Introduction
1.1 Overview of the Corona Crisis
The world is in the midst of the COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019)
pandemic that is caused by SARSCoV-2 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome
Coronavirus 2, often shortened to coronavirus). This is having a greater impact
on human health and the global economy than any other health crisis in the
last 100 years. Several papers and reviews have been undertaken to answer
questions that are currently being asked by athletes, coaches, exercisers,
physicians, sports functionaries and owners and users of sports facilities. On
the 30th of December 2019, a cluster of pneumonia cases of unknown cause
was reported on the ProMed-mail website (a website for monitoring emerging
diseases). This outbreak was linked to a seafood market in Wuhan, China. On
the January 8 2020, ProMed-mail then reported that the outbreak was linked
to a novel coronavirus. The risk that coronaviruses in wild animals can cause
zoonotic, species-switching diseases in humans had been highlighted thirteen
years before the current outbreak. 1 On January 28, 2020, a first case with the
novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 was laboratory-confirmed in Germany. At that
moment, it was reported in the Epidemiological Bulletin 7/2019, that there
were then 14 German cases that belonged to a joint outbreak with reference
to Wuhan, China (cluster around a company based in Starnberg). The most
common symptoms mentioned are fever, runny nose and cough. In addition,
there are other general symptoms such as apathy, loss of appetite and weight,
pain (headache, back pain, muscle pain) and nausea or vomiting. The age
range is between 2 and 58 years. In addition to the 14 cases that were
currently isolated in hospitals in Bavaria, two of the people repatriated on
February 1, 2020 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. By then, a total of 16 cases
were known to be existing in Germany. The corona virus was declared a
pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) on March 11, 2020. By
then the novel virus had claimed the lives of 11,982 people in Germany (as of
Nov. 12, 2020), according to the Berlin-based Robert Koch Institute. 2
1.2 COVID-19 and the Employment and Social Situation in Germany
Employment in Germany kept growing steadily after the global economic
crisis, rising from 40.9 million in June 2009 to 43.7 million in June 2016 and
45.3 million in June 2019 according to national statistics. 3 The number of
employees subject to social security contributions grew from 27.6 million in
1 Vgl. (Wackerhage, et al., 2020)
2 Vgl. (RKI, 2020)
3 Vgl. (Duell & Vetter, 2020) S. 12
14
2009 to 31.4 million in 2016 and 33.8 million in 2019, an increase of 21% over
the 10 year period. The monthly employment data for 2019 show a slowing
down of employment growth in 2019. 4 Leading economic research institutes
predict a severe economic recession at least for 2020 as an effect of the
coronavirus pandemic. The joint group of forecasting institutions projects the
GDP to shrink by 4.2% in 2020. 5 It is predicted that a total shutdown of the
economy will cost between EUR 255 billion and 495 billion. 6 The Federation of
German Industries expects German GDP to shrink by 3-6% in 2020 due to the
coronavirus crisis. Also, there were 3.56 million self-employed persons in
Germany in 2018. The share of self-employed in total employment decreased
from 10.5% in 2004 to 8.8% in 2018, with shares of employers and own-
account workers also decreasing. 7 One explanation for the recent decrease in
self-employment is that the labour market has increasingly offered more
attractive employment opportunities. Employment growth was driven by rising
labour demand linked to the sustained economic growth of the past decade.
The global economic crisis had only a small negative effect on the number of
employed subject to social security thanks to the extensive use of short-time
work schemes and working-time accounts, and the German economy
recovered quickly. The increased employment rates accounting for
employment growth were particularly sizeable for women, older workers and
foreigners. 8 Both the unemployment rate and the inactivity rate were
accordingly reduced. Immigration also generated employment growth. Skill
shortages or the threat of skill shortages, and strategies to overcome them,
have been at the centre of public and political debate for many years.
Generally, it is difficult to measure the extent of the shortage as companies
react by pursuing other strategies, such as outsourcing, offshoring or
continuous training of their own staff. In the event of skill shortages,
companies may also be constrained to downsize their activities and refrain
from exploiting market potentials or seizing opportunities to increase
productivity. 9
Nevertheless, an analysis of skill shortages has been carried out by the
German Federal Employment Agency, which is the Germany Public
Employment Services. The main indicators used are how long it takes to fill a
4 Vgl. (Sachverständigenrat, 2019)
5 Vgl. (Duell & Vetter, 2020) S. 12
6 Vgl. (institute, 2020)
7 Vgl. (Eurostat, 2016) S. 2
8 Vgl. (Duell & Vetter, 2020) S. 12
9 Vgl. (Eurostat, 2016) S. 4
14
vacancy registered at the German Federal Employment Agency, and the job
seeker/vacancy ratio. In 2008, during the economic and financial crisis, the
ratio of unemployed to registered jobs was around 806 to 100, and 232 to 100
in 2019 (meaning that on average there are two unemployed per vacancy. 10
From a sectoral perspective, skill shortages occur mainly in the health sector,
the construction sector and some manufacturing industries, as well as the ICT
sector and in ICT roles across all sectors. Assessment of bottleneck
occupations is the basis for establishing a white list for immigration. 11 In 2011,
the government announced its strategy to secure skilled labour, based on five
pillars:
i) access to education for all;
ii) skills development (initial and continuous training);
iii) activation policies and securing employment;
iv) reconciliation of work and family life;
v) integration and immigration of skilled labour.
Recent policy initiatives, such as the new law on immigration and the new
strategy to promote continuous education and training are in line with this
strategy. Trade unions especially have argued that low wages and poor
working conditions would need to be addressed to overcome skill shortages.
For example, in the healthcare and old-age care sectors, bad working
conditions are thought to contribute to high labour turnover and shortages of
skilled workers. 12
1.3 Unemployment in Germany during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Unemployment in Germany has substantially grown as a consequence of the
corona pandemic. 2.70 million People were registered unemployed in
Germany in 2020 on an annual average, 429,000 or 19 per cent more than a
year before. 13 The increase is most of all attributable to fewer people
successfully ending their unemployment or job-seeking by taking up a job. A
minor role has also been played by the higher number of job redundancies.
The unemployment increases would possibly have been much higher still
without short-time work. In April 2020 – the month with the highest number of
claims – businesses received short-time working allowance for 6.00 million
10 Vgl. (FEA, 2019)
11 Vgl. (Duell & Vetter, 2020) S. 12
12 Vgl. (Kraft & Drossel, 2019) S. 58
13 Vgl. (FEA, 2019)
14
people. The loss of working hours meanwhile amounted to 50%. This means
in mathematical terms that the jobs of around three million people could be
saved in the peak period. The economy picked up speed again in the course
of the year, and the short-time work was markedly reduced. 14
Compared with other European countries, Germany seems to have low
unemployment figures. But in spring 2020, uncertainty arose about the further
development on the labour market and of the whole economy as the country
was hit by the lockdown to tackle the Corona pandemic. Although first
measures to ease the situation came into effect in April, unemployment rose in
that month and later. Normally a seasonal upturn is typical for springtime, but
then observers spoke about the beginning of the terrible recession. 15 In
Germany in November 2020, a new lockdown light began in order to reduce
the number of infections with the Corona virus. These measures included
among others the closure of gastronomy, tourism industry and leisure
activities. But with the approach of the cold season, the number of infections
was rising. Calls for the sharpening of the measures became louder and on
December 16th, a new lockdown started. Now even shops had to close unless
they sold products essential for the daily life. This second lockdown was
longer than the first one. In many parts of Germany, business returned to
normality not before late spring 2021, depending on the local situation. In
summer 2021, German politicians want to avoid another lockdown. A high rate
of vaccinated people seems to be the way out of the pandemic. Now the
country is beginning to be touched by the fourth wave caused by the delta
variant. But the number of infected people needing inpatient treatment is lower
than during the earlier waves. New restrictions will depend on the situation in
the hospitals. 16
German politicians are proud of having kept the unemployment at a com-
paratively low level by the use of short-time working arrangements. When
such an arrangement is made, the working hours of an employee are reduced
and the employee may benefit from short-time working allowance paid by the
public unemployment insurance. This support normally amounts to 60% or
67% of the difference between the wage in the time with reduced working
hours and the wage in times of regular work. Those beneficiaries are not
included in the number of unemployed people. But we should consider that
German law even allows the reduction of working time to zero. Such a
14 Vgl. (Duell & Vetter, 2020) S. 12
15 Vgl. (Von Bröckel, 2021)
16 Vgl. (Von Bröckel, 2021)
14
reduction does not prevent the granting of this aid. But the real amount of
people out of work is being hidden. 17 In July 2021, approximately 2.590 million
men and women were without work in Germany, a country with a population of
approximately 83 million people. The number of unemployed men and women
fell by 24,000 compared with the previous month and by 320,000 compared
with July 2020. The official unemployment rate provided by the German
Federal Employment Agency (Bundesagentur für Arbeit) is 5.6%. 18 From
January 2014 to October 2019, the monthly unemployment rate was lower
than the rate in the corresponding month a year ago. There was no difference
in the rate from November 2019 to March 2020. After a long time, April 2020 is
the first month with a higher rate than twelve months ago. Now the impact of
the virus on the labour market is weakening. The rate of July 2021 is 0.7
percentage points lower than a year ago, but by 0.6 percentage points still
higher than 24 months ago. 19 The methods used by the German employment
agency are different from the standards used by the International Labour
Organization (ILO). If the concept of the ILO is used, the unemployment rate is
3.7% according to the ILO standards in June 2021). 20 The situation on the
labour market continues to improve. Unemployment and underemployment
continued to fall strongly despite the start of the summer break. According to
the German Federal Statistical Office, 44.84 million people were in gainful
employment in Germany in June 2021 (a plus of 162,000 compared with June
2020). In May 2021, 33.73 million people had a job that was subject to social
insurance contributions, the agency told (a plus of 402,000 compared with last
year). In July 2021, the Federal Employment Agency registered 744,000 job
vacancies, 171,000 more than a year ago. The underemployment was at
3.379 million people, 294,000 more than last year's July. 21
The number of short-time workers at the end of 2020 nonetheless still
exceeded the peak value during the financial and economic crisis of 2009. In
times of the Corona pandemic, short-time working allowance becomes more
important. Its purpose is to avoid unemployment. Employees who benefit from
this financial support are not registered as unemployed and are not included in
the monthly unemployment rate. When the demand for the company's
products or services shrinks, the employer may reduce the working-time of the
staff. Short-time working allowance now comes as a compensation for the loss
17 Vgl. (FEA, 2019)
18 Vgl. (Von Bröckel, 2021)
19 Vgl. (FEA, 2019)
20 Vgl. (Von Bröckel, 2021)
21 Vgl. (FEA, 2019)
14
of wage caused by the reduction. The help paid by the Federal Labour Agency
generally replaces 60% of the difference between the wage paid during
regular working time and the wage paid in times with reduced working time.
For those who care for a child, 67% will be granted. 22 As a relief in the
pandemic, short-time working allowance was raised to 70% from the fourth
month and to 80% from the seventh month of receiving this benefit (77% or
87% in case of parents). The German social security system also allows the
reduction of working time to zero hours. It does not hinder this support from
being granted if the employer is willing to call back the employee after the
crisis. 23 Employees cannot apply themselves for this benefit, but their employer
can do so. The company must submit a written report to the local office of the
Labour Agency by the end of the first month in which short-time working
allowance should be paid. From July 1 to July 25, the Labour Agency received
notices for short-time working for approximately 75,000 employees. In May
2021, short-time working allowance was paid to 2.23 million employees. The
number is falling. It reached its peak in April 2020 with nearly six million
beneficiaries. 24
Whenever a company introduces short-time working, the employer pays both
the reduced wage and the short-time working allowance to the employees.
