**Table 2. Simple correlations between UB and ALMP indicators and labor market outcomes, 2019**<sup>**Ɨ**</sup>

||Unemp-<br>loyment<br>rate|Emp-<br>loy<br>ment<br>rate|Emp.<br>rate<br>in agri-<br>culture|Emp.<br>rate<br>in ind-<br>ustry|Emp.<br>rate<br>in servi-<br>ces|Self-<br>emp.<br>rate|Prod.<br>growth|<br>Prod.<br>(log)|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|UB scheme|-0.04|-0.18*|-0.52*|0.37*|0.47*|-0.56*|0.19*|0.58*|
|UB after one year of contrib.|-0.04|-0.09|-0.53*|0.34*|0.50*|-0.56*|0.13|0.55*|
|Min. contribution period|0.01|-0.21*|0.17|0.08|-0.21*|0.23*|0.09|-0.14|
|Max. UBperiod|-0.03|0.01|-0.30*|-0.04|0.31*|-0.27*|-0.20*|0.42*|
|PES|-0.04|-0.07|-0.40*|0.28*|0.37*|-0.38*|0.29*|0.41*|
|Vacancy database|-0.09|0.03|-0.20*|0.11|0.19*|-0.28*|0.03|0.22*|
|Job placement|-0.10|0.01|-0.18*|0.11|0.16*|-0.22*|0.11|0.27*|
|Counseling|-0.03|-0.08|-0.12|0.02|0.13|-0.21*|0.17*|0.27*|
|Training|-0.15*|-0.02|-0.14|0.12|0.11|-0.20*|0.14|0.21*|
|Mobility support|-0.07|-0.11|-0.19*|0.20*|0.14|-0.28*|0.25*|0.30*|
|Internship/apprenticeship|0.16*|-0.07|0.06|0.07|-0.10|0.02|0.28*|0.00|
|National skills fund|-0.06|0.04|-0.24*|0.06|0.27*|-0.17*|0.04|0.21*|
|Training incentives|-0.03|-0.09|-0.34*|0.23*|0.32*|-0.39*|0.21*|0.42*|
|Incentive type: tax relief|-0.07|-0.02|-0.02|0.18*|-0.06|0.02|0.08|-0.02|
|Incentive type: subsidy|0.07|-0.24*|-0.30*|0.39*|0.18*|-0.35*|0.15|0.38*|
|Incentive type: reimbursement|0.12|-0.38*|-0.26*|0.34*|0.15|-0.29*|0.11|0.33*|

Source: See Table A9 in the appendix for the definition and source of the indicators. * Indicates p values below 10 percent.

Figure 9 below reports the scatter plots of the maximum length of UB against selected key labor market indicators, including employment rate, log of labor productivity, collective bargaining coverage and labor tax and contribution rates, all of which are expected to be closely linked to UB and ALMP. The first scatter plot of Figure 9 reports employment rate against the maximum length of UB. The figure reveals a negative association between these indicators. Large numbers of countries concentrate in the lower-right and lower-left quadrant of the figure. HIC dominate the lower-right quadrant with higher employment rates and shorter maximum UB periods, followed by UMIC and LMIC. Conversely, LMIC and UMIC prevail in the lower-left quadrant with shorter maximum UB periods and lower employment rates.

As seen in the second scatter plot of Figure 9, there is a significant positive association between labor productivity and the maximum length of UB. All countries in the far end of the upper-right quadrant are HIC, with both longer UB periods and higher productivity, however, most HIC and UMIC have higher labor productivity and shorter UB periods (lower-right quadrant). The majority of LMIC have both lower productivity and shorter UB periods (lower-left quadrant). There are only three countries (Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine, and China) in the upper-left quadrant with longer UB durations and lower productivity.

Predictably, the maximum length of UB period has a strong positive correlation with collective bargaining coverage, as demonstrated in the third scatter plot of Figure 9. Most industrialized European countries, except the United Kingdom and Ireland, have both higher collective bargaining coverage and longer maximum UB periods, while most of UMIC and high-income Eastern European countries, as well as the United States and Canada, have lower collective bargaining coverage and shorter maximum UB periods. Finally, the last scatter plot of Figure 9 confirms that labor tax and contribution has a strong positive association with the maximum length of UB at all income levels, with few exceptions.

19