Danimarka ve İsveç İçin İşsizlik Histerisi Hipotezinin Test Edilmesi

Öz

Bu çalışma Danimarka ve İsveç için işsizlik histerisi hipotezinin geçerliliğini sınamaktadır. Ampirik analiz için gerekli işsizlik oranı verileri OECD veri tabanından sağlanmıştır. Analiz dönemi (OECD veri tabanındaki veri mevcudiyetine bağlı olarak) Danimarka için 1969–2022 dönemini, İsveç için ise 1960–2022 dönemini kapsamaktadır. Çalışmada yıllık frekanslı veriler kullanılmıştır. Yıllık frekanslı verilerin seçilme nedeni mevsimsel etkilerden kaçınmaktır. İşsizlik oranı verileri ham haliyle kullanılmamıştır. Analizde lojistik dönüşümlü işsizlik oranları dikkate alınmıştır. Çalışmada lojistik dönüşümlü işsizlik oranı serilerinin durağan olup olmadığı araştırılmıştır. Danimarka verileri için Kapetanios vd. (2003) tarafından önerilen doğrusal olmayan birim kök testi ve Hepsag (2021) tarafından önerilen doğrusal olmayan birim kök testi uygulanmıştır. Hepsag (2021) tarafından önerilen testin Kapetanios vd. (2003) çalışmasında önerilen testten genel olarak daha güçlü olması nedeniyle Hepsag (2021) tarafından önerilen birim kök testinin sonucu dikkate alınmıştır. İsveç için ise hem bazı geleneksel testler [ADF birim kök testi, Elliott vd. (1996) tarafından önerilen birim kök testi, Kwiatkowski vd. (1992) tarafından önerilen durağanlık testi, Phillips ve Perron (1988) tarafından önerilen birim kök testi] hem de Carrion-i-Silvestre ve Sansó (2007) tarafından önerilen ve yapısal kırılmaları dikkate alan durağanlık testi uygulanmıştır. Bunlar arasından Carrion-i-Silvestre ve Sansó (2007) tarafından önerilen testin sonucu dikkate alınmıştır. Ampirik analiz neticesinde Danimarka ve İsveç için işsizlik histerisi hipotezinin geçerli olmadığı sonucuna varılmıştır. Ayrıca çalışmada politika yapıcılar için önemli önerilerde bulunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Birim Kök Testi
• İşsizlik Histerisi Hipotezi
• İşsizlik Oranı.

Testing the Unemployment Hysteresis Hypothesis for Denmark and Sweden

Öz

This study tests the validity of the unemployment hysteresis hypothesis for Denmark and Sweden. Unemployment rate data required for the empirical analysis were obtained from the OECD database. The analysis period (dependent on data available in the OECD database) covers the period 1969–2022 for Denmark and the period 1960–2022 for Sweden. Annual frequency data were used in the study. The reason for choosing annual frequency data is to avoid seasonal effects. Unemployment rate data are not used in their raw form. Logistically transformed unemployment rates were taken into account in the analysis. In the study, it was investigated whether the logistically transformed unemployment rate series were stationary. For Danish data, the nonlinear unit root test suggested in the study of Kapetanios et al. (2003) and the nonlinear unit root test suggested in the study of Hepsag (2021) were applied. Since the test suggested in the study of Hepsag (2021) is generally more powerful than the test suggested in the study of Kapetanios et al. (2003), the result of the unit root test recommended in the study of Hepsag (2021) has been taken into account. For Sweden, both some traditional tests [the ADF unit root test, the unit root test proposed by Elliott et al. (1996), the stationarity test suggested by Kwiatkowski et al. (1992), and the unit root test recommended by Phillips and Perron (1988)] and the stationarity test proposed by Carrion-i-Silvestre and Sansó (2007), which takes into account structural breaks, were applied. Among them, the result of the test proposed by Carrion-i-Silvestre and Sansó (2007) was taken into account. As a result of the empirical analysis, it was concluded that the unemployment hysteresis hypothesis was not valid for Denmark and Sweden. In addition, essential recommendations were made for policymakers in the study.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Unit Root Test
• The Unemployment Hysteresis Hypothesis
• Unemployment Rate.