After this, the employer sends a payroll list with the names of the workers with
reduced working time to the Labour Agency. This must happen within three
months. The agency checks the documents and pays the allowance to the
company. By this procedure, the agency is unable to announce the actual
number of people who benefit from this support together with the publication of
the unemployment figures. Short-time working is generally limited to twelve
months. As a further help in the pandemic, the limitation has been prolonged
to 24 months but not longer than the 31 December 2021 if the beneficiary has
initially been entitled to this support in 2020. 25
1.3.1 The Meaning of Unemployment in Germany
In Germany, a job seeking person is unemployed if she or he is able to work,
does not work 15 hours a week or longer and is registered as an unemployed
person at the local labour agency's office or job centre. The unemployed
person must look for an occupation that lasts at least 15 hours a week. Further
on, only a person who has not yet reached the retirement age and is not on
22 Vgl. (Von Bröckel, 2021)
23 Vgl. (Von Bröckel, 2021)
24 Vgl. (FEA, 2019)
25 Vgl. (Von Bröckel, 2021)
14
sick leave can be unemployed. The unemployed must be willing to work and
accept any work, he or she has not the right to accept only a work that is
similar to the previous one. An unemployed person who is 58 years old or
more and receives welfare benefits for at least 12 months and has not got a
job offer by the labour agency will not be counted as unemployed. 26
1.4 COVID-19 Trends in Germany
The world is in the midst of a global pandemic and all countries have been
impacted significantly. In Europe, the most successful policy response to the
pandemic has been by Germany, as measured by the decline in new COVID-
19 cases in recent weeks and consistent increase in recovered’ cases. This is
also reflected in the COVID-19 related mortality rate per million people, it is
58.63 per million people as compared to that of Spain, which is 446.28. 27 One
critical aspect of German policy response has been in their systematic
reporting of daily data that is highly disaggregated, which makes it possible to
analyze key characteristics of the COVID-19 outbreak in Germany and
improve our collective understanding of the global pandemic. Data from the
situation reports made by the Robert Koch Institute (the German government’s
central scientific institution in the field of biomedicine) showed that the COVID-
19 related mortality rate in Germany is rising significantly with age and over
time, for all age groups in the population; the mortality rate is systematically
higher for men compared to women in all age groups; and the difference in the
mortality rates of men and women have increased with time. In the early stage
of the COVID-19 outbreak in Germany, mortality rate of men (for all age
groups) was only slightly higher than mortality rate of women. This difference,
however, has grown significantly to the point that the overall mortality rate of
men is now 50% greater than the mortality rate of women. 28
COVID-19 related mortality rate is higher for men than women across several
countries. Existing studies have documented biological as well as behavioral
reasons for this. A 2017 study in the Journal of Immunology studied the SARS
outbreak in 2003 to determine the reasons why coronavirus that causes SARS
seems to affect men more than women. In that study, researchers found that
male mice were more susceptible to the virus. But when they blocked estrogen
from working normally in the female mice, the females fell ill at higher rates. 29
Behaviorally, smoking is a common explanation for gendered outcome of
26 Vgl. (Von Bröckel, 2021)
27 Vgl. (Ravi & Kappor, 2020)
28 Vgl. (Ravi & Kappor, 2020)
29 Vgl. (Ravi & Kappor, 2020)
14
respiratory ailments. Existing research shows that 54% of Chinese adult men
are smokers while only 2.6% Chinese women smoke. Similarly, a World Bank
report states that 41% of South Korean men smoked, versus as against 6% of
women. The trends are similar in Spain and U.S., but the difference in
smoking between genders in Germany is not as large. 30 The same study
analyzed how the COVID-19 infection is spread across different age groups in
the German population. The main results show that distributions of confirmed
COVID-19 cases across all age groups show an increase with time, and that
the infection is not linearly related to age. While population above 80 years of
age are most susceptible, it is people in the working age group (15-59 years)
that are more susceptible than people 60-79 years of age. This is an important
feature of the COVID-19 outbreak in Germany. This could be due to early
policies enacted to isolate and safeguard the older population, while working
age groups are physically more mobile and have a higher probability of
contracting the virus from others. The results show that the younger age
groups have significantly lower infection rates. 31 From the study, the COVID-19
trends reveal that the majority of COVID-19 cases now are females, even
though they were a smaller proportion in the beginning of the outbreak. The
mortality rate per 100,000 population has been increasing with time, for all age
groups in the population. Remarkably, the mortality rate of men is rising
significantly faster than mortality rate for women in Germany, for all age
groups. The infection rate across age groups showed that people in the
working age group (15-59) are far more susceptible than older population in
age group 60-79 years. The overall infection rate is growing with time for all
age groups. Germany’s response to the COVID-19 outbreak is of enormous
interest to the hotspot nations on account of its population size and early
successes. Germany has managed to lower the number of active COVID-19
cases while simultaneously improving the recovery rate and maintaining a low
mortality rate. There are, however, significant variations across gender and
age groups in the spread of the infection and lives lost to it. While Germany is
ahead of its neighbors in managing the pandemic, these critical trends hold
potential lessons for other countries tracking the spread of the pandemic
among various subpopulations. 32
1.5 COVID-19 Lockdown
In December 2019, the COVID-19 outbreak was registered in Wuhan China.
30 Vgl. (Ravi & Kappor, 2020)
31 Vgl. (Ravi & Kappor, 2020)
32 Vgl. (Ravi & Kappor, 2020)
14
The World Health Organization declared it a Public Health Emergency of
International Concern on January 30, 2020 and escalated it to a pandemic on
March 11, 2020. The disease has been recorded in over 200 countries and
territories with several millions of confirmed cases and a case mortality rate of
around seven percent. 33 In the early stages of the outbreak, attempts were
made to trace every infection back to its origin. Tracing back to the index case
on an international level soon became impossible and most countries
responded by imposing restrictions on international travel. After spreading
around the world at an alarming rate, the World Health Organization (WHO)
declared COVID-19 as a pandemic on the 11th of March 2020. 34 Governments
are taking unprecedented measures to limit the spread of the virus with the
aim of eventually containing this pandemic. As such, COVID-19 has massively
affected the lives of people all over the world. Countries have taken drastic
measures to contain the outbreak. In Europe, several countries have
implemented national lockdowns, limiting all non-essential travel. The societal
impacts of both the virus and the measures taken to reduce its spread are
severe. The circumstances result in a unique situation in which people have
had to change their daily lives radically, often within the span of days or
weeks. People’s activity patterns, the way they work and how they travel are
three facets of daily life that have changed drastically. 35
In the later stages of the epidemic, a number of non-pharmaceutical
interventions (henceforth NPIs) were undertaken, which were of a domestic
nature revolving around the idea of social distancing. The aim of these
interventions was to slow down the pandemic by restricting mobility so that it
does not overwhelm health system capacities. The COVID-19 pandemic
presents not only a global health crisis but has also disrupted the daily lives of
people around the world. From a leisure perspective, urban outdoor
enthusiasts are one group particularly impacted by the pandemic and the
subsequent institutional response. Stay-at-home orders and physical
distancing recommendations serve as potential inhibitors to outdoor recreation
activities central to the lifestyles and wellbeing of outdoor enthusiasts. In urban
areas, where these orders and recommendations are most restrictive, the
potential impacts on recreation behavior are most consequential. A study that
compared the impact of COVID-19 on the recreational behaviors of outdoor
enthusiasts across urban and rural communities showed that the frequency of
33 Vgl. (Askitas, Tatsiramos, & Verheyden, 2020) S. 1
34 Vgl. (WHO, 2020)
35 Vgl. (De Haas, Faber, & Hamersma, 2020) S. 2
14
outdoor recreation participation, distance travelled to participate in outdoor
recreation and distance travelled beyond roads during outdoor recreation have
declined significantly more among outdoor enthusiasts residing in urban areas
than urban clusters or rural areas. 36 The COVID-19 health crisis has turned
into a global economic crisis, putting at risk the health, jobs and incomes of
millions of people around the world. The strict containment measures adopted
by many countries first half of 2020 to flatten the rise in contagion put a
substantial brake on most economic and social activities. 37 The collapse in
total hours worked, and the decline in participation, has not been seen in
peacetime since the Great Depression. There are signs that the trough of the
sharp and deep global economic recession has been reached in many
economies. However, ensuring that the recovery is rapid and sustained, and
rebuilding a more resilient and inclusive labour market, remain considerable
challenges. 38
Apart from decimating lives, the corona virus also resulted in an
unprecedented economic haemorrhage. By March 2020, the country instituted
an unprecedented Lockdown, which invoved the shutting down of public life to
limit contacts in an effort to stop the spread of the virus. All shops, companies,
restaurants and many other institutions had to close due to this measure, so
that the economy was hit hard. In order to survive, many companies that were
affected by this crisis took the opportunity to send their employees on short-
time work in order to save costs, but at the same time to preserve jobs.
According to the German Federal Employment Agency, around six million
people were on short-time working in April 2020. This significantly exceeded
the previous record month of May 2009, when 1.44 million people were on
short-time work. 39 Consequently, those in the labor force spent less time at and
with work. The logical conclusion is that people on short-time work have more
free time. Other victims of the lockdown and contact restriction were institutes
such as gyms and gymnasiums as well as the complete mass sports. For
these reasons it was no longer possible to do sport within a team or group.
Therefore, sports activities alone in the open air, also called outdoor sports,
were practiced more and more. In order to do these outdoor sports it makes
sense to own or to buy suitable outdoor equipment.
1.6 The Impact of COVID-19 on the Labor Market in Germany
36 Vgl. (Rice, et al., 2020) S. 3
37 Vgl. (ILO-OECD, 2020) S. 2
38 Vgl. (ILO-OECD, 2020) S. 2
39 Vgl. (FEA, 2019)
14
Forecasts on the economic impact of COVID-19 released in March 2020 had
been rather optimistic, especially concerning the labor market impact. 40
However, assessments released until June 2020 were significantly more
negative: For example, the federal government and the German Council of
Economic Experts expected GDP to fall by 6.3 or 6.5 percent in 2020 by that
time. 41 Forecasts from September and October 2020, which had been
released before the reinstatement of a national (partial) lockdown in early
November, expect GDP to decline by up to 6 percent in 2020, but these
assessments are generally again more optimistic and argue in favor of a V-
shaped recession with economic recovery in 2021, involving GDP growth of 4
to 5 percent in that year. 42 In October 2020, the number of registered
unemployed stood at 2.75 million persons, an increase by 25 percent
compared to October 2019. A decomposition exercise shows that about a
quarter of the COVID-19 impact on unemployment is due to relatively fewer
underemployed persons (e.g., as active labor market policy measures have
been substantially reduced, individuals who would have otherwise been
excluded from official statistics are now counted as registered unemployed),
an additional quarter is due to increased layoffs, and about one fifth is due to
reduced hiring activities. 43 Employment in Germany, however, has not declined
significantly yet; and it appears as if the COVID-19-induced rise in
unemployment has been stopped for the time being – there has been
practically no additional COVID-19 impact on unemployment since July 2020.
