OECD Ülkelerinde İşsizlik Dinamikleri: Histeri Hipotezinin Güncel Birim Kök Testleriyle Değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

Bu çalışma, 24 seçili OECD ülkesinde işsizlik histerisi ve doğal işsizlik oranı hipotezlerinin geçerliliğini 2005Q1-2025Q1 dönemine ait güncel verilerle araştırmaktadır. Özellikle 2008 krizi ve COVID-19 pandemisi gibi büyük şokların ardından bu ayrımın yeniden incelenmesi hedeflenmiştir. Analiz öncesi uygulanan Luukkonen vd. (1988) doğrusallık testi, tüm ülkelerin işsizlik serilerinin doğrusal olmayan bir yapıya sahip olduğunu göstermiştir. Bu bulgu doğrultusunda serilerin durağanlık özellikleri, KSS (2003), Sollis (2009), Kruse (2011) gibi doğrusal olmayan ve Cuestas-Ordóñez (2014) ile OSH (2020) gibi yapısal kırılmaları ve asimetrik etkileri dikkate alan güncel birim kök testleri ile analiz edilmiştir. Elde edilen bulgular, ülkeler arasında heterojen bir yapı olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. ABD, Almanya, Avustralya, Şili ve Türkiye gibi ülkelerde doğal işsizlik oranı hipotezi desteklenirken; Çekya, Danimarka, Finlandiya, Hollanda, İspanya ve Yunanistan gibi ülkelerde işsizlik histerisi lehine güçlü kanıtlar elde edilmiştir. Bu sonuçlar, histerinin geçerli olduğu ülkelerde şoklara karşı hızlı talep yönlü politikaların önemini, diğer grupta ise arz yönlü yapısal reformların gerekliliğini vurgulamaktadır.

Keywords

• İşsizlik Histerisi
• Doğal İşsizlik Oranı
• Doğrusal Olmayan Birim Kök Testleri

Unemployment Dynamics in OECD Countries: Evaluating the Hysteresis Hypothesis with Current Unit Root Tests

Abstract

This study investigates the validity of the unemployment hysteresis and natural rate of unemployment hypotheses in 24 selected OECD countries using current data for the period 2005Q1-2025Q1. It specifically aims to re-examine this distinction in the aftermath of major shocks such as the 2008 crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic. The Luukkonen et al. (1988) linearity test, applied prior to the analysis, indicated that the unemployment series of all countries exhibit a non-linear structure. In line with this finding, the stationarity properties of the series were analyzed using non-linear unit root tests such as KSS (2003), Sollis (2009), and Kruse (2011), as well as recent unit root tests that account for structural breaks and asymmetric effects, such as Cuestas-Ordóñez (2014) and OSH (2020). The findings reveal a heterogeneous structure among the countries. While the natural rate of unemployment hypothesis is supported in countries like the USA, Germany, Australia, Chile, and Turkey, strong evidence in favor of unemployment hysteresis was found in countries such as Czechia, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Spain, and Greece. These results emphasize the importance of swift demand-side policies in response to shocks in countries where hysteresis is prevalent, and the necessity of supply-side structural reforms in the other group.

Keywords

• Unemployment Hysteresis
• Natural Unemployment Rate
• Nonlinear Unit Root Tests

References

1. Barro, R. J. (1988). The persistence of unemployment. The American Economic Review, 78(2), 32-37.
2. Blanchard, O.J. (2018). Should we reject the natural rate hypothesis?. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 32(1), 97-120.
3. Blanchard, O.J., & Summers, L.H. (1986), “Hysteresis and the European unemployment problem”, NBER Macroeconomics Annual, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 15-78, doi: 10.1086/654013.
4. Blanchard, O.J., & Summers, L.H. (1987), “Hysteresis in unemployment”, European Economic Review, Vol. 31 Nos1/2, pp.288-295.
5. Bolat, S., Tiwari, A. K., & Erdayi, A. U. (2014). Unemployment hysteresis in the Eurozone area: evidences from nonlinear heterogeneous panel unit root test. Applied Economics Letters, 21(8), 536-540.
6. Camarero, M., & Tamarit, C. (2004). Hysteresis vs. natural rate of unemployment: new evidence for OECD countries. Economics Letters, 84(3), 413-417.
7. Camarero, M., Carrion‐i‐Silvestre, J. L., & Tamarit, C. (2006). Testing for hysteresis in unemployment in OECD countries: new evidence using stationarity panel tests with breaks. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 68(2), 167-182.
8. Canarella, G., Gupta, R., Miller, S. M., & Pollard, S. K. (2019). Unemployment rate hysteresis and the great recession: exploring the metropolitan evidence. Empirical Economics, 56, 61-79.

9. Chang, M. J., & Su, C. Y. (2014). Hysteresis versus natural rate in Taiwan's unemployment: Evidence from the educational attainment categories. Economic Modelling, 43, 293-304.
10. Chang, T. (2011). Hysteresis in unemployment for 17 OECD countries: Stationary test with a Fourier function. Economic Modelling, 28(5), 2208-2214.
11. Chang, T., Lee, K. C., Nieh, C. C., & Wei, C. C. (2005). An empirical note on testing hysteresis in unemployment for ten European countries: panel SURADF approach. Applied Economics Letters, 12(14), 881-886.
12. Cuestas, J. C., & Ordóñez, J. (2014). Smooth transitions, asymmetric adjustment and unit roots. Applied Economics Letters, 21(14), 969-972.
13. Çağlayan Akay, E., Oskonbaeva, Z., & Bülbül, H. (2020). What do unit root tests tell us about unemployment hysteresis in transition economies?. Applied Economic Analysis, 28(84), 221-238.
14. Darity Jr, W., & Goldsmith, A. H. (1993). Unemployment, social psychology, and unemployment hysteresis. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 16(1), 55-71.
15. Friedman, M. (1968): The Role of Monetary Policy. The American Economic Review, 58(1): 1 17.
16. Furuoka, F. (2017). A new approach to testing unemployment hysteresis. Empirical economics, 53(3), 1253-1280.
17. Furuoka, F., Gil-Alana, L. A., Yaya, O. S., Aruchunan, E., & Ogbonna, A. E. (2024). A new fractional integration approach based on neural network nonlinearity with an application to testing unemployment hysteresis. Empirical Economics, 66(6), 2471-2499.
18. Giersch, H. (1985). Eurosclerosis (Technical report). Kieler Diskussionsbeiträge.
19. Kapetanios, G., Shin, Y., & Snell, A. (2003). Testing for a unit root in the nonlinear STAR framework. Journal of econometrics, 112(2), 359-379.
20. Khraief, N., Shahbaz, M., Heshmati, A., & Azam, M. (2020). Are unemployment rates in OECD countries stationary? Evidence from univariate and panel unit root tests. The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 51, 100838.
21. Kizilkaya, O., Mike, F., & Kizilkaya, F. (2024). Unemployment hysteresis in Central and Eastern European countries during EU-membership. Acta Oeconomica, 74(2), 225-240.
22. Kruse, R. (2011). A new unit root test against ESTAR based on a class of modified statistics. Statistical Papers, 52, 71-85.
23. Lee, C. C., & Chang, C. P. (2008). Unemployment hysteresis in OECD countries: Centurial time series evidence with structural breaks. Economic Modelling, 25(2), 312-325.
24. Lilien, D. M. (1982). Sectoral shifts and cyclical unemployment. Journal of political economy, 90(4), 777-793.
25. Lindbeck, A., & Snower, D. J. (1989). Macroeconomic policy and insider power. The American economic review, 79(2), 370-376.
26. Luukkonen, R., Saikkonen, P., & Teräsvirta, T. (1988). Testing linearity against smooth transition autoregressive models. Biometrika, 75(3), 491-499.
27. Meng, M., Strazicich, M. C., & Lee, J. (2017). Hysteresis in unemployment? Evidence from linear and nonlinear unit root tests and tests with non-normal errors. Empirical Economics, 53, 1399-1414.
28. Mitchell, W. F. (1993). Testing for unit roots and persistence in OECD unemployment rates. Applied Economics, 25(12), 1489-1501.
29. Omay, T., Shahbaz, M., & Hasanov, M. (2020). Testing PPP hypothesis under temporary structural breaks and asymmetric dynamic adjustments. Applied Economics, 52(32), 3479-3497.
30. Omay, T., Shahbaz, M., & Stewart, C. (2021). Is there really hysteresis in the OECD unemployment rates? New evidence using a Fourier panel unit root test. Empirica, 48(4), 875-901.
31. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2025). Quarterly Unemploymet Rate, Seasonally adjusted [2005Q1-2025Q1]. Erişim tarihi: 21/04/2025.
32. Papell, D. H., Murray, C. J., & Ghiblawi, H. (2000). The structure of unemployment. Review of Economics and Statistics, 82(2), 309-315.
33. Phelps, E. S. (1967). Phillips curves, expectations of inflation and optimal unemployment over time. Economica, 254-281.
34. Pissarides, C. A. (1992). Loss of skill during unemployment and the persistence of employment shocks. The quarterly journal of economics, 107(4), 1371-1391.
35. Røed, K. (1996). Unemployment hysteresis-macro evidence from 16 OECD countries. Empirical Economics, 21, 589-600.
36. Smyth, R. (2003). Unemployment hysteresis in Australian states and territories: evidence from panel data unit root tests. Australian Economic Review, 36(2), 181-192.
37. Snowdon B., & Vane H.R. (2020). Modern Makroekonomi (Çev. B. Kablamacı). Ankara. Efil Yayınevi (Orijinal yayın tarihi 2005).
38. Sollis, R. (2009). A simple unit root test against asymmetric STAR nonlinearity with an application to real exchange rates in Nordic countries. Economic modelling, 26(1), 118-125.
39. Song, F. M., & Wu, Y. (1998). Hysteresis in unemployment: evidence from OECD countries. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 38(2), 181-192.
40. Tiraşoğlu, M. (2019). Unemployment hysteresis analysis for OECD countries. Theoretical & Applied Economics, (4).