Validity of Unemployment Hysteresis: The Most Fragile Five Developing Countries

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 27 Sayı: 39, 69 - 80, 31.01.2019

Ömer Akkuş Seher Gülşah Topuz

https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2019.01.04

Cited By: 11

Öz

This study investigates the movement of unemployment for five most fragile developing countries including Turkey over the period 1980-2016. For this purpose, which one of the three approaches within the theoretical literature “natural unemployment rate hypothesis”, “unemployment hysteresis” or “structuralist theory of unemployment” is valid is examined using traditional unit root and unit root tests allowing for structural breaks. Hypothesis of unemployment hysteresis is valid for five most fragile developing countries according to both results of traditional unit root and unit root test allowing for structural breaks. Namely, unemployment rate does not fluctuate around natural unemployment rate and therefore the results indicate that shocks do not create temporary effects on unemployment but permanent. Governments in five most fragile developing countries are expected to actively intervene in the policy on unemployment since the unemployment rate does not tend to return to its natural level.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Unemployment, Hysteresis, Unit Root, Fragile Countries, Fragile Countries

İşsizlik Histerisinin Geçerliliği: Gelişmekte Olan En Kırılgan Beşli

Öz

Bu çalışmada 1980-2016 yılları arasında aralarında Türkiye’nin de yer aldığı gelişmekte olan en kırılgan beş ülke için işsizliğin seyri incelenmektedir. Bu amaç doğrultusunda teorik literatürden hareketle; doğal işsizlik oranı hipotezi, işsizlik histerisi veya yapısal işsizlik yaklaşımlarından hangisinin geçerli olduğu geleneksel ve kırılmalı birim kök testleri ile incelenmektedir. Hem geleneksel hem de kırılmalı birim kök test sonuçlarına göre gelişmekte olan en kırılgan beş ülkede işsizlik histerisinin geçerli olduğuna dair hipotez desteklenmektedir. Yani işsizliğin, denge işsizlik oranının etrafında bir salınım gerçekleştirmediği dolayısıyla da şokların işsizlik üzerinde geçici değil kalıcı etkiler yarattığı sonucuna ulaşılmaktadır. İşsizlik oranının doğal düzeyine dönme eğiliminde olmaması nedeniyle en kırılgan beş ülkedeki hükümetlerin işsizlik ile ilgili politikalara aktif şekilde müdahale etmeleri beklenmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

İşsizlik, Histeri, Birim Kök Analizi, Kırılgan Ülkeler, Kırılgan Ülkeler

Kaynakça

• Arestis, P.& I. B. F. Mariscal (2000), “OECD Unemployment: Structural Breaks and Stationarity”, Applied Economics, 32(4), 399-403.
• Barışık, S. & E.İ. Çevik (2008), “İşsizlikte Histeri Etkisi: Uzun Hafıza Modelleri”, Kamu İş, 9(4), 1-36.
• Blanchard, O. & L.F. Katz (1996), “What We Know and Do Not Know About The Natural Rate of Unemploymen”,. National Bureau of Economic Research, No. w5822.
• Blanchard, O. J. & L.H. Summers (1986), “Hysteresis and the European Unemployment Problem”, NBER Macroeconomics Annual, 1, 15-78.
• Brunello, G. (1990), “Hysteresis and “The Japanese Unemployment Problem”: A Preliminary Investigation”, Oxford Economic Papers, 42(3), 483-500.
• Camarero, M. & J.L. Carrion-i-Silverstre & C. Tamarit (2006), “Testing for Hysteresis in Unemployment in OECD Countries: New Evidence Using Stationarity Panel Tests with Breaks”, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 68, 167-182.
• Camarero, M. & J.L. Carrion-i-Silverstre & C. Tamarit (2008), “Unemployment Hysteresis in Transition Countries: Evidence Using Stationarity Panel Tests with Breaks”, Review of Development Economics, 12(3), 620-635.
• Chang, T. & K.C. Nieh & C.C. Wei (2005), “An Empirical Note on Testing Hysteresis in Unemployment for Ten European Countries: Panel SURADF Approach”, Applied Economics Letters, 12, 881-886.
• Christopoulos, D. K. & M.A. León-Ledesma (2007), “Unemployment Hysteresis in EU Countries: What Do We Really Know About It?”, Journal of Economic Studies, 34(2), 80-89.
• Enders, W. & J. Lee (2012), “The Flexible Fourier Form and Dickey-Fuller Type Unit Root Tests”, Economics Letters, 117(1), 196-199.
• Friedman, M. (1968), “The Role of Monetary Policy”, The American Economic Review, 58(1), 1-17.
• Güloğlu, B.& M.S. Ispir (2011), “Dogal Issizlik Orani mi? Issizlik Histerisi mi? Türkiye Için Sektörel Panel Birim Kök Sinamasi Analizi”, Ege Akademik Bakis, 11(2), 205-215.
• Heap, S. H. (1980), “Choosing the Wrong Natural Rate: Accelerating Inflation or Decelerating Employment and Growth?”, The Economic Journal, 90(359), 611-620.
• Jaeger, A. & M. Parkinson (1994), “Some Evidence on Hysteresis in Unemploymenty Rates”, European Economic Review, 38, 329-342.
• Johansen, L. (1982), Some Notes on Employment and Unemployment with Heterogeneous Labour. Nationaløkonomisk Tidsskrift, special issue (Economic essays in honour of Jørgen H. Gelting), København.
• Kahyaoğlu, H. & O. Tüzün & F. Ceylan & R. Ekinci (2016), “İşsizlik Histerisinin Geçerliliği: Türkiye ve Seçilmiş AB Ülkeleri Üzerine Bir Uygulama”, Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 14(4).
• Kula, F. & A. Aslan (2014), “Unemployment Hysteresis in Turkey: Does Education Matter?”, International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 4(1), 35-39.
• Küçükkale Y. (2001). Doğal İşsizlik Oranındaki Keynesyen İsteri Üzerine Klasik Bir İnceleme: Kalman Filtre Tahmin Tekniği ile Türkiye Örneği 1950-1995. V. Ulusal Ekonometri ve İstatistik Sempozyumu, Adana.
• Lee, J. & M.C. Strazicich (2003), “Minimum LM Unit Root Test with Two Structural Breaks”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(4), 1082-1089.
• Lee, J. & M. Strazicich (2013), “Minimum LM Unit Root Test With One Structural Break”, Economics Bulletin, 33(4), 2483-2492.
• Leon-Ledesma, M.A. & P. McAdam (2004), “Unemployment, Hysteresis and Transition”, Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 51(3), 377-401.
• Mitchell, WF. (1993), “Testing for Unit Roots and Persistence in OECD Unemployment”, Applied Economics, 25, 1489-1501.
• Neudorfer, P.& K. Pichelmann & M. Wagner (1990), “Hysteresis, NAIRU and Long Term Unemployment in Austria”, Empirical Economics, 15(2), 217-229.
• Pazarlıoğlu, M. V. & E.İ. Çevik (2007), “Ratchet Model: 1939-2005 Dönemi Türkiye Uygulaması”, Trakya Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 9(1), 17-34.
• Papell, D.H.& C.J. Murray & H. Ghiblawi (2000), “The Structure of Unemployment”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 82, 309-315.
• Perron, P. (1989), “The Great Crash, The Oil Price Shock, and The Unit Root Hypothesis”, Econometrica, 57(6), 1361-1401.
• Perron, P. (1997), “Further Evidence on Breaking Trend Functions in Macroeconomic Variables”, Journal of Econometrics, 80(2), 355-385.
• Perron P. & T. Vogelsang (1992), “Nonstationarity and Level Shifts With an Application To Purchasing Power Parity”, Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 10(3), 301-320.
• Phelps, E. S. (1967), “Phillips Curves, Expectations of İnflation and Optimal Unemployment Over Time”, Economica, 34(135), 254-281.
• Phelps, E. S. (1968), “Money-wage Dynamics and Labor-Market Equilibrium”, Journal of Political Economy, 76(4, Part 2), 678-711.
• Phelps, E. S. (1972), Inflation Policy and Unemployment Theory: The Cost-Benefit Approach to Monetary Planning. W. W. Norton, New York.
• Phelps, E. S. (1994), Structural Slumps: The Modern Equilibrium Theory of Unemployment, Interest, and Assets. First Edition, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Romero-Avila, D. & C. Usabiaga (2007), Unit Root Tests and Persistence of Unemployment: Spain vs. the United States”, Applied Economics Letters, 14(6), 457-461.
• Røed, K. (1996), “Unemployment Hysteresis-Macro Evidence From 16 OECD Countries”, Empirical Economics, 21(4), 589-600.
• Røed, K. (1997), “Hysteresis in Unemployment”, Journal of economic Surveys, 11(4), 389-418.
• Song, F.M. & Y. Wu (1998), “Hysteresis Unemployment: Evidence from OECD Countries”, The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 38, 181-192.
• Yılancı, V. (2009), “Yapısal Kırılmalar Altında Türkiye İçin İşsizlik Histerisinin Sınanması”, Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 10(2), 324-335.
• Zivot, E. & D. Andrews (1992), “Further Evidence On The Great Crash, The Oil-Price Shock and The Unit Root Hypothesis”, Journal of Business and Economic Statistic