IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/kyklos/v76y2023i4p882-901.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Free riding on short‐time work allowances? Results from an experimental survey design

Author

Listed:
  • Mario Bossler
  • Christopher Osiander
  • Julia Schmidtke
  • Mark Trappmann

Abstract

Short‐time work (STW) is a policy measure whose prominence increases during economic crises and is intended to stabilize the labor market. Employers can temporarily reduce employees' working hours, which are in turn paid by the social security system in the meantime. Although short‐time work—by design—saves employers a fraction of their wage costs, little is known about free riding behavior when using this option. Accordingly, we analyze the employee‐reported free riding experience with respect to longer actual working hours than accounted for in employees' short‐time work allowances, the unchanged workloads experienced by these employees, and announced lay‐off decisions. Since these questions are certainly sensitive, we employ the crosswise model, a privacy‐preserving technique, in a random half of the sample. Our results show significant employee‐reported prevalences across all dimensions and a significant association between free riding and workers' job dissatisfaction. These findings thus highlight the importance of the crosswise model in uncovering these findings and demonstrate a specific drawback in the application of short‐time work.

Suggested Citation

  • Mario Bossler & Christopher Osiander & Julia Schmidtke & Mark Trappmann, 2023. "Free riding on short‐time work allowances? Results from an experimental survey design," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 76(4), pages 882-901, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:kyklos:v:76:y:2023:i:4:p:882-901
    DOI: 10.1111/kykl.12354
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/kykl.12354
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/kykl.12354?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ivar Krumpal, 2013. "Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 2025-2047, June.
    2. Jun-Wu Yu & Guo-Liang Tian & Man-Lai Tang, 2008. "Two new models for survey sampling with sensitive characteristic: design and analysis," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 67(3), pages 251-263, April.
    3. Alexander Herzog-Stein & Patrick Nüß & Lennert Peede & Ulrike Stein, 2022. "Germany and the United States in coronavirus distress: internal versus external labour market flexibility," Journal for Labour Market Research, Springer;Institute for Employment Research/ Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), vol. 56(1), pages 1-22, December.
    4. Korndörfer, Martin & Krumpal, Ivar & Schmukle, Stefan C., 2014. "Measuring and explaining tax evasion: Improving self-reports using the crosswise model," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 18-32.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Burgstaller, Lilith & Feld, Lars P. & Pfeil, Katharina, 2022. "Working in the shadow: Survey techniques for measuring and explaining undeclared work," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 661-671.
    2. Julia Meisters & Adrian Hoffmann & Jochen Musch, 2020. "Can detailed instructions and comprehension checks increase the validity of crosswise model estimates?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-19, June.
    3. Marc Höglinger & Ben Jann, 2018. "More is not always better: An experimental individual-level validation of the randomized response technique and the crosswise model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-22, August.
    4. Ó Ceallaigh, Diarmaid & Timmons, Shane & Robertson, Deirdre & Lunn, Pete, 2023. "Measures of problem gambling, gambling behaviours and perceptions of gambling in Ireland," Research Series, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), number RS169.
    5. Walzenbach, Sandra & Hinz, Thomas, 2022. "Puzzling Answers to Crosswise Questions - Examining Overall Prevalence Rates, Primacy Effects and Learning Effects," EconStor Preprints 249353, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    6. Korndörfer, Martin & Krumpal, Ivar & Schmukle, Stefan C., 2014. "Measuring and explaining tax evasion: Improving self-reports using the crosswise model," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 18-32.
    7. Ulrich Thy Jensen, 2020. "Is self-reported social distancing susceptible to social desirability bias? Using the crosswise model to elicit sensitive behaviors," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 3(2).
    8. Ivar Krumpal & Thomas Voss, 2020. "Sensitive Questions and Trust: Explaining Respondents’ Behavior in Randomized Response Surveys," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(3), pages 21582440209, July.
    9. Kirchner Antje, 2015. "Validating Sensitive Questions: A Comparison of Survey and Register Data," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 31(1), pages 31-59, March.
    10. Aycinena, Diego & Bogliacino, Francesco & Kimbrough, Erik O., 2024. "Measuring norms: Assessing the threat of social desirability bias to the Bicchieri and Xiao elicitation method," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 222(C), pages 225-239.
    11. Carlos Barros, 2012. "Sustainable Tourism in Inhambane-Mozambique," CEsA Working Papers 105, CEsA - Centre for African and Development Studies.
    12. Michael T Gastner & Károly Takács & Máté Gulyás & Zsuzsanna Szvetelszky & Beáta Oborny, 2019. "The impact of hypocrisy on opinion formation: A dynamic model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-21, June.
    13. Andreas Lagerås & Mathias Lindholm, 2020. "How to ask sensitive multiple‐choice questions," Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, Danish Society for Theoretical Statistics;Finnish Statistical Society;Norwegian Statistical Association;Swedish Statistical Association, vol. 47(2), pages 397-424, June.
    14. Babette Bühler & Katja Möhring & Andreas P. Weiland, 2022. "Assessing dissimilarity of employment history information from survey and administrative data using sequence analysis techniques," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(6), pages 4747-4774, December.
    15. Sjöstedt, Martin & Sundström, Aksel & Jagers, Sverker C. & Ntuli, Herbert, 2022. "Governance through community policing: What makes citizens report poaching of wildlife to state officials?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    16. Tricia Koroknay†Palicz & Joao Montalvao, 2020. "Sex, Lies, and Surveys: The Role of Interviewer Characteristics," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 40(4), pages 3313-3324.
    17. Burke, Mary A. & Carman, Katherine G., 2017. "You can be too thin (but not too tall): Social desirability bias in self-reports of weight and height," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 27(PA), pages 198-222.
    18. Shinichi Kitano, 2021. "Estimation of Determinants of Farmland Abandonment and Its Data Problems," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-17, June.
    19. Seres, Gyula & Balleyer, Anna Helen & Cerutti, Nicola & Danilov, Anastasia & Friedrichsen, Jana & Liu, Yiming & Süer, Müge, 2021. "Face masks increase compliance with physical distancing recommendations during the COVID-19 pandemic," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 7(2), pages 139-158.
    20. Yuning Wu & Ivan Y. Sun & Rong Hu, 2021. "Cooperation with Police in China: Surveillance Cameras, Neighborhood Efficacy and Policing," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(1), pages 433-453, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:kyklos:v:76:y:2023:i:4:p:882-901. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0023-5962 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.