COVID-19 wage subsidy scheme for private employers
The Government of North Macedonia answered the March 2020 shutdowns with decrees that paid private employers up to 14,500 denars a month per employee for April, May and June 2020, funding 155,082 monthly salary subsidies across 24,331 monthly company payments, with the World Bank share fully disbursed by 6 October 2020.
155,082 employee-months, salary subsidies paid, employees summed across april, may (residual) and june, April to June 2020. 24,331 company-months, companies paid a salary subsidy, summed across april, may (residual) and june, April to June 2020. World Bank, Local Roads Connectivity Project Additional Financing project paper (P175841), retrieved 2026-10-16.
The move, and what it needed
The government issued decrees within weeks of the shutdown that paid employers a net minimum wage per retained employee, conditional on keeping headcount, and drew pre-negotiated contingency money from an unrelated World Bank loan to fund part of it.
Preconditions
- A tax and social contribution register able to identify employers, employees and paid hours monthly
- A contingency emergency component already embedded in an existing World Bank loan, which could be triggered without a new negotiation
- A government willing to publish the list of recipient companies as a transparency condition
Limits: The numbers sit in a PDF (Tables 1 and 2, printed page 12, PDF page 16) and the project paper itself calls them inclusive of duplications: the 155,082 adds the employees paid in each month, so the number of distinct workers is lower. The paper elsewhere describes the target as about 20,000 SMEs and 155,000 employees, and a World Bank brief of November 2020 says over 120,000 employees, so the distinct headcount is uncertain. The World Bank financed 37 million euros of the 80 million euro scheme through a contingency component of a roads loan, so the money was partly external, although the decrees and the payments were the government's. The figures come from the project's own reporting, through its implementation unit. The claim that the scheme preserved 80 percent of the most vulnerable jobs comes from a local think tank cited in the paper and is not carried here. The record does not show whether firms kept the workers after the retention period, and the Public Revenue Office later pursued firms that misused the subsidy.