However, short-time work (STW) is still extensively used in Germany, and the
future employment perspectives of these short-time workers are – at least to a
certain extent – unclear. In April 2020, the number of short-time workers
reached almost 6 million, their number still stood at 5.9 million in May 2020,
but decreased to about 2.6 million until August 2020. This also means that
STW in the current crisis has reached significantly higher levels than during
the Great Recession where the peak was at about 1.5 million short-time
workers. 44 Although these numbers still involve a larger degree of uncertainty,
are only reported with substantial time lag and may be subject to revisions,1
also the most recently available updates and forecasts indicate a continuous
decline, implying that the share of short-time workers among all employees
that are subject to social security contributions fell from a peak of 20 percent in
40 Vgl. (Michelsen, et al., 2020) S. 6
41 Vgl. (Sachverständigenrat, 2020)
42 Vgl. (Wollmershäuser, 2020)
43 Vgl. (BA, 2020)
44 Vgl. (Brenke, Rinne, & Zimmermann, 2013) S. 300
14
April 2020 to about 10 percent in October 2020. Business confidence stood at
a historical low in April 2020. It has been increasing since then until
September 2020, when it slightly dropped again in October 2020. 45 Yet,
unemployment figures not only increased because of increased layoffs, but to
a similar extent also because of firms’ reduced hiring activities, resulting in
fewer exits from unemployment. 46 The demand for new workers had literally
collapsed, especially in April and May 2020, when the number of vacancies
declined sharply. 47 Compared to one year before, the stock of posted
vacancies is still more than 20 percent lower in October 2020. Labor demand
is thus low, but it has stabilized for the time being. Unemployment risks are
particular high in some sectors, including hotels and restaurants, retail, various
other service sectors, and to some extent even health and logistics. 48 These
sectors have been either directly affected by restrictions on economic activities
and social contacts, or indirectly via disrupted value chains, or simply by a
sharp drop in demand. However, quite a few sectors in the German economy
remain relatively unaffected (e.g., the public sector, the finance sector,
education, and agriculture). 49 In terms of most vulnerable groups, employment
losses can be expected to be particularly concentrated among workers with
fixed-term contracts, temporary agency workers, marginal part-time workers,
self-employed and freelancers. For example, one in four solo self-employed
workers considers it very likely they will have to give up their own solo self-
employment within the next twelve months. 50
The crisis also poses an additional challenge for the labor market integration
of the recent cohort of humanitarian migrants that arrived in Germany after
2015. Firms with liquidity problems already before the current crisis are at a
high risk of bankruptcy. This risk may be particularly concentrated among
SMEs with severely restricted economic activities, such as restaurants, small
retail shops, and travel agencies. But it appears too early for an assessment:
Due to changes in insolvency law, the precise extent to which these firms will
ultimately go out of business will only become apparent in early 2021. 51 From
the current perspective, a scenario therefore appears plausible – also when
considering other factors and ongoing developments – in which the number of
unemployed in Germany continues to rise towards 3.5 million by spring 2021
45 Vgl. (Eichhorst & Rinne, 2020)
46 Vgl. (Bauer & Weber, 2020) S. 12
47 Vgl. (Bossler, Gürtzgen, Kubis, & Küfner, 2020) S. 3
48 Vgl. (BA, 2020) S. 14
49 Vgl. (BA, 2020) S. 14
50 Vgl. (Bertschek & Erdsiek, 2020) S. 6
51 Vgl. (Eichhorst & Rinne, 2020)
14
(starting from 2.75 million in October 2020). The volume of STW is likely to
decline further in the course of 2020, but may still correspond to around two
million employees by the end of 2020. However, this figure could only
gradually decline in the course of 2021 because the maximum period during
which STW compensations are paid has been extended to 24 months. Hence,
also an increase of hidden unemployment can be expected (on the one hand
due to STW, on the other hand due to increased withdrawal from the labor
market). 52
1.7 The Impact of COVID-19 on Travel Behavior
The global Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic is having a great impact on all
areas of the everyday life of people worldwide including travel behaviour.
Countries have been implemented various measures that focus on restricting
social contacts and reducing in this way the spread of the virus. In 2020, in
most of the federal states in Germany kindergarten, schools and universities
have started closing on March 16th. 53 The German Foreign Office issued a
worldwide travel alert and warns against unnecessary travel abroad on March
17th; border controls and entry ban were introduced at the borders to France,
Austria, Luxembourg, and Switzerland. Few days later, on March 22nd, the
German Government announced a nationwide Corona-related contact ban
with wide implications for the daily life of the population, including closed
restaurants, cafés and also hairdresser, only two persons from different
households being allowed to meet in public, and for many of the German
working population, when possible, work from home. This first lockdown was
extended on April 1st to April 19th and was accepted, i.e. implemented, by all
federal states. As the German Government started to relax the Corona virus
related restrictions, Saxony was the first federal state in Germany which made
face covering mandatory in shops and when using public transportation on
April 20th. The other states followed its example. Mobile phone data analyses
show for instance a decrease in trip rates by 39% in the strictest lockdown
period between end of March and beginning of April. 54 Further studies suggest
that in the same period around one quarter (25%) of the working population in
Germany worked in home-office, up to 10% worked short-time 55 and about
69% of the population over 18 had as a results of the restrictions no physical
contact at all to friends, relatives and/ or colleagues – compared to 17% at the
52 Vgl. (Eichhorst & Rinne, 2020) S. 4
53 Vgl. (Schlosser, Hinrichs, Maier, Brockmann, & Rose, 2020) S. 2
54 Vgl. (Schlosser, Hinrichs, Maier, Brockmann, & Rose, 2020) S. 2
55 Vgl. (Möhring, et al., 2020) S. 5
14
beginning of March. 56 Moreover, the number of people who purchase groceries
at least occasionally online doubled – from 16% before to 30% after the
Corona outbreak. These numbers give first insights into changes of daily
activity- and travel-related behaviour due to the Corona crisis. 57
However, because of the novelty of the situation, still little is known about how
different user groups adapted their daily mobility and travel behaviour, the
reasons behind, beyond the government restriction, and the potential
implications for travel patterns after the Corona crisis. Besides analysing
potential mid- and long-term impacts, understanding how daily activities and
travel behaviour change during such global crisis and the reasons behind is
crucial for developing suitable strategies for similar future events. The effects
of the Coronavirus-spread on activity and travel behaviour patterns have been
already addressed in early studies in different countries around the world. 58
Most of the studies looked at travel pattern changes as well as changes in
working and shopping behaviours (including working in a home-office and e-
commerce, i.e. online shopping). Various methods have been applied, e.g.
online surveys 59 and objective data measures via GPS Logger and Travel
Diary App. 60 Further research works focus on the implications of the global
pandemic for the relation between transport and wellbeing in the context of the
pandemic as well as for the future agenda for policy and practice. For
instance, the link between travel behaviour, especially hypermobility or active
travel, and public health that became more present in the event of Coronavirus
outbreak and derived policy implications has been studied. 61 Other studies
have performed an analysis of the role of transport accessibility within the
spread of the Coronavirus and proposed tailored policy strategies for
managing the spread of the virus depending on the accessibility level of the
area. 62 Other studies proposed the concept of Responsible Transport which is
a transport policy approach that considers besides environmental aspects also
public health and wellbeing issues. 63 All in one, the mentioned studies stress
the importance of looking deeper into the effect of the pandemic on travel
behaviour in order to develop more robust and sustainable transport policy
and practice strategies and measures.
56 Vgl. (Kolarova, Eisenmann, Nobis, Winkler, & Lenz, 2021) S. 2
57 Vgl. (Kolarova, Eisenmann, Nobis, Winkler, & Lenz, 2021) S. 2
58 Vgl. (Askitas, Tatsiramos, & Verheyden, 2020) S. 4
59 Vgl. (De Haas, Faber, & Hamersma, 2020) S. 2
60 Vgl. (Axhausen, 2020) S. 5
61 Vgl. (Musselwhite, Avineri, & Susilo, 2020) S. 2
62 Vgl. (Cartenì, Di Francesco, & Martino, 2021) S. 3
63 Vgl. (Budd & Ison, 2020) S. 2
14
1.8 COVID-19 and Outdoor Sports Activities
Then the COVID-19 pandemic hit. On March 11, 2020, the World Health
Organization declared the global spread of Coronavirus COVID-19 as a
pandemic. There are several ways in which the COVID-19 pandemic in
general, and specific COVID-19-related restrictions at outdoor recreation sites
in particular, can affect recreation visitation behavior. 64 First, if a site such as a
National or State Park completely closed down for a period of time due to
COVID-19, people would not be allowed to visit the site and would need to
cancel or postpone planned visits. Second, in the case of newly reopened
sites or sites that never completely closed, people may be hesitant to visit due
to perceived risks of contracting or spreading the COVID-19 virus. If this
perceived risk is high enough, people may also be induced to cancel or
postpone planned trips to outdoor recreation sites. Third, if perceived risks do
not reach a cancellation threshold, people may go ahead and complete any
planned visits to sites that are open or substitute visits from closed to open
sites. The value of their experiences would reflect the net effects of COVID-19
restrictions and other site quality aspects, such as accessibility and the level of
congestion. It is also noted that time constraints and time use have been
influenced by the pandemic. As many people have been working from home
or become unemployed, they may have more time available for leisure
activities. Simultaneously, the availability of some indoor leisure activities
(such as movie theaters, museums, and shopping malls) has become
restricted. This may lead people to engage in more outdoor recreation, which
has been deemed safer than congregating indoors (though this realization
only occurred later in the summer of 2020, and some may still be resistant to
taking risks with outdoor recreation). 65 The popular media is replete with
reports on the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on economic activity,
including some information on recreation and tourism decisions. Significant
data on people’s attitudes toward public health and safety provisions has been
generated and estimates of the direct economic costs of the pandemic are
beginning to appear. 66 We do not know, however, what effects COVID-19
related recreation site closures, visitation restrictions, and recreation trip
cancellations has had on nonmarket values held by outdoor recreation
participants.
64 Vgl. (Landry, Bergstrom, Salazar, & Turner, 2021) S. 444
65 Vgl. (Landry, Bergstrom, Salazar, & Turner, 2021) S. 444
66 Vgl. (Kochhar & Barroso, 2020)
14
1.9 COVID-19 and Short-time Work
The COVID-19 pandemic has generated renewed interest in short-time work
programs—the state-sponsored work-sharing schemes aimed at saving jobs.
Short-time work – also called short-time compensation – is a subsidy for
temporary reductions in the number of hours worked in firms affected by
temporary shocks. 67 Short-time work programmes allow employers who
experience temporary drops in demand or production to reduce their
employees’ hours instead of laying them off. Employees receive from the
government a subsidy proportional to the reduction in hours. Germany’s short-
time work program, Kurzarbeit, is widely considered the gold standard of such
programs. 68 Germany's short-time work scheme, was instrumental in keeping
employment stable during the global financial crisis. However, the current
COVID-19 crisis is likely to be even more profound, and affect more sectors of
the economy. The short-time program is a social insurance program whereby
employers reduce their employees’ working hours instead of laying them off. 69
Under Kurzarbeit, the government normally provides an income “replacement
rate” of 60 percent (more for workers with children). That is, a worker receives
60% of his or her pay for the hours not worked, while receiving full pay for the
hours worked. So, for example, a worker would only experience a 10% salary
loss for a 30 percent reduction in hours. The program usually runs for a
maximum of 6 months consecutively. 70 Short-time work is, in many ways, an
excellent crisis management tool. In a deep recession, it protects workers’
income and therefore supports aggregate demand. Since workers do not lose
their jobs, they have less incentive to save on a precautionary basis. And
companies retain firm-specific human capital, while avoiding the costly
process of separation, re-hiring, and training. It is also worth mentioning that
short-time work is an addition to private working-hour flexibility arrangements.
Employees in Germany are typically allowed to work overtime and accumulate
credit on their “working time accounts”. These can then be drawn down during
recessions with no effect on paychecks. Firms are allowed to use short-time
work only when working time accounts are exhausted, which helps contain
fiscal costs. 71
Hoarding labour in the firm during a temporary negative shock enables the
firm to keep specific human capital within the firm and avoid the costly
processes of separation and then of re-hiring and training when economic
67 Vgl. (Giupponi & Landais, 2020)
68 Vgl. (IMF, 2020)
69 Vgl. (IMF, 2020)
70 Vgl. (IMF, 2020)
71 Vgl. (IMF, 2020)
14
conditions improve. For workers, it preserves experience and specific human
capital and avoids the often very long-term career costs of layoffs. 72 Without
short-time work subsidies, labour hoarding may be suboptimally low during
temporary shocks because of commitment issues and/or difficulties to move
resources across time. Liquidity constraints, for instance, prevent firms from
insuring workers and will generate inefficiently high separations. Well-
designed and targeted short-time work schemes can therefore be an effective
tool to save jobs and businesses and to accelerate economic recovery. 73
The sharp contraction caused by the public-health response to COVID-19 is a
textbook case for the use of short-time work: it combines a mandated
reduction in hours of work in many sectors due to confinement measures and
a massive liquidity crunch for firms. In this context, short-time work can be
much more effective than other forms of insurance such as unemployment
insurance or universal transfers, and more efficient than other forms of wage
subsidies. 74 As a result, short-time work schemes are now at the heart of the
policy response enacted by various countries. Those with well-established
short-time work programmes, such as France, Italy, Germany, and Belgium,
have seen massive increases in uptake, compared with even the Great
Recession. For example:
• Estimates for Germany indicate that 2.35 million employees (almost 6%
of total employment) will receive Kurzarbeit during the COVID-19 crisis,
compared to 1.4 million at the peak of the Great Recession. Considering that
Kurzarbeit cost approximately €5 billion in 2009 (Boeri and Bruecker 2011),
we would expect spending on short-time work to climb to €8.4 billion today.
• In France, 730,000 employees (2.8%) are currently being paid by the
French short-time work scheme. In contrast, 227,000 employees were on
short-time work at the height of short-time work utilisation in 2009.
• In Belgium, 100,000 people were on short-time work at the peak of the
Great Recession, while nowadays over 1 million are (22%).
• In the US, 26 states already have short-time work schemes in place.
The availability of the schemes should be advertised more and their scope
extended to all states.
Still very little is known about the effectiveness of short-time work. It has been
used before, especially during the Great Recession, but in a limited set of
countries. A few recent papers have analysed examples of short-time work
programmes in Europe, shedding new light on fundamental questions around
72 Vgl. (Schmieder, von Wachter, & Heining, 2019) S. 2
73 Vgl. (Giupponi & Landais, 2020)
74 Vgl. (Landry, Bergstrom, Salazar, & Turner, 2021) S. 446
14
the functioning of these schemes. The French case was studied using a
combination of high-quality data and compelling identification strategies. 75 The
Swiss STW case has also been studied using robust data. 76 Similarly, is a
typical case study that has been extensively analyzed the Italian Cassa
Integrazione Guadagni, one of the oldest and largest programmes as a typical
genre in Europe. 77
When the variation and eligibility rules across firms is exploited, it is found that
short-time work has large positive effects on employment: firms receiving the
subsidy experience a 40% reduction in hours worked per employee, and an
equivalent increase in employment headcount. 78 Evidence from the French
and Swiss cases documents the positive effects on employment and on firm
survival. 79 Several studies have shown that short-time work has strong effects
on liquidity-constrained firms that face a temporary demand or productivity
shocks. 80 The programme enables these firms to engage in labour hoarding
and recover more quickly after the shock, with positive medium-run effects on
their workers. This is precisely the type of situation we are facing, which
makes short-time work especially desirable.
One may worry that, by subsidising the preservation of existing matches,
short-time work may prevent workers to move from low- to high-productivity
firms during recessions. In this way, the policy may have significant negative
reallocation effects in the labour market. In our paper, leveraging rich spatial
variation in treatment intensity across more than 600 local labour markets in
Italy, we estimate how an increase in the fraction of workers receiving the
subsidy affects employment outcomes in non-treated firms. Studies have
shown that despite short-time work having targeted predominantly low-
productivity firms, reallocation effects are small. While such small reallocation
effects were estimated among a much smaller number of workers than are
involved today, we note that the current downturn is inherently a response to a
public-health crisis and not an example of a market-led recession that is
typically thought to generate ‘creative-destruction’ forces. 81
1.9.1 Implementation of Short-time Work in Germany
In light of COVID-19, by now more than half a million businesses in Germany
75 Vgl. (Cahuc, Kramarz, & Nevoux, 2018)
76 Vgl. (Kopp & Siegenthaler, 2019) S. 15
77 Vgl. (Giupponi & Landais, 2020)
78 Vgl. (Giupponi & Landais, 2020)
79 Vgl. (Kopp & Siegenthaler, 2019) S. 7
80 Vgl. (Cahuc, Kramarz, & Nevoux, 2018) S. 7
81 Vgl. (Giupponi & Landais, 2020)
14
have implemented short-time work. 82 The temporary reduction of the regular
working time allows companies to reduce their personnel costs while at the
same time maintaining their workforce and avoiding layoffs. The gap in
remuneration that the employees suffer is partially compensated by the
Federal Employment Agency, which pays 60% (or 67% for employees with
children) of the net loss in remuneration (up to certain salary levels) that
results from the reduction of working hours. 83 Following implementation,
employers are faced with a number of practical questions relating to the day-
to-day management of short-time work and the financial impact certain
circumstances might have. The following is meant to provide a brief overview
of practicable issues employers have to handle during periods of short-time
work. 84
1.9.2. Additional/Alternative Occupation during Short-time Work
While many businesses were forced to introduce short-time work to their sites,
there are shortages in other areas of so-called "system-relevant" professions
and sectors . System-relevant professions and sectors cover services that are
indispensable for the public life, security and the care of people. In particular,
these include areas such as health care, energy and water supply, transport
and passenger traffic, but also agriculture, food industry and the supply of food
to people. In order to manage the aforementioned imbalance in the
employment market, employees on short-time work are vested with the
opportunity to support such system-relevant professions. From a German
social security law perspective, employees are allowed to supplement their
short-time work allowance by voluntarily taking up a second job in such
system-relevant professions and sectors. 85
1.9.3. Vacation during Short-time Work
Before the implementation of short-time work is considered unavoidable and
short-time work allowance can be claimed, employers have to ensure any
legacy vacation (e.g., 2019 vacation) is fully granted and taken. Vacation
entitlements of the current calendar year are considered protected and do not
have to be primarily used. Apart from that, unless otherwise agreed, the
accrual of vacation entitlements continues during periods of short-time work. If
the working time is reduced to zero hours (so-called short-time work zero –
Kurzarbeit Null), according to two landmark decisions of the ECJ, it would
generally be permissible to suspend the accrual of additional vacation
82 Vgl. (Köckeritz & Azim, 2020)
83 Vgl. (Köckeritz & Azim, 2020)
84 Vgl. (FEA, 2019)
85 Vgl. (Köckeritz & Azim, 2020)
14
entitlements for as long as short-time work continues. However, before using
this option, it needs to be carefully assessed what the legal basis for existing
vacation entitlements is and how this can be amended in an enforceable
manner. 86
Employees can continue to take vacation also during periods of short-time
work. According to the functional guidelines of the Federal Employment
Agency vacation can even be taken on single days without jeopardizing the
ability to draw short-time work allowance (e.g., to bridge time between the end
of a stretch of short-time work and a weekend) provided this is in line with the
wishes of the employee. On the other hand, the Federal Vacation Act and
various collective bargaining agreements require employers to grant a certain
minimum period of uninterrupted vacation. Otherwise, the vacation entitlement
is not properly fulfilled. Therefore, during periods of short-time work,
employers should encourage employees to take longer stretches of vacation
and avoid granting vacation on a single-day basis right before or after short-
time work days. Compensation for vacation days has to be calculated based
on standard compensation (i.e. as if, during the 13-week reference period prior
to the vacation day, the employee’s remuneration was not reduced due to
short-time work). 87
1.9.4. Public Holidays Payment during Short-time Work
Working hours which are simultaneously lost as a result of short-time work on
a public holiday and for which short-time work allowance is paid on days other
than public holidays shall be deemed to be lost as a result of a public holiday.
As a consequence, remuneration for public holidays has to be paid and borne
by the employer. The Federal Employment Agency does not pay short-time
work allowance for public holidays. 88
1.9.5. Sickness and Remuneration During Short-time Work
If an employee becomes incapable for work due to sickness during periods of
short-time work, the employee is entitled to short-time work allowance for the
hours lost as a result of the short-time work (except on public holidays). If the
incapacity for work due to sickness begins prior to the period of short-time
work, the employee is not entitled to short-time work allowance for the hours
lost due to short-time work but rather receives sickness benefits from the
health insurance; in this case, the amount of the sickness benefits equals the
short-time work allowance. 89
86 Vgl. (Köckeritz & Azim, 2020)
87 Vgl. (FEA, 2019)
88 Vgl. (FEA, 2019)
14
1.9.6. Occupational Pension during Short-time Work
Company pension commitments are principally not suspended during a period
of short-time work. The employer is therefore continuously obliged to pay the
benefits or contributions that accumulate under an employer-funded company
pension scheme. However, as many pension schemes use working hours- or
salary-based elements in their formulas to define the payable pension or
contribution amount, employers implementing short-time work may benefit
from an indirect cost-saving effect. 90
1.9.7 Disadvantages of Short-time Work
Some economists have argued that excessive reliance on short-time work
during normal times could potentially reduce labor market flexibility, keeping
workers in jobs that eventually need to disappear, and increasing the divide
between workers in more and less protected segments of the labor market. 91
To avoid such outcomes, and limit the fiscal costs of the program, short-time
work entails some co-financing components. In particular, the employer has to
pay 80% of the total social security contributions owed on the reduced working
hours. This cost-sharing element ensures that short-time work is not the first
and only resort of employers who need to reduce production. But all
parameters of the program—including the employers’ share of social security
contributions—can be relaxed during a serious crisis to discourage mass
layoffs. This was the case during the global financial crisis and it is happening
again now. These cyclical adjustments to the program help strike a delicate
balance between providing relief during deep recessions, while not introducing
too much rigidity into labor markets during normal times. 92
1.9.8 Effectiveness of Short-time work during the global financial crisis
Germany was the only G7 country that did not experience a fall in employment
in 2009. Remarkably, this was the case despite a large contraction in GDP (of
almost 6% points), owing mainly to a collapse of external demand. Work-
sharing was an important factor explaining this success. 93 We estimate that
about a third of the reduction in working time per employee was due to short-
time work, with the rest explained by other margins of flexibility (such as
running down working-time accounts and accumulated leave balances). 94
Other factors might have also been at play. It could be argued, for example,
89 Vgl. (Köckeritz & Azim, 2020)
90 Vgl. (Köckeritz & Azim, 2020)
91 Vgl. (IMF, 2020)
92 Vgl. (IMF, 2020)
93 Vgl. (IMF, 2020)
94 Vgl. (Schön, 2020)
14
that the exceptional stability of employment in Germany during the global
financial crisis was partly the result of earlier wage moderation, and a high
degree of specialization of manufacturing workers, both of which made labor
hoarding affordable for employers during the global financial crisis. The strong
performance of employment during the global financial crisis bolstered
domestic demand, with stable labor income supporting private consumption,
and reducing the need for precautionary savings. This opened the way to a
rapid recovery. 95
1.9.9 Short-time Work and Welfare Consequences
Short time work (STW) policies provide subsidies for hour reductions to
workers in firms experiencing temporary shocks. 96 They are the main policy
tool used to support labor hoarding during downturns, and have been used
aggressively since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet, very little is
known about their employment and welfare consequences. The economic
shock created by the COVID-19 pandemic has generated a sudden revival of
interest in policies destined at encouraging labor hoarding during downturns.
Short time work programs (STW), which are subsidies for temporary
reductions in the number of hours worked, are the most emblematic of such
policies, and are being aggressively used during the COVID-19 crisis,
especially in European countries. While the fraction of employees on STW
never exceeded 5% during the Great Recession, it has skyrocketed to
unprecedented levels in Spring of 2020. 97 More than 20% of German workers
were enrolled in a STW scheme in April 2020. 98 The same fraction is larger
than 30% in Italy and France. Interestingly, despite the existence of similar
schemes in a majority of US states, the policy response has been very
different in the US. In the US, there is evidence that subsidized labor hoarding
is almost non-existent and most of the shock is cushioned by unemployment
insurance. 99 But what do we know about the effects of STW schemes? Are
they effective in stabilizing employment and in helping firms hold onto their
productive workers? Is it a more effective way to provide insurance to workers
than unemployment insurance (UI)? And do we know anything about the
welfare implications of STW schemes? While almost a third of the labor force
is currently in STW programs in Europe, we do not have answers to these
fundamental questions: we know close to nothing about the effects of STW
95 Vgl. (IMF, 2020)
96 Vgl. (Hijzen & Martin, 2013) S. 3
97 Vgl. (Hijzen & Martin, 2013) S. 5
98 Vgl. (Giupponi & Landais, 2020)
99 Vgl. (U.S.A., 2020) S. 1
14
and about its welfare consequences. This is all the more surprising given the
large literature devoted to the use of other insurance programs over the
business cycle, such as UI 100 or partial unemployment benefits. 101
There are however three simple reasons that explain the very limited
knowledge that we have of the effects and desirability of STW. The first reason
is a critical lack of firm or individual-level administrative data on STW. 102 The
literature on STW had to mainly resort to cross-country analysis. 103 Even in the
presence of firm-level data, the second issue lies in the lack of credible
sources of identification of STW treatment. In almost all countries with STW
programs in place, there is no variation in firms’ eligibility to STW. The issue
will be even more acute for the current recession, as most countries have
purposefully extended STW access to every single firm. This severely
complicates identification, with no obvious method to control for the selection
of firms into STW take-up. Most papers therefore rely on the structure of
calibrated models to analyze the effects of STW on workers and firms. 104
Alternatively, a few studies have tried to find instruments for the take-up of
STW, for example instrument STW take-up during the Great Recession with
firms’ prior experience with the program and find competing results. 105 More
recently, a four strategy in the French context was proposed as being
credible. 106 They instrument STW take-up using the proximity of a firm to other
firms that used STW before the recession. As an alternative instrument, they
use response-time variation in the administrative treatment of STW
applications across French departments. They found large and significant
employment effects of STW treatment. Another recent study also finds
significant positive employment effects of STW in Switzerland during the Great
Recession, comparing firms in the program to firms whose STW application
was rejected. 107 The third issue behind our limited knowledge of STW is the
lack of a framework to evaluate the inefficiencies that STW wishes to correct.
STW may preserve employment, but how can we assess whether keeping
such matches is welfare improving? While a small theoretical literature shows
that STW may distort both hours and the allocation of workers across firms,
thus reducing output, 108 there is no clear view of the conditions under which
100 Vgl. (Marinescu, 2017) S. 16
101 Vgl. (Le Barbanchon, 2020) S. 5
102 Vgl. (Giupponi & Landais, 2018) S. 5
103 Vgl. (Boeri & Bruecker, 2011) S. 699
104 Vgl. (Tilly & Niedermayer, 2016) S. 3
105 Vgl. (Cahuc & Carcillo, 2011) S. 2
106 Vgl. (Cahuc, Kramarz, & Nevoux, 2018) S. 5
107 Vgl. (Kopp & Siegenthaler, 2019) S. 4
108 Vgl. (Burdett & Wright, 1989) S. 1480
14
STW programs might be socially desirable and improve welfare.
1.9.10 Possible Impact of Short-time Work During the COVID-19 Pandemic
The pandemic is expected to have a much broader impact on the German
economy than the global financial crisis. The global financial crisis mainly
affected the manufacturing sector via collapsing import demand from trade
partners. 109 In contrast, the confinement measures taken to fight the pandemic
have forced temporary business closures in many sectors. Therefore, several
changes to short-time work features have been implemented or announced,
with a view to making the scheme temporarily more attractive to employers
and employees alike. For workers, short-time work will now provide greater
income protection if there is a prolonged reduction in work hours. The
replacement rate, starting at 60% for the first three months, will increase to
70% during the 4th to 6th months, and further to 80% from the 7th month. The
maximum duration of the program has been extended to 21 months. 110
Moreover, the coverage will be expanded to temporary workers (about 2% of
total employment). For employers, the most important change is that their
social security contributions have been waived. The requirement to exhaust
working-time account balances before claiming short-time work has also been
suspended. Finally, firms no longer need to reduce working hours for at least
30 percent of their workers in order to be eligible for short-time work; the
threshold has been lowered to 10%. 111 Together, these changes make the
scheme much more attractive to employers. Short-time work already seems to
be playing an important role in preserving jobs during the current pandemic.
From the beginning of March to the end of April, the number of workers who
applied for short-time work exceeded 10 million, or about 20% of the labor
force—a much greater number than peak applications during the global
financial crisis—while unemployment has increased by less than 0.4 million. 112
Overall, the German government is doing precisely what should be done
during deep recessions: making short-time work more flexible, more attractive
to employers, and more generous to employees, while expanding coverage
across sectors and across different types of jobs. This will come at an
increased fiscal cost, but one that is well worth paying. However, the profound
impact of this crisis on the labor market cannot be overcome by short-time
work alone. The pandemic is affecting far more sectors than the global
financial crisis which, for Germany, was mainly a manufacturing story. 113 In
109 Vgl. (IMF, 2020)
110 Vgl. (KPMG, 2020)
111 Vgl. (IMF, 2020)
112 Vgl. (FEA, 2019)
14
particular, marginal employees—who disproportionately work in the services
sectors—do not make social security contributions, and are therefore not
covered by short-time work. They are among those likely to suffer the most
from the sharp recession. To avoid potentially large social costs, the
government should consider alternative ways to provide income support for
this vulnerable segment of the population.
1.9.11 Short-time Work Allowance
With the effects of the coronavirus pandemic permeating the German market,
employers can take advantage of opportunities to reduce personnel costs and
secure liquidity. The use of short-time work compensation in particular can
help here. Among the measures adopted to mitigate the consequences, the
regulations on short-time working have been made more flexible and adapted
to the new requirements and situation. 114 The following applies accordingly:
• A company can apply for short-time work if 10% of its employees are
affected by a loss of working hours. Previously, at least one-third of the
employees had to be affected.
• In the event of short-time work, social security contributions are fully
reimbursed by the Federal Employment Agency.
• Short-time allowance is also possible for employees in temporary
employment (Zeitarbeit).
• Normally, the payment of short-time work compensation is also limited
to 12 months – now it can be extended to 24 months.
The Employment Agency pays the short-time work allowance as partial
compensation for the wages lost due to a temporary absence from work. This
relieves the employer of the costs of employing the employees. In this way,
companies can continue to employ their employees even if there is a loss of
orders. The short-time work allowance therefore helps to avoid dismissals.
The short-time work allowance is calculated based on the net loss of wages.
The short-time workers generally receive 60% of the lost flat-rate net wage. If
there is at least one child living in the household, the short-time work
allowance is 67% of the lost flat-rate net wage. 115 There are a number of
general conditions which must be met to be able to receive short-time work
benefits. Short-time work allowance can generally be granted if a reduction in
working hours in the company has been agreed between the employer and
employee representatives or between the employer and the employees
113 Vgl. (FEA, 2019)
114 Vgl. (KPMG, 2020)
115 Vgl. (KPMG, 2020)
14
concerned and this is accompanied by a significant loss of work and loss of
earnings. The following conditions must be met:
The loss of work is due to economic reasons (e.g. missing orders,
shortage of raw materials) or an inevitable event (e.g. flood, official order,
corona crisis).
The loss of work is inevitable and the company has done everything to
reduce or remedy it (e.g. use of working time credit within certain limits).
The absence from work is temporary. This means that the transition to
regular working hours can generally be expected again within the reference
period.
The employment agency was notified of the loss of work.
After the loss of work begins, the employee continues an employment
subject to compulsory insurance and there is no dismissal.
The loss of work is considerable. This means that at least a third (limited
until December 31, 2021: only 10%) of the employees in the company are
affected by a loss of earnings of more than ten percent of their gross monthly
earnings.
In the case of the corona virus, for example, this can be the case if deliveries
are missing (economic reasons) and working hours are reduced as a result.
But also state protective measures (for example, orders from the health
department are an inevitable event) can ensure that the company is
temporarily closed and this results in a loss of pay for the employees. 116
There are some simplifications regarding the regulations for short-time work
allowances during times of crisis. For instance, the relief for short-time work
benefits is issued by the federal government by ordinance. They are valid until
December 31, 2021. 117 The requirements for access to short-time work are
made easier and employers are relieved of the burden of paying social
security contributions.
As a specification, the following information must be provided in detail:
A company can already register short-time work if at least ten percent of
the employees in the company are affected by a loss of work. So far, this
threshold has been a third of the workforce.
There is no need to build up negative working time balances before
paying the short-time allowance. Previously applicable law requires that in
companies in which agreements on working time fluctuations are used, these
are also used to avoid short-time working.
116 Vgl. (KPMG, 2020)
117 Vgl. (KPMG, 2020)
14
Temporary workers can also receive short-time allowance.
The Federal Employment Agency will fully reimburse the social security
contributions that employers have to pay for their short-time employees .
For recipients of seasonal short-time working allowance, the social
security contributions are not reimbursed from the winter employment
surcharge, but also from contribution funds.
The short-time work allowance increases to 70 percent from the fourth
month onwards (employees with at least one child: 77 percent). From the 7th
month onwards, it increases again to 80 percent (employees with at least one
child: 87 percent).
1.9.11 Documents Required to Process Short-time Work Allowance
In addition, the following documents are required (from the employer):
Notification of absence from work (the notification can be submitted
quickly, securely and at any time via online portal if one has the relevant
online access).
Reason for the absence from work
Business registration
Agreement with the works council or the declaration of consent of the
employees who are employed on short-time work
Time taken to process the information on short-time work
So far, most of the advertisements for short-time allowance are processed
within 15 days. 118 However, due to the currently increased workload, this
processing time will be difficult to maintain. The employees in the processing
points do everything to process the documents as quickly as possible with less
bureaucracy and to give positive feedback.
After submitting the notification, the employer receives a fundamental decision
from the employment agency. If this is complied with, the employer can
calculate the loss. The employer calculates the remuneration for the hours
worked and the loss of hours not worked. 119 With a request for benefits and the
accounting lists, the absences and remuneration of all affected employees
must be submitted to the responsible employment agency within three
months. The specific claims will be calculated and transferred retrospectively.
That means: the employer first pays the money to his employees and receives
it afterwards from the federal agency. The operational services of the
employment agencies take their job very seriously. The staff members do
everything in their power to process the application quickly and with minimum
118 Vgl. (KPMG, 2020)
119 Vgl. (KPMG, 2020)
14
bureaucracy as possible.
1.9.12 Proof of Economic Reasons for Reporting Short-time Work.
The reasons for the loss of work are explained in detail in the form for
reporting the loss of work to the local employment agency. The form contains
a declaration from the employer that the information was given to the best of
its knowledge. If there is a works council, it must agree to the information
provided by the employer or submit a separate statement. 120
1.9.13 People Entitled to Short-time Allowance.
All employees who have not been given notice who have lost wages of over
10% due to short-time work and who continue to be employed subject to
compulsory insurance are entitled to short-time work allowance. If the so-
called materiality threshold is reached (at least 1/3 of the workforce has a loss
of work of more than 10%), employees who are not given notice and who are
subject to compulsory insurance and whose salary loss is 10% or less can
also receive short-time allowance. For a limited period until December 31,
2021, the materiality threshold has been reduced from one third to ten percent
of the workforce. 121
1.9.14 How Quickly can Short-time Work be Introduced
Short-time work can be introduced at very short notice through corresponding
agreements to reduce working hours in the company in the event of missed
orders and reported to the local employment agency. The employer calculates
the short-time work allowance and pays it to the employees. A reimbursement
application is then submitted to the local employment agency, which, after
checking the application documents, immediately reimburses the employer for
the short-time work allowance. 122 Open questions can be clarified quickly and
with minimum bureaucracy with the local employment agency. Working hours
do not have to be reduced equally for all employees. It is important that the
reduction of working hours with reduced pay, i.e. short-time work, is effectively
agreed for all employees concerned on the basis of collective agreements,
works agreements or individual contractual provisions. The prerequisites for
the payment of short-time working allowance are met, among other things, if at
least one third or, for a limited period until December 31, 2021, ten percent of
the employees in the company are affected by a loss of more than ten percent
of their gross monthly pay. Short-time working does not have to be introduced
and reported for the entire company. Short-time work can also be limited to
120 Vgl. (KPMG, 2020)
121 Vgl. (IMF, 2020)
122 Vgl. (IMF, 2020)
14
individual company departments. Whether the loss of work lasts for hours,
days or even weeks depends on the order situation and the agreements in the
company. In the case of “short-time work zero”, the loss of work is 100%,
which means that work is completely suspended for a temporary period. 123
2. Outdoor Activity Hiking
2.1 Hiking during the COVID-19 Crisis
During the corona pandemic, hiking not only experienced a strong boom in
Germany's population. There has also been more hiking in the Netherlands
since the beginning of the pandemic. This improves health, but it also has
disadvantages, for example in the form of more rubbish. Due to the corona
pandemic, the event organized jointly by the German Hiking Association
(DWV) and the German National Tourist Board (DZT) did not take place as a
face-to-face event during the ITB, as usual, but virtually with around 400
participants (Kuhr, 2021). Two DWV surveys in the summer and autumn of
last year showed that the demand for hiking trails increased sharply in 2020
compared to 2019 due to the corona pandemic: 92% of those surveyed
registered a very high or high frequency of footfall on hiking trails in 2020. The
DWV also asked about conflicts between hikers and other users of hiking trails
as well as environmental damage. 53% of the respondents saw increased
environmental damage such as more rubbish and higher traffic volume due to
the increased use of the hiking trails. The majority of respondents (56%)
observed more usage conflicts. Michaela Klare from the GNTB reported during
the forum that hiking is becoming increasingly popular in the Netherlands. "On
holiday in Germany for Dutch people, hiking is the most popular activity with
53 percent, well before cycling." In 2020, holiday activities would have focused
even more on nature. A changed age structure, increasing health awareness
and the need for balance in nature will continue to support the hiking trend in
the future (Kuhr, 2021).
2.2 Hiking Tourism
Hiking tourism is the category of tourism that generates its revenue from the
income from hikers. According to the German Hiking Association, regular
hikers are also referred to as intensive hikers. Intensive hikers are vacationers
who go on sports and active vacations, in which hiking is the main activity of
the trip. Walking holidays are the fourth most popular type of holiday among
Germans and around ten percent of Germans stated in a survey by IfD
Allensbach that they often go hiking in their free time. 124 In particular, members
123 Vgl. (IMF, 2020)
14
of the hiking association go hiking regularly, i.e. several times a month. Over
half of German hiking tourists are between 40 and 59 old. Most people say
that the motive and intentions for hiking is to satisfy the desire for natural
experience and physical activity. The landscape and nature are also the most
important criteria for around 85% of hiking tourists when choosing a hiking
region. When choosing the hiking trails, the length of the trail and the
equipment with signs and signposts are particularly important. A total of
around 550 hiking trails in Germany have, among other things, a good
wayfinding system and have been awarded the German hiking seal for this
excellence. But in addition to signposts and hiking maps, more and more
digital media and information sources are finding their way into hiking tourism.
Almost 40% of German hikers use apps or the internet during the hike to
navigate on the go, to determine their location or to find out about the weather
or overnight accommodation. For the majority of German hikers, the duration
of a hike is between two and six hours per hike. Around 18% of hikers from
Germany go hiking alone, but with a share of more than 40%, the majority
hikes together with another person. The most popular landform is the low
mountain range, followed by the high mountain range and the Alpine foothills.
However, around 7% of German hikers also like to hike in flat terrain or in
coastal regions. Given its proximity to the Alps, it is not surprising that Bavaria
is the state with the most people who enjoy hiking in their free time. In
particular, married people who do not have children who are below 14 years
old in their households like to go hiking. 125
2.2.1 Statistics for Hiking Tourism
The statistics show survey results on the sources of inspiration used by hikers
in Germany in 2017. Around 42% of those surveyed found the region or the
hiking trail of their last hike through the Internet, of which around 70% were on
the website of the corresponding region/trail. In 2020, around 1.83 million
people between the ages of 14 and 19 hiked frequently or occasionally. 126
Overall, around 38.84 million people in the German-speaking population aged
14 and over went hiking frequently or occasionally in their free time. In 2020,
around 19.18 million men in Germany went hiking frequently or occasionally,
which corresponds to around 55% of the male German-speaking population
aged 14 and over. In 2020 there were around 0.55 million people in the
German-speaking population aged 14 and over who hiked several times a
124 Vgl. (Graefe, 2020)
125 Vgl. (Graefe, 2020)
126 Vgl. (Pawlik, 2020)
14
week. 127 In 2021 there were around 17.27 million people in the German-
speaking population aged 14 and over who would prefer a hiking or
backpacking holiday. In a 2019 survey on sports on vacation, 49% of
respondents in Germany who can imagine booking an active vacation said
that they would be interested in a hiking vacation. Around 12% of those
surveyed are interested in a rider camp. The statistics show the number of
overnight stays by hikers in Germany on a multi-day hike in 2018. Around 30%
of those surveyed who undertook a multi-day hike stayed for one to three
nights.
127 Vgl. (Pawlik, 2021)
128 Vgl. (Davis & von Wachter, 2011) S. 4
14
3.1 Research Question
In the context of this paper, the following questions will be answered:
– Did people who were or are on short-time work engage in more hiking
activities than before?
– Did people who were or are on short time hiked more during that very
time?
– Have people who were or are on short-time work hiked because of the
increased leisure time they have as a result?
– How has short-time work affected the hiking leisure industry?
3.2 Structure of the work
First of all, basic terms related to the topic will be explained and defined.
Subsequently, chapter 3 explains the approach of the methodology used for
this thesis. Finally, chapter 4 draws a conclusion and gives a short outlook.
14
2.4.1 Lockdown
"The slower the coronavirus spreads, the better our healthcare system can
cope with it. The fewer people who are infected at the same time, the better
doctors can treat seriously ill patients"
(www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de), with these drastic words Health
Minister Jens Spahn addressed the population on 11 March 2020.
In order to contain the coronavirus, the borders of the Federal Republic of
Germany to neighbouring countries were initially closed five days later on 16
March 2020 and holiday travel to Germany and abroad was prohibited.
At the same time, the federal government ordered the closure of shops and
public facilities, as well as leisure and sports facilities. Exceptions were shops
that sold food and daily necessities, such as supermarkets, pharmacies or
drugstores. Furthermore, banks, post offices and laundromats were also open
(www.tagesschau.de).
On March 22, 2020, "the federal and provincial governments relied on a
comprehensive no-contact rule" (www.tagesschau.de) that prohibited contacts
by more than two people in public.
This "shutdown" of public life hit culture, sport and the economy particularly
hard in almost all sectors. Companies had to send their employees to the
"home office" or, as already described in chapter 2.1, to short-time work. For
this reason, 470,000 companies had already registered for short-time work by
31 March 2020 (www.tagesschau.de).
2.4.2 Definition of Short-time work
Short-time work – also called short-time compensation – is a subsidy for
temporary reductions in the number of hours worked in firms affected by
temporary shocks. Short-time work programmes allow employers who
experience temporary drops in demand or production to reduce their
employees’ hours instead of laying them off. Employees receive from the
government a subsidy proportional to the reduction in hours. Hoarding labour
in the firm during a temporary negative shock enables the firm to keep specific
human capital within the firm and avoid the costly processes of separation and
then of re-hiring and training when economic conditions improve. For workers,
it preserves experience and specific human capital and avoids the often very
long-term career costs of layoffs. 128
Without short-time work subsidies, labour hoarding may be suboptimally low
during temporary shocks because of commitment issues and/or difficulties to
move resources across time. Liquidity constraints, for instance, prevent firms
14
from insuring workers and will generate inefficiently high separations. Well-
designed and targeted short-time work schemes can therefore be an effective
tool to save jobs and businesses and to accelerate economic recovery. The
sharp contraction caused by the public-health response to COVID-19 is a
textbook case for the use of short-time work: it combines a mandated
reduction in hours of work in many sectors due to confinement measures and
a massive liquidity crunch for firms. In this context, short-time work can be
much more effective than other forms of insurance such as unemployment
insurance or universal transfers, and more efficient than other forms of wage
subsidies. 129
As a result, short-time work schemes are now at the heart of the policy
response enacted by various countries. Those with well-established short-time
work programmes, such as France, Italy, Germany, and Belgium, have seen
massive increases in uptake, compared with even the Great Recession. 130 For
example:
• Estimates for Germany indicate that 2.35 million employees (almost 6%
of total employment) will receive Kurzarbeit during the COVID-19 crisis,
compared to 1.4 million at the peak of the Great Recession. Considering that
Kurzarbeit cost approximately €5 billion in 2009 (Boeri and Bruecker 2011),
we would expect spending on short-time work to climb to €8.4 billion today.
• In France, 730,000 employees (2.8%) are currently being paid by the
French short-time work scheme. In contrast, 227,000 employees were on
short-time work at the height of short-time work utilisation in 2009.
• In Belgium, 100,000 people were on short-time work at the peak of the
Great Recession, while nowadays over 1 million are (22%).
• In the US, 26 states already have short-time work schemes in place.
The availability of the schemes should be advertised more and their scope
extended to all states.
Still very little is known about the effectiveness of short-time work. It has been
used before, especially during the Great Recession, but in a limited set of
countries. When the variation and eligibility rules across firms is exploited, it is
found that short-time work has large positive effects on employment: firms
receiving the subsidy experience a 40% reduction in hours worked per
employee, and an equivalent increase in employment headcount. 131 Evidence
from the French and Swiss cases documents the positive effects on
employment and on firm survival. 132 Several studies have shown that short-
129 Vgl. (Davis & von Wachter, 2011) S. 4
130 Vgl. (Giupponi & Landais, 2020)
131 Vgl. (Giupponi & Landais, 2018)
14
time work has strong effects on liquidity-constrained firms that face a
temporary demand or productivity shocks. 133 The programme enables these
firms to engage in labour hoarding and recover more quickly after the shock,
with positive medium-run effects on their workers. This is precisely the type of
situation we are facing, which makes short-time work especially desirable.
One may worry that, by subsidising the preservation of existing matches,
short-time work may prevent workers to move from low- to high-productivity
firms during recessions. In this way, the policy may have significant negative
reallocation effects in the labour market. In our paper, leveraging rich spatial
variation in treatment intensity across more than 600 local labour markets in
Italy, we estimate how an increase in the fraction of workers receiving the
subsidy affects employment outcomes in non-treated firms. Studies have
shown that despite short-time work having targeted predominantly low-
productivity firms, reallocation effects are small. While such small reallocation
effects were estimated among a much smaller number of workers than are
involved today, we note that the current downturn is inherently a response to a
public-health crisis and not an example of a market-led recession that is
typically thought to generate ‘creative-destruction’ forces. 134
The following chapter is devoted to the approach of the methodology used in
this thesis.
2. Online survey
To answer the questions required on this topic, an online questionnaire (see
Appendix I) was created with the help of the program "google forms". The
advantage of this program was that the questionnaire could be quickly sent to
the participants by means of a link https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1YR-
l6gEBJnLKqeR3DwLrts8OUmzS0t14uD5AS4YJTB4/edit?usp=sharing.
132 Vgl. (Kopp & Siegenthaler, 2019) S. 7
133 Vgl. (Cahuc, Kramarz, & Nevoux, 2018)
134 Vgl. (Giupponi & Landais, 2020)
14
could be sent to the test persons. Furthermore, the program automatically
evaluated the answers and displayed these results in diagrams.
2.1 Data collection procedure
First, a pre-test was carried out on ten test persons to find out whether the
questions were understood and whether it was possible to work on the topic.
The above link was sent to this test group via WhatsApp. Since the pretest did
not present any problems, the test was sent via WhatsApp or e-mail with the
request to complete and return it within the next 14 days.
2.2 Questionnaire
The title of the survey was the topic of the present paper " The Influence of the
Labor Market Instrument Short-Time Work on the Outdoor Sports Segment
Hiking in the Corona Crisis". The survey used multiple-choice questions. The
survey questions are numbered from 1 to 11. For questions 1 to 8, the
interviewee is required to choose one answer from a number of preset
choices. For question number 9, the interviewee has the option of selecting
several answers from a pool of various possiblities. The questionnaire was
divided into three systematic sections. At the beginning of the first section of
the questionnaire (see Appendix I), simple socio-demographic questions were
asked about gender and age. The age group was limited from 15 years
onwards; according to the ILO definition, persons are only considered to be in
employment from this age onwards.
The subsequent question as to whether the respondents had been on short-
time working or not was also asked as a multiple-choice question. As an
answer option, one could specify either "Yes" or "No". If this question was
answered with "No", the questionnaire was automatically closed for these
persons, as only people in short-time work were relevant for this survey.
The second section of the survey began with the question about the length of
short-time work, although here too only one answer option could be given.
The following questions five and six related to the frequency of outdoor
activities that were pursued before and during the period of short-time work.
Here, too, only one answer option was possible in each case, with the
alternative answers "Never" (for question five) and "Don't know" also possible
for these questions.
14
(at question six) were given in order not to pressure the respondents into an
answer that might (possibly) not have been truthful. Through these two
questions, it was possible to find out whether the persons engaged in more
outdoor activities during the time in short-time work than before.
Questions seven and eight were designed to find out whether the persons had
already regularly bought outdoor articles before the period of short-time
working and whether they had bought any during the period of short-time
working. Again, the alternative answers "Don't know" were given in case the
subjects did not remember. If the answer to question eight was "No", the
survey was automatically ended for these respondents, as the aim was to
investigate the influence of short-time working on the outdoor industry, i.e. the
purchase of outdoor articles. Question nine asked more specifically about the
outdoor articles purchased, and here too there were several possible answers.
There were many outdoor article segments with examples to choose from in
this question. The alternative answer "Other" could be used if another out-
door item from another segment that was not mentioned as an answer was
purchased. Finally, question ten was designed to determine whether the
reason for purchasing outdoor items was increased leisure time in short-time
work. At the end of the survey, the question about the future purchase of
outdoor articles was asked, which made it possible to give an outlook.
9/24/2021 Questionnaire for Hiking Analysis
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1YR-l6gEBJnLKqeR3DwLrts8OUmzS0t14uD5AS4YJTB4/edit 3/4
Bibliography
Askitas, N., Tatsiramos, K., & Verheyden, B. (MAY 2020). Lockdown strategies, mobility patterns
and covid-19. DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES, S. 1-41.
Axhausen, K. W. (2020). The impact of COVID19 on Swiss travel. Internet access, automation and
COVID-19: On the impacts of new and persistent determinants of travel behaviour (TRAIL
and TU Delft webinar 2020) (S. 1-31). ETH Zurich: IVT.
BA. (2020). Monatsbericht zum Arbeits- und Ausbildungsmarkt. Nuremberg. Von
https://www.arbeitsagentur.de/datei/arbeitsmarktbericht-september-2020-_ba146655.pdf
abgerufen
Bauer, A., & Weber, E. (2020). The Unemployment Impact of Corona Containment Measures in
Germany. IAB Discussion Paper 16/2020. Von
http://doku.iab.de/discussionpapers/2020/dp1620.pdf abgerufen
Bertschek, I., & Erdsiek, D. (2020). Soloselbstständigkeit in der Corona-Krise: Digitalisierung hilft
bei der. Von http://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/ZEWKurzexpertisen/ZEW_ abgerufen
Boeri, T., & Bruecker, H. (2011). Short-Time Work Benefits Revisited: Some Lessons from the Great
Recession. Economic Policy, 26(68), 697–765.
Bossler, M., Gürtzgen, N., Kubis, A., & Küfner, B. (2020). Stellenerhebung im ersten Quartal 2020:
Mit dem Corona-Shutdown ging zuerst die Zahl der offenen Stellen zurück. IAB Kurzbericht.
Brenke, K., Rinne, U., & Zimmermann, K. F. (2013). Short-Time Work: The German Answer to the
Great Recession. International Labour Review, 152(2), 287-305.
Budd, L., & Ison, S. (2020). Responsible transport: A post-COVID agenda for transport policy and
practice. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 6, 1-13.
Burdett, K., & Wright, R. (1989). Unemployment Insurance and ShortTime Compensation: The
Effects on Layoffs, Hours per Worker, and Wages. Journal of Political Economy, 97(6),
1479–1496.
Cahuc, P., & Carcillo, S. (2011). Is Short-Time Work a Good Method to Keep Unemployment Down?
Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
Cahuc, P., Kramarz, F., & Nevoux, S. (2018). “When Short-Time Work Works.” Centre for Economic
Policy Research (CEPR) Discussion Paper 13041.
Cartenì, A., Di Francesco, L., & Martino, M. (2021). The role of transport accessibility within the
spread of the coronavirus pandemic in Italy. Safety Science, 133(2021), 1-7. Von
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104999 abgerufen
Davis, S. J., & von Wachter, T. (2011). Recessions and the costs of job loss. Brookings Papers on
Economic Activity, 43(2), 1-72.
De Haas, M., Faber, R., & Hamersma, M. (2020). How COVID-19 and the Dutch ‘intelligent
lockdown’change activities, work and travel behaviour: Evidence from longitudinal data in the
Netherlands. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 6(2020), 1-11.
9/24/2021 Questionnaire for Hiking Analysis
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1YR-l6gEBJnLKqeR3DwLrts8OUmzS0t14uD5AS4YJTB4/edit 3/4
Duell, N., & Vetter, T. (2020). The employment and social situation in Germany. European
Parliament.
Eichhorst, W., & Rinne, U. (2020). IZA COVID-19 Crisis Response Monitoring. Germany (December
2020).
Eurostat. (2016). Structure of Earnings Survey. 1 out of 6 employees in the European Union is a
lowwage earner. Situations differ widely across Member States. Eurostat Press Office.
FEA. (December 2019). Welcome to the statistics of the Federal Employment Agency! Von
Bundesagentur für Arbeit:
https://statistik.arbeitsagentur.de/Statistikdaten/Detail/201912/arbeitsmarktberichte/fkengpassa
nalyse/fk-engpassanalyse-d-0-201912-pdf.pdf abgerufen
Giupponi, G., & Landais, C. (2018). Subsidizing labor hoarding in recessions: The employment &
welfare effects of short time work.
Giupponi, G., & Landais, C. (1. April 2020). Building effective short-time work schemes for the
COVID-19 crisis. Von VoxEU: https://voxeu.org/article/building-effective-short-time-work-
schemes-covid-19-crisis abgerufen
Graefe, L. (29. July 2020). Hiking tourism statistics. Von Statista:
https://de.statista.com/themen/2041/wandertourismus/ abgerufen
Hijzen, A., & Martin, S. (2013). The role of short-time work schemes during the global financial crisis
and early recovery: a cross-country analysis. IZA Journal of Labor Policy, 2(1), 1-31.
ILO-OECD. (2020). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on jobs and incomes in G20 economies.
ILO-OECD paper prepared at the request of G20 Leaders Saudi Arabia’s G20 Presidency 2020,
(S. 1-15).
IMF. (15. June 2020). IMF Country Focus. Von IMF NEWS:
https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2020/06/11/na061120-kurzarbeit-germanys-short-time-
work-benefit abgerufen
institute, I. (2020). Die volkswirtschaftlichen Kosten des Corona-Shutdown für Deutschland. Von Ifo
Institute: https://www.ifo.de/DocDL/sd-2020-04-fuest-etalvolkswirtschaftliche-kosten-corona-
2020-04-15.pdf abgerufen
Kochhar, R., & Barroso, A. (27. March 2020). Young Workers Likely to be Hard Hit as COVID-19
Strikes a Blow to Restaurants and Other Service Sector Jobs. Pew Research Center Fact Tank.
Von Pew Research Center: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/ 2020/03/27/young-
workers-likely-to-be-hard-hit-as-covid-19-strikes-a-blow-to-restaurants-and-other-service-
sector-jobs/ abgerufen
Köckeritz, H., & Azim, H. (16. April 2020). COVID-19 in Germany: Short-Time Work Implemented
– What Now? Von MAYER BROWN: https://www.mayerbrown.com/en/perspectives-
events/publications/2020/04/ger-short-time-work-implemented-what-now abgerufen
Kolarova, V., Eisenmann, C., Nobis, C., Winkler, C., & Lenz, B. (2021). Analysing the impact of the
COVID-19 outbreak on everyday travel behaviour in Germany and potential implications for
future travel patterns. European Transport Research Review, 13(1), 1-11.
9/24/2021 Questionnaire for Hiking Analysis
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1YR-l6gEBJnLKqeR3DwLrts8OUmzS0t14uD5AS4YJTB4/edit 3/4
Kopp, D., & Siegenthaler, M. (2019). "Short-Time Work and Unemployment in and after the Great
Recession," KOF Working papers 19-462. ETH Zurich: KOF Swiss Economic Institute.
KPMG. (27. March 2020). COVID-19: Tax and Social Security Relief Measures and Considerations.
Von KPMG: https://home.kpmg/xx/en/home/insights/2020/03/flash-alert-2020-125.html
abgerufen
Askitas, N., Tatsiramos, K., & Verheyden, B. (MAY 2020). Lockdown strategies, mobility patterns
and covid-19. DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES, S. 1-41.
Axhausen, K. W. (2020). The impact of COVID19 on Swiss travel. Internet access, automation and
COVID-19: On the impacts of new and persistent determinants of travel behaviour (TRAIL
and TU Delft webinar 2020) (S. 1-31). ETH Zurich: IVT.
BA. (2020). Monatsbericht zum Arbeits- und Ausbildungsmarkt. Nuremberg. Von
https://www.arbeitsagentur.de/datei/arbeitsmarktbericht-september-2020-_ba146655.pdf
abgerufen
Bauer, A., & Weber, E. (2020). The Unemployment Impact of Corona Containment Measures in
Germany. IAB Discussion Paper 16/2020. Von
http://doku.iab.de/discussionpapers/2020/dp1620.pdf abgerufen
Bertschek, I., & Erdsiek, D. (2020). Soloselbstständigkeit in der Corona-Krise: Digitalisierung hilft
bei der. Von http://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/ZEWKurzexpertisen/ZEW_ abgerufen
Boeri, T., & Bruecker, H. (2011). Short-Time Work Benefits Revisited: Some Lessons from the Great
Recession. Economic Policy, 26(68), 697–765.
Bossler, M., Gürtzgen, N., Kubis, A., & Küfner, B. (2020). Stellenerhebung im ersten Quartal 2020:
Mit dem Corona-Shutdown ging zuerst die Zahl der offenen Stellen zurück. IAB Kurzbericht.
Brenke, K., Rinne, U., & Zimmermann, K. F. (2013). Short-Time Work: The German Answer to the
Great Recession. International Labour Review, 152(2), 287-305.
Budd, L., & Ison, S. (2020). Responsible transport: A post-COVID agenda for transport policy and
practice. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 6, 1-13.
Burdett, K., & Wright, R. (1989). Unemployment Insurance and ShortTime Compensation: The
Effects on Layoffs, Hours per Worker, and Wages. Journal of Political Economy, 97(6),
1479–1496.
Cahuc, P., & Carcillo, S. (2011). Is Short-Time Work a Good Method to Keep Unemployment Down?
Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
Cahuc, P., Kramarz, F., & Nevoux, S. (2018). “When Short-Time Work Works.” Centre for Economic
Policy Research (CEPR) Discussion Paper 13041.
Cartenì, A., Di Francesco, L., & Martino, M. (2021). The role of transport accessibility within the
spread of the coronavirus pandemic in Italy. Safety Science, 133(2021), 1-7. Von
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104999 abgerufen
Davis, S. J., & von Wachter, T. (2011). Recessions and the costs of job loss. Brookings Papers on
Economic Activity, 43(2), 1-72.
9/24/2021 Questionnaire for Hiking Analysis
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1YR-l6gEBJnLKqeR3DwLrts8OUmzS0t14uD5AS4YJTB4/edit 3/4
De Haas, M., Faber, R., & Hamersma, M. (2020). How COVID-19 and the Dutch ‘intelligent
lockdown’change activities, work and travel behaviour: Evidence from longitudinal data in the
Netherlands. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 6(2020), 1-11.
Duell, N., & Vetter, T. (2020). The employment and social situation in Germany. European
Parliament.
Eichhorst, W., & Rinne, U. (2020). IZA COVID-19 Crisis Response Monitoring. Germany (December
2020).
Eurostat. (2016). Structure of Earnings Survey. 1 out of 6 employees in the European Union is a
lowwage earner. Situations differ widely across Member States. Eurostat Press Office.
FEA. (December 2019). Welcome to the statistics of the Federal Employment Agency! Von
Bundesagentur für Arbeit:
https://statistik.arbeitsagentur.de/Statistikdaten/Detail/201912/arbeitsmarktberichte/fkengpassa
nalyse/fk-engpassanalyse-d-0-201912-pdf.pdf abgerufen
Giupponi, G., & Landais, C. (2018). Subsidizing labor hoarding in recessions: The employment &
welfare effects of short time work.
Giupponi, G., & Landais, C. (1. April 2020). Building effective short-time work schemes for the
COVID-19 crisis. Von VoxEU: https://voxeu.org/article/building-effective-short-time-work-
schemes-covid-19-crisis abgerufen
Graefe, L. (29. July 2020). Hiking tourism statistics. Von Statista:
https://de.statista.com/themen/2041/wandertourismus/ abgerufen
Hijzen, A., & Martin, S. (2013). The role of short-time work schemes during the global financial crisis
and early recovery: a cross-country analysis. IZA Journal of Labor Policy, 2(1), 1-31.
ILO-OECD. (2020). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on jobs and incomes in G20 economies.
ILO-OECD paper prepared at the request of G20 Leaders Saudi Arabia’s G20 Presidency 2020,
(S. 1-15).
IMF. (15. June 2020). IMF Country Focus. Von IMF NEWS:
https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2020/06/11/na061120-kurzarbeit-germanys-short-time-
work-benefit abgerufen
institute, I. (2020). Die volkswirtschaftlichen Kosten des Corona-Shutdown für Deutschland. Von Ifo
Institute: https://www.ifo.de/DocDL/sd-2020-04-fuest-etalvolkswirtschaftliche-kosten-corona-
2020-04-15.pdf abgerufen
Kochhar, R., & Barroso, A. (27. March 2020). Young Workers Likely to be Hard Hit as COVID-19
Strikes a Blow to Restaurants and Other Service Sector Jobs. Pew Research Center Fact Tank.
Von Pew Research Center: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/ 2020/03/27/young-
workers-likely-to-be-hard-hit-as-covid-19-strikes-a-blow-to-restaurants-and-other-service-
sector-jobs/ abgerufen
Köckeritz, H., & Azim, H. (16. April 2020). COVID-19 in Germany: Short-Time Work Implemented
– What Now? Von MAYER BROWN: https://www.mayerbrown.com/en/perspectives-
events/publications/2020/04/ger-short-time-work-implemented-what-now abgerufen
9/24/2021 Questionnaire for Hiking Analysis
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1YR-l6gEBJnLKqeR3DwLrts8OUmzS0t14uD5AS4YJTB4/edit 3/4
Kolarova, V., Eisenmann, C., Nobis, C., Winkler, C., & Lenz, B. (2021). Analysing the impact of the
COVID-19 outbreak on everyday travel behaviour in Germany and potential implications for
future travel patterns. European Transport Research Review, 13(1), 1-11.
Kopp, D., & Siegenthaler, M. (2019). "Short-Time Work and Unemployment in and after the Great
Recession," KOF Working papers 19-462. ETH Zurich: KOF Swiss Economic Institute.
KPMG. (27. March 2020). COVID-19: Tax and Social Security Relief Measures and Considerations.
Von KPMG: https://home.kpmg/xx/en/home/insights/2020/03/flash-alert-2020-125.html
abgerufen
Kraft, S., & Drossel, M. (2019). Welche Auswirkungen hat der Fachkräftemangel? PFLEGE
Zeitschrift, 6, 58-59.
Landry, C. E., Bergstrom, J., Salazar, J., & Turner, D. (2021). How Has the COVID‐19 Pandemic
Affected Outdoor Recreation in the US? A Revealed Preference Approach. Applied Economic
Perspectives and Policy, 43(1), 443-457.
Le Barbanchon, T. (2020). Taxes Today, Benefits Tomorrow. Working Paper.
Marinescu, I. (2017). The General Equilibrium Impacts of Unemployment Insurance: Evidence from a
Large Online Job Board. Journal of Public Economics, 150, 14–29.
Michelsen, C., Clemens, M., Hanisch, M., Junke, S., Kholodilin, K., & Schlaak, T. (2020). Deutsche
Wirtschaft: Corona-Virus stürzt deutsche Wirtschaft in eine Rezession. Von
https://www.diw.de/documents/dokumentenarchiv/17/diw_01.c.743506.de/wb12-
2020_gl1_msp.pdf abgerufen
Möhring, K., Naumann, E., Reifenscheid, M., Blom, A. G., Wenz, A., Rettig, T., & Cornesse, C.
(2020). Die Mannheimer Corona-Studie: Schwerpunktbericht zur Erwerbstätigkeit in
Deutschland. Mannheim: Universitätsbibliothek Mannheim.
Musselwhite, C., Avineri, E., & Susilo, Y. (2020). Editorial JTH 16–the coronavirus disease COVID-
19 and implications for transport and health. Journal of Transport Health, 16, 1-13. Von
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2020.1 00853 abgerufen
Pawlik, V. (29. September 2020). Number of people in Germany who go hiking in their free time
(frequently or occasionally), by age in 2020. Von Statista:
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/272532/umfrage/wanderer-in-deutschland-nach-
alter/ abgerufen
Pawlik, V. (12. January 2021). Population in Germany by frequency of hiking in leisure time from
2016 to 2020. Von Statista:
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/171914/umfrage/haeufigkeit-wandern-in-der-
freizeit/ abgerufen
Ravi, S., & Kappor, M. (1. May 2020). COVID-19 trends from Germany show different impacts by
gender and age. Von BROOKINGS:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2020/05/01/covid-19-trends-from-germany-show-
different-impacts-by-gender-and-age/ abgerufen
9/24/2021 Questionnaire for Hiking Analysis
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1YR-l6gEBJnLKqeR3DwLrts8OUmzS0t14uD5AS4YJTB4/edit 3/4
Rice, W. L., Mateer, T. J., Reigner, N., Newman, P., Lawhon, B., & Taff, B. D. (2020). Changes in
recreational behaviors of outdoor enthusiasts during the COVID-19 pandemic: analysis across
urban and rural communities. Journal of Urban Ecology, 6(1), 1-7.
RKI. (2020). COVID-19 in Germany. Von ROBERT KOCH INSTITUT:
https://www.rki.de/DE/Home/homepage_node.html abgerufen
Sachverständigenrat. (2019). Mastering structural change. Von Sachverständigenrat:
https://www.sachverstaendigenrat-wirtschaft.de/jahresgutachten-2019.html abgerufen
Sachverständigenrat. (2020). Konjunkturprognose 2020 und 2021. Wiesbaden. Von
https://www.sachverstaendigenrat-
wirtschaft.de/fileadmin/dateiablage/Konjunkturprognosen/2020/KJ2020_Gesamtausgabe.pdf
abgerufen
Schlosser, F., Hinrichs, D., Maier, B., Brockmann, D., & Rose, A. (2020). Second report: Mobility on
the rise. Von https://www.covid-19-mobility.org/reports/second-report/ abgerufen
Schmieder, J., von Wachter, T., & Heining, J. (2019). “The costs of job displacement over the
business cycle and its sources: Evidence from Germany”. working paper.
Schön, C. (16. September 2020). Germany Extends Successful Coronavirus Short-Time Work
Scheme. Von German Trade & Invest: https://www.gtai.de/gtai-en/invest/investment-
guide/short-time-work-scheme-550172 abgerufen
Tilly, J., & Niedermayer, K. (2016). Employment and welfare effects of short-time work. Working
Paer.
U.S.A. (2020). U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. “ShortTime
Compensation Fact Sheet.”. Von
https://stc.workforcegps.org/resources/2016/03/15/00/46/STC_Fact_Sheet abgerufen
Von Bröckel, J. (6. September 2021). Unemployment figures in Germany. Von Jav Von Bröckel:
http://www.janvonbroeckel.de/english/unemploymentfiguresofgermany.html abgerufen
Wackerhage, H., Everett, R., Krüger, K., Murgia, M., Simon, P., Gehlert, S., & Schönfelder, M.
(2020). Sport, exercise and COVID-19, the disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus.
Dtsch Z Sportmed, 71(5), E1-E12.
WHO. (27. April 2020). WHO Timeline – COVID-19. Von World Health Organization:
https://www.who.int/news/item/27-04-2020-who-timeline—covid-19 abgerufen
Wollmershäuser, T. (2020). ifo Konjunkturprognose Herbst 2020: Deutsche Wirtschaft weiter auf
Erholungskurs. Ifo Schnelldienst digital 11/2020. Von Ifo Schnelldienst digital 11/2020.:
https://www.ifo.de/DocDL/sd-2020-digital-11-wollmershaeuser-etal-ifokonjunkturprognose-
herbst-2020.pdf abgerufen
9/24/2021 Questionnaire for Hiking Analysis
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1YR-l6gEBJnLKqeR3DwLrts8OUmzS0t14uD5AS4YJTB4/edit 3/4
Questionnaire for Hiking Analysis
The Influence of the Labor Market Instrument Short-Time Work on the Outdoor Sports
Segment Hiking in the Corona Crisis
1. 1. What is your gender? Please tick inside the box
Tick all that apply.
Male
Female
2. 2. What is your age bracket Please tick inside the box
Mark only one oval.
15 – 29
30 – 44
45 – 59
60 and Above
3. 3. Were you or are you on Short-time Work? Please tick inside the box
Mark only one oval.
Yes
No
9/24/2021 Questionnaire for Hiking Analysis
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1YR-l6gEBJnLKqeR3DwLrts8OUmzS0t14uD5AS4YJTB4/edit 3/4
4. 4. How long have you been on Short-time Work? Please tick inside the box
Tick all that apply.
Under 1 Month
1-2 Months
3-4 Months
5-6 Months
7-8 Months
Still
5. 5. How often did you do hiking activities before you started Short-time Work?
Please tick inside the box
Tick all that apply.
Daily
Several times a week
Several times a month
Several times a year
Never
6. 6. Did you do more hiking activities during your time on short-time work than
before? Please tick inside the box
Tick all that apply.
Yes
No
Not much
7. 7. Did you regularly buy hiking items before you started short-time work? Please tick
inside the box
Tick all that apply.
No
Wished
9/24/2021 Questionnaire for Hiking Analysis
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1YR-l6gEBJnLKqeR3DwLrts8OUmzS0t14uD5AS4YJTB4/edit 3/4
8. 8. Did you buy hiking items while you were working short-time? Please tick one
inside the box
Tick all that apply.
Yes
No
I don't know
9. 9. Which hiking articles did you buy? Select all the answers that apply
Tick all that apply.
Bicycle / E-Bike
Bicycle / E-Bike accessories
Trekking articles (e.g. hiking shoes, hiking clothing)
Trekking accessories (e.g. tents, sleeping bed, rucksacks, hiking sticks) Running
shoes and/or running clothing
Running accessories (e.g. stopwatches, pulse monitors)
Water sports articles (e.g. stand up paddle, canoe, surfboards)
Water sports accessories (e.g. diving goggles)
Climbing shoes
Climbing accessories (e.g. ropes, helmets, snap hooks) Skis
and/or ski accessories
Inline skis and/or skateboards
Air sports articles (e.g. parachutes, paragliders) Others
10. 10. Did you buy these hiking items due to the increased free time due to the time on
short-time work? Please tick one only
Mark only one oval.
Yes
No
Not sure
9/24/2021 Questionnaire for Hiking Analysis
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1YR-l6gEBJnLKqeR3DwLrts8OUmzS0t14uD5AS4YJTB4/edit 3/4
11. 11. Will you buy more hiking items in the future? Tick only one
Tick all that apply.
Yes
No
Not sure
This content is neither created nor endorsed by Google.
Forms
9/24/2021 Questionnaire for Hiking Analysis
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1YR-l6gEBJnLKqeR3DwLrts8OUmzS0t14uD5AS4YJTB4/edit 3/4
9/24/2021 Questionnaire for Hiking Analysis
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1YR-l6gEBJnLKqeR3DwLrts8OUmzS0t14uD5AS4YJTB4/edit