Kaynakça

1. Abel, A. B., Bernanke, B. S., & Croushure, D. (2011). Macroeconomics, Pearson Education, Boston.
2. Akdoğan, K. (2017). Unemployment hysteresis and structural change in Europe. Empirical Economics, 53(4), 1415-1440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-016-1171-8.
3. Arestis, P., & Mariscal, I. B. F. (1999). Unit roots and structural breaks in OECD unemployment. Economics Letters, 65(2), 149-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1765(99)00131-7.
4. Ayala, A., Cuñado, J., & Gil-Alana, L. A. (2012). Unemployment hysteresis: Empirical evidence for Latin America. Journal of Applied Economics, 15(2), 213-233. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1514-0326(12)60010-5.
5. Bach, H. U., & Spitznagel, E. (2003). Was kostet uns die Arbeitslosigkeit? Gesamtfiskalische Modellrechnungen, (Rapor No: 10/2003). IAB. Nürnberg.
6. Bahmani-Oskooee, M., Chang, T., & Ranjbar, O. (2018). Testing hysteresis effect in U.S. state unemployment: New evidence using a nonlinear quantile unit root test. Applied Economics Letters, 25(4), 249-253. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2017.1316477.
7. Bakas, D., & Papapetrou, E. (2014). Unemployment in Greece: Evidence from Greek regions using panel unit root tests. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 54(4), 551-562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.qref.2014.03.002.
8. Basler, H. P. (1987). Brauchen wir eine Konjunkturtheorie?. Wirtschaftsdienst, 67(2), 102-108.

9. Blanchard, O. J., & Summers, L. H. (1986). Hysteresis and the european unemployment problem. NBER Macroeconomics Annual, 1, 15-78. https://doi.org/10.1086/654013.
10. Blanchard, O., & Illing, G. (2017). Makroökonomie. Pearson Deutschland, Hallbergmoos.
11. Bostancı, F. C., & Koç, S. (2022). Balkan ülkelerinde işsizlik histerisi mi doğal işsizlik oranı mı geçerli?: Fourier birim kök testleri uygulaması. Sosyal Bilimler Metinleri, 2022(2), 119-131. https://doi.org/10.56337/sbm.1167668.
12. Brunello, G. (1990). Hysteresis and “the Japanese unemployment problem”: A preliminary investigation. Oxford Economic Papers, 42(3), 483-500. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.oep.a041959.
13. Camarero, M., & Tamarit, C. (2004). Hysteresis vs. natural rate of unemployment: New evidence for OECD countries. Economics Letters, 84(3), 413-417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2004.02.014.
14. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2006.00157.x.
15. Camarero, M., Carrion‐i‐Silvestre, J. L., & Tamarit, C. (2008). Unemployment hysteresis in transition countries: Evidence using stationarity panel tests with breaks. Review of Development Economics, 12(3), 620-635. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9361.2008.00476.x.
16. Caporale, G. M., Gil-Alana, L. A., & Trejo, P. V. (2022). Unemployment persistence in Europe: Evidence from the 27 EU countries. Heliyon, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e08898.
17. Carlin, W., & Soskice, D. (1990). Macroeconomics and the wage bargain: A modern approach to employment, inflation, and the exchange rate. Oxford University Press, New York.
18. Carlsen, F. (2000). Unemployment, inflation and government popularity—are there partisan effects?. Electoral Studies, 19(2-3), 141-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-3794(99)00044-X.
19. Carrion-i-Silvestre, J. L., & Sansó, A. (2005). The KPSS test with two structural breaks. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andreu-Sanso/publication/24064952_The_KPSS_test_with_two_structural_breaks/links/09e4150cae2d27831a000000/The-KPSS-test-with-two-structural-breaks.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 16.02.2023).
20. Carrion-i-Silvestre, J. L., & Sansó, A. (2007). The KPSS test with two structural breaks. Spanish Economic Review, 9, 105-127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10108-006-9017-8.
21. Cavaliere, G., & Xu, F. (2014). Testing for unit roots in bounded time series. Journal of Econometrics, 178, 259-272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2013.08.026.
22. Cevik, E. I., & Dibooglu, S. (2013). Persistence and non-linearity in US unemployment: A regime-switching approach. Economic Systems, 37(1), 61-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecosys.2012.06.002.
23. Chang, R. (1997). Is low unemployment inflationary?. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Economic Review, 82(1), 4-13.
24. Chang, T. (2011). Hysteresis in unemployment for 17 OECD countries: Stationary test with a Fourier function. Economic Modelling, 28(5), 2208-2214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2011.06.002.
25. Cheng, K. M. (2022). Doubts on natural rate of unemployment: Evidence and policy implications. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 86, 230-239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.qref.2022.07.006.
26. Cheng, S. C., Wu, T. P., Lee, K. C., & Chang, T. (2014). Flexible Fourier unit root test of unemployment for PIIGS countries. Economic Modelling, 36, 142-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2013.09.021.
27. Corakci, A., Omay, T., & Hasanov, M. (2022). Hysteresis and stochastic convergence in Eurozone unemployment rates: Evidence from panel unit roots with smooth breaks and asymmetric dynamics. Oeconomia Copernicana, 13(1), 11–54. https://doi.org/10.24136/oc.2022.001.
28. Cross, R., & Allan, A. (1988). On the history of hysteresis. R. Cross (Ed.), Unemployment, hysteresis, and the natural rate hypothesis. Basil Blackwell, New York, Oxford, 26-38.
29. Dornbusch, R., Fischer, S., & Startz, R. (2014). Macroeconomics. McGraw-Hill Education, New York.
30. Elliott, G., Rothenberg, T. J., & Stock, J. H. (1996), Efficient tests for an autoregressive unit root. Econometrica, 64(4), 813-836. https://doi.org/10.2307/2171846.
31. Ewing, J. A. (1881). VII. On the production of transient electric currents in iron and steel conductors by twisting them when magnetised or by magnetising them when twisted. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 33, 21-23. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspl.1881.0067.
32. Farmer, R. E. A. (2013). The natural rate hypothesis: An idea past its sell-by date (NBER Working Paper No. 19267). Erişim Adresi: http://www.nber.org/papers/w19267 (Erişim Tarihi: 01.01.2023).
33. Franzese, F., & Rapp, I. (2013). Der Einfluss von Arbeitslosigkeit auf das Trennungsrisiko von Ehen. Journal of Family Research, 25(3), 331-346. https://doi.org/10.20377/jfr-146.
34. Friedman, M. (1968). The role of monetary policy. The American Economic Review, 58(1), 1-17.
35. Furuoka, F. (2014). Are unemployment rates stationary in Asia-Pacific countries? New findings from Fourier ADF test. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 27(1), 34-45. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2014.947105.
36. Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1974). The entropy law and the economic process. Harvard University Press, Cambridge-Massachusetts.
37. Gil-Alana, L. A. (2001). The persistence of unemployment in the USA and Europe in terms of fractionally ARIMA models. Applied Economics, 33(10), 1263-1269. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840010007137.
38. Gomes, F., & Da Silva, C. G. (2008). Hysteresis vs. natural rate of unemployment in Brazil and Chile. Applied Economics Letters, 15(1), 53-56. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504850600675450.
39. Gustavsson, M., & Österholm, P. (2006). Hysteresis and non-linearities in unemployment rates. Applied Economics Letters, 13(9), 545-548. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504850500401437.
40. Gustavsson, M., & Österholm, P. (2007). Does unemployment hysteresis equal employment hysteresis?. Economic Record, 83(261), 159-173. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4932.2007.00391.x.
41. Güriş, B., Tiftikçigil, B. Y., & Tıraşoğlu, M. (2017). Testing for unemployment hysteresis in Turkey: Evidence from nonlinear unit root tests. Quality & Quantity, 51(1), 35-46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-015-0292-z.
42. Hall, R. E., & Taylor, J. B. (1997). Macroeconomics. W. W. Norton & Company, New York.
43. Harvey, D. I., Leybourne, S. J., & Xiao, B. (2008). A powerful test for linearity when the order of integration is unknown. Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics & Econometrics, 12(3). https://doi.org/10.2202/1558-3708.1582.
44. Hepsag, A. (2021). A unit root test based on smooth transitions and nonlinear adjustment. Communications in Statistics-Simulation and Computation, 50(3), 625-632. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610918.2018.1563154.
45. Herz, B., & Drescher, C. (2010). Rohstoffe und wirtschaftliche Entwicklung. R. Eller, M. Heinrich, R. Perrot, M. Reif (Ed.), Management von Rohstoffrisiken: Strategien, Märkte und Produkte. Gabler, Wiesbaden, 85-103.
46. Hirschl, B., & Vogelpohl, T. (2019). Energiepolitik in Deutschland und Europa. J. Radtke, W. Canzler (Ed.), Energiewende: Eine sozialwissenschaftliche Einführung. Springer VS, Wiesbaden, 69-95.
47. Jaeger, A., & Parkinson, M. (1994). Some evidence on hysteresis in unemployment rates. European Economic Review, 38(2), 329-342. https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-2921(94)90061-2.
48. Jawadi, F., Mallick, S. K., Cheffou, A. I., & Augustine, A. (2021). Does higher unemployment lead to greater criminality? Revisiting the debate over the business cycle. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 182, 448-471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2019.03.025.
49. Jiang, Y., & Chang, T. (2016). Bring quantile unit root test back in testing hysteresis in unemployment for the united states. Romanian Journal of Economic Forecasting, 19(1), 5-13.
50. Jochem, S. (2012). Die politischen Systeme Skandinaviens. Springer VS, Wiesbaden.
51. Kapetanios, G., Shin, Y., & Snell, A. (2003), Testing for a unit root in the nonlinear STAR framework. Journal of Econometrics, 112(2), 359-379. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(02)00202-6.
52. Kemp, M. C., & Wan, H. Y. Jr. (1974). Hysteresis of long-run equilibrium from realistic adjustment costs. G. Horwich, P. A. Samuelson (Ed.), Trade, stability, and macroeconomics. Academic Press, New York, San Francisco, London, 221-242.
53. Khraief, N., Shahbaz, M., Heshmati, A., & Azam, M. (2020). Are unemployment rates in OECD countries stationary? Evidence from univariate and panel unit root tests. North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.najef.2018.08.021.
54. Koop, G., & Potter, S. M. (1999). Dynamic asymmetries in U.S. unemployment. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 17(3), 298-312. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350015.1999.10524819.
55. Kruse, R. (2011). A new unit root test against ESTAR based on a class of modified statistics. Statistical Papers, 52(1), 71-85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00362-009-0204-1.
56. Kwiatkowski, D., Phillips, P. C. B., Schmidt, P., & Shin, Y. (1992). Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root: How sure are we that economic time series have a unit root?. Journal of Econometrics, 54(1-3), 159-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(92)90104-Y.
57. Landmann, O., & Jerger, J. (1999). Beschäftigungstheorie. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg.
58. Layard, R., Nickell, S., & Jackman, R. (1991). Unemployment: Macroeconomic performance and the labour market. Oxford University Press, New York.
59. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2007.06.002.
60. Lee, C. F. (2010). Testing for unemployment hysteresis in nonlinear heterogeneous panels: International evidence. Economic Modelling, 27(5), 1097-1102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2010.03.010.
61. Lee, C. F., Hu, T. C., Li, P. C., & Tsong, C. C. (2013). Asymmetric behavior of unemployment rates: Evidence from the quantile covariate unit root test. Japan and the World Economy, 28, 72-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japwor.2013.08.002.
62. Lee, J. D., Lee, C. C., & Chang, C. P. (2009). Hysteresis in unemployment revisited: Evidence from panel LM unit root tests with heterogeneous structural breaks. Bulletin of Economic Research, 61(4), 325-334. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8586.2008.00287.x.
63. León–Ledesma, M. A. (2002). Unemployment hysteresis in the US states and the EU: A panel approach. Bulletin of Economic Research, 54(2), 95-103. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8586.00141.
64. Lindbeck, A. (1992). Macroeconomic theory and the labor market. European Economic Review, 36(2-3), 209-235. https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-2921(92)90082-8.
65. 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(4), 1399-1414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-016-1196-z.
66. Michaelides, P., & Milios, J. (2009). TFP change, output gap and inflation in the Russian Federation (1994–2006). Journal of Economics and Business, 61(4), 339-352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconbus.2008.10.001.
67. Modigliani, