İŞSİZLİK HİSTERİSİ Mİ? DOĞAL İŞSİZLİK ORANI MI? FARKLI KAPİTALİZM TÜRLERİ İÇİN BİR ANALİZ

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı literatürde iki ideal kapitalizm türü olarak tanımlanan liberal piyasa ekonomileri ve eşgüdümlü piyasa ekonomilerinde işsizlik davranışının doğal işsizlik oranı ile mi yoksa işsizlik histerisi ile mi açıklanacağını ampirik olarak araştırmaktır. Bu amaçla 1993-2017 dönemi için çeyrek yıllık veriler kullanılmıştır. İlk olarak, yatay kesit bağımlılığını dikkate alan panel birim kök testleri uygulanmıştır. Ardından işsizlik histerisi hipotezi olası yapısal kırılmaları dikkate alan, doğrusal birim kök testleri kullanılarak iki ülke grubu için bireysel olarak test edilmiştir. Ampirik sonuçlar eşgüdümlü piyasa ekonomileri için histeri hipotezinin ve liberal piyasa ekonomileri için doğal oran hipotezinin daha uygun hipotezler olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İşsizlik Histerisi,Doğal İşsizlik Oranı,Kapitalizm Türleri

Kaynakça

1. Akdoğan, K. (2016), Unemployment Hysteresis and Structural Change in Europe, Working Papers 1618, Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey, s.1-30.
2. Akerlof, G. A. (1982), Labor Contracts as Partial Gift Exchange, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 97(4), s. 543–69.
3. Akerlof, G. A. ve Shiller, R. (2009), Animal Spirits. How Human Psychology Drives the Economy and Why It Matters for Global Capitalism, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
4. Amable, Bruno (2003), The Diversity of Modern Capitalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5. Arestis, P., Baddeley, M. ve Sawyer, M. (2007), The Relationship Between Capital Stock, Unemployment and Wages in Nine EMU Countries, Bulletin of Economic Research 59 (2), s.125-148.
6. Ayala, A. Cunado, J. ve Gil-Alana, L. A. (2012), Unemployment Hysteresis: Emprical Evidence for Latin America, Journal of Applied Economics XV (2), s. 213-233.
7. Bai, J. ve Ng, S. (2004), A Panic Attack on Unit Roots and Cointegration, Econometrica, 72(4), s.1127-1177.
8. Bai, J. ve Ng, S. (2010), Panel Unit Root Tests with Cross-Section Dependence: A Further Investigation, Econometric Theory, 26, s.1088-1114.

9. Ball, L. M. (2009), Hysteresis in Unemployment, (Ed.: J. Fuhrer, Y. K. Kodrzycki, J. S. Little ve G. P. Olivei), Understanding Inflation and The Implications For Monetary Policy: A Phillips Curve Retrospective, s. 361-381, Cambridge: The MIT Press.
10. Ball, L. M. (2014), Long-Term Damage from the Great Recession in OECD Countries, Nber Working Paper Series, No. 20185.
11. Blanchard, O. ve Summers, L. (1986), Hysteresis and the European Unemployment Problem, NBER Macroeconomics Annual 1, s. 15-90.
12. Blanchard, O. (2006), European Unemployment: The Evolution of Facts and Ideas, Economic Policy, 21(45), s. 6-59.
13. Breusch, T. S. ve Pagan, A. (1980), The Lagrange Multiplier Test and its Applications to Model Specification In Econometrics, The Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), s. 239-253.
14. Brunello, G. (1990), Hysteresis and The Japanese Unemployment Problem: A Preliminary Investigation, Oxford Economic Papers, New Series, 42 (3), s. 483-500.
15. Camarero, M., Carrion-i-Silvestre, J. L. ve 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), s.167-182.
16. Camarero, M., Carrion-i-Silvestre, J. L. ve Tamarit, C. (2008), Unemployment Hysteresis in Transition Countries: Evidence Using Stationarity Panel Tests With Breaks, Review of Development Economics, 12 (3), s. 620–635.
17. Cheng, K. M., Durmaz, N., Kim, H. ve Stern, M. (2012), Hysteresis vs. Natural Rate of US Unemployment, Economic Modelling, 29(2), s.428-434.
18. Cross, R. (2002), Hysteresis, (Ed.: B. Snowdon ve H. Vane), An Encyclopedia of Macroeconomics, s.328-335, Massachusetts, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
19. Dickey, D. ve Fuller, W. (1979), Distribution of the Estimators for Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root, Journal of the American Statistical Association 74, s. 427-431.
20. Dickey, D. ve Fuller, W. (1981), Likelihood Ratio Statistics for Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root, Econometrica, 49(4), s.1057-1072.
21. Elmeskov, J., Martin, J. P. ve Scarpetta, S. (1998), Key Lessons For Labour Market Reforms: Evidence From OECD Countries’ Experiences, Swedish Economic Policy Review 5, s.205–252.
22. Franz, W. (1990), Hysteresis In Economic Relationships: An Overview, Empirical Economics 15 (2), s. 1-17.
23. Gali, J. (2015), Hysteresis and the European unemployment problem revisited, Inflation and Unemployment in Europe, ECB Forum on Central Banking, Conference Proceedings, s.53-79, https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/ecbforumoncentralbanking2015en.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 15.10. 2018).
24. Glynn, J., Perera, N. ve Verma, R. (2007), Unit Root Tests and Structural Breaks: A Survey with Applications, Revista De Me ́Todos Cuantitativos Para La Econom ́Ia Y La Empresa (3), P ́aginas, s.63–79.
25. Gordon, R. J. (1988), Back to The Future: European Unemployment Today Viewed From America In 1939, Brooking Papers on Economic Activity 1, 19, s. 271-304.
26. Gordon, R. J. (1989), Hysteresis in History: Was There Ever a Phillips Curve, The American Economic Review, 79 (2), s.220-225.
27. Gordon, R.J. (2015), Comment on “Hysteresis and the European unemployment problem revisited” by Jordi Galí, Inflation and Unemployment in Europe, ECB Forum on Central Banking, s.80-86,https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/ecbforumoncentralbanking2015en.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 15.10. 2018).
28. Gustavsson, M. ve Österholm, P. (2006), Hysteresis and Non-Linearities in Unemployment Rates, Applied Economic Letters, 13, s.545-548.
29. Hadri, K. ve Kurozumi, E. (2012), A Simple Panel Stationarity Test in The Presence of Serial Correlation and a Common Factor, Economics Letters, 115, s. 31–34.
30. Hagedorn, M., Karahan, F., Manovskii, I. ve Mitman, K. (2013), Unemployment Benefıts and Unemployment in the Great Recession: The Role of Macro Effects, Nber Working Paper, No. 19499, s. 1-74.
31. Hall, P. A. ve Soskice, D. (2001), Varieties of Capitalism The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
32. Hall, P. ve Gingerich, D. (2009), Varieties of Capitalism and Institutional Complementarities In The Political Economy: An Empirical Analysis, British Journal of Political Science 39, s. 449–482.
33. Harcourt, M. ve Wood, G. (2007). The Importance of Employment Protection for Skill Development In Coordinated Market Economies, European Journal of Industrial Relations 13(2), s. 141-159.
34. Hollingsworth, J. R. ve Boyer, R. (1997), Contemporary Capitalism: The Embeddedness of Institutions. Cambridge Studies in Comparative Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35. Hope, D. ve Soskice, D. (2016), Growth Models, Varieties of Capitalism, and Macroeconomics, Politics & Society, 44(2), s. 209–226.
36. Huber, E., Bilyana, P. ve Stephens, J. D. (2018), Financialization and Inequality in Coordinated and Liberal Market Economies, LIS Working Paper Series, No.750, s.1-42.
37. Hurlin, C. ve Mignon V. (2007), Second Generation Panel Unit Root Tests.”https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00159842/document, s.1-24, (Erişim Tarihi: 15.11. 2018).
38. Jeager, A. ve Parkinson, M. (1994), Some Evidence on Hysteresis In Unemployment Rates, European Economic Review, 38 (2), s.329-342.
39. Katz, L.F. ve Meyer, B. D. (1988), The Impact of The Potential Duration of Unemployment Benefits on the Duration of Unemployment, Nber Working Paper Series, No. 2741, s. 1-45.
40. Kirchgässner, G., Wolters, J. ve Hassler, U. (2013), Introduction to Modern Time Series Analysis. Second Edition, Springer. Lee, J. ve Strazicich, M. C. (2003), Minimum Lagrange Multiplier Unit Root Test with Two Structural Breaks, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(4), s. 1082-1089.
41. Lee, J. ve Strazicich, M. C. (2004), Minimum LM Unit Root Test With One Structural Break, Manuscript, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University, s. 1-16.
42. Lee, C. ve Chang, C. (2008), Unemployment Hysteresis In OECD Countries: Centurial Time Series Evidence With Structural Breaks, Economic Modelling, 25(2), s. 312-325.
43. Lee, H., Wu, J. ve Lin, C. (2010), Hysteresis In East Asian Unemployment, Applied Economics , 42 (7), s. 887-898.
44. Leon-Ledesma, M. (2002), Unemployment Hysteresis in the US States and The EU: A Panel Approach, Bulletin of Economic Research, 54 (2), s. 95-103.
45. Logeay, C. ve Tober, S. (2005), Hysteresis and NAIRU In The Euro Area”. IMK Working Paper, No. 4/2005.
46. Mankiw, N. G. (2016). Macroeconomics. Ninth Edition. New York: Worth Publishers.
47. McNally, C. A. (2013), The Challenge of Refurbished State Capitalism: Implications for the Global Political Economic Order. Recht and Management, 6, s. 33-48.
48. Mitchell, W. F. (1993), Testing For Unit Root and Persistence In OECD Unemployment Rates, Applied Economics, 25, s.1489-1501.
49. Mitchell, W. ve Muysken, J, (2008), Full Employment Abandoned: Shifting Sands and Policy Failures. Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.
50. Nolke, A. ve Vliegenthart, A. (2009), Enlarging the Varieties of Capitalism: The Emergence of Dependent Market Economies in East Central europe. World Politics 61(4), s. 670-702.
51. Pesaran, M. H. (2004), General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels, University of Cambridge, Working Paper, CWPE 0435.
52. Pesaran, M. H. (2007), A Simple Panel Unit Root Test in the Presence of Cross-Section Dependence, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), s. 265-312.
53. Pesaran, H. M., Ullah, A. ve Yamagata, T. (2008), A Bias-Adjusted LM Test of Error Cross-Section Independence, The Econometrics Journal, (11), s. 105-127.
54. Phelps, E. S. (1994), Structural Slumps: The Modern Equilibrium Theory of Unemployment, Interest and Assets. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
55. Phelps, E. S. (1995), The Structuralist Theory of Employment, American Economic Review, American Economic Association, 85(2), s. 226-231.
56. Roberts, A. ve Kwon, R. (2017), Finance, Inequality and the Varieties of Capitalism in Post-Industrial Democracies, Socio-Economic Review, 15(3), s. 511-538.
57. Roed, K. (1996), Unemployment Hysteresis-Macro Evidence From 16 OECD Countries, Empirical Economics 21, s. 589-600.
58. Roed, K. (1997), Hysteresis in Unemployment, Journal of Economic Surveys, 11 (4), s. 389–418.
59. Schneider, M. R., ve Paunescu, M. (2012), Changing Varieties of Capitalism and Revealed Comparative Advantages from 1990 to 2005: A Test of the Hall and Soskice claims, Socio-Economic Review, 10(4), s. 731–753.
60. Siebert, H. (1997), Labor Market Rigidities and Unemployment in Europe, Kiel Working Paper, No. 787, Institut für Weltwirtschaft (IfW), Kiel, s. 1-25.
61. Song, F. M. ve Wu, Y. (1997), Hysteresis In Unemployment: Evidence From 48 US States, Economic Inquiry, XXXV, s. 235-243.
62. Snowdon, B. ve Vane, H. (2005), Modern Macroeconomics: Its Origins, Development And Current State. Northampton, Massachusetts, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing,
63. Stockhammer, E. (2004), The Rise of Unemployment In Europe: A Keynesian Approach. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
64. Thompson, J. L. (2002), Natural Rate of Unemployment, (Ed.: B. Snowdon ve H. Vane), An Encyclopedia of Macroeconomics. Massachusetts, s. 515-518, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
65. Van de Klundert, T. ve Van Schaik, T. (1990), Unemployment Persistence and Loss of Productive Capacity, Journal of Macroeconomics, 12(3), s. 361-381.
66. Whitley, R. (1999), Divergent Capitalisms: The Social Structuring and Change of Business Systems, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
67. Witt, M. A., Ricardo, L., Castro, K., Amaeshi, K., Mahroum, S., Bohle, D. ve Saez, L. (2018), Mapping the business systems of 61 major economies: a taxonomy and implications for varieties of capitalism and business systems research, Socio-Economic Review, 16 (1), s. 5–38.