errors in parentheses; *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1.

Ϯ Total association of UB and ALMP indicators with labor market outcomes are computed using the first derivative of the regression equation with respect to the UB and ALMP indicators for each country group.

Notes: Internship refers to both internship and apprenticeship; incent.: incentives; max: maximum; reimburs.: reimbursement; train.: training; unemp.: unemployment; w/: with. Table repots only the statistically significant coefficients of UB and ALMP indicators obtained through the first derivation of each interaction regression equation, described in equation 1, with respect to UB and ALMP indicators for each income group using _lincom_ command of STATA. Total of 128 full regression analyses are carried out including all control variables (i.e., regression of 8 labor market outcome indicators with respect to 16 UB and ALMP indicators). To ensure robustness, control variables were incrementally introduced into the model. Individual regression tables are not reported in the appendix due to their sheer numbers, but they are available upon request.

In low- and lower-middle-income countries, ALMP show a stronger correlation with labor market outcomes compared to upper middle and high-income countries, highlighting the fact that they extensively rely on ALMP. Specifically, they exhibit positive associations with productivity and employment rates in the agriculture sector, and a negative association with employment rate in the 23