apprentices by quotas set by firm size and lowered the minimum wage of apprentices. They found that firms in sectors requiring high skills inclined to avoid training apprentices due to high cost of training in these sectors, while firms in low-skill sectors sought apprentices. They also showed that in general equilibrium the reform increased the overall output of the economy and the welfare of apprentices in all sectors, but it reduced the welfare of firms in high skilled sectors and workers in low skilled sectors, indicating a replacement of a higher wage employee with a lower wage apprentice.

Country level studies of ALMP in developed countries reveal mixed results. For instance, PES participation in France led to increased employment rates (Fougère et al. 2005), while a reemployment program in the US state of Nevada raised participant earnings (Manoli et al. 2018). However, in the US city of Detroit, job placement programs increased earnings solely through direct-hire placements, whereas temporary help placements had zero or negative effects on earnings (Autor et al. 2017). Moreover, in France and Denmark, although job search assistance increased the employment of participants, it also decreased the employment of non-participants (Crepon et al. 2012; Gautier et al. 2018). As for training programs in developed countries, Kluve (2010) discovered that integrated training programs in Europe increased employment rates by 40–50 percent compared to traditional methods. Yet, youth-focused programs had a 40–60 percent lower success rate in enhancing employment compared to adult programs.

# **3. Description of UB and ALMP Data and Stylized Facts**

This section details the novel UB and ALMP data utilized in the paper. It includes a statistical analysis to reveal patterns and correlations with other economic indicators. In addition, drawing on World Bank's Social Protection and Jobs Policy Inventory data, it offers a descriptive analysis of the UB and ALMP reforms implemented during the Covid-19 pandemic.

## **3.1. Description of the data**

UB and ALMP data were collected through questionnaires distributed to 900 experts in 191 economies in 2019 and 2020.<sup>5</sup> To ensure the comparability of data across economies and over time, the questionnaires are based on a standard assumption that the UB recipient is a 19-year-old former full-time cashier in a supermarket or a grocery store in the largest business city, who has been made redundant after one year of work due to economic reasons. S/he is single with no dependents, not a member of a labor union, unless membership is mandatory, and is not granted more benefits than those mandated by law, regulations, or (if applicable) collective bargaining agreements.

> 5 See Table A1 in the appendix for detailed information on the questions. The cutoff date for data collection cycles in both 2019 and 2020 was May 1. Most of the 900 respondents were the same in both years. In cases where the original respondents were not available, we found new respondents. These experts included labor lawyers, government officials, and other professionals routinely administering or advising on legal and regulatory requirements related to unemployment protection schemes and PES. Several rounds of due diligence were carried out on the data collected through questionnaires, including follow-up questions to the experts through phone calls, videoconferencing, and face-to-face interviews, as well as verification against the laws and regulations of each country. Data were also reviewed by several experts in the World Bank Group.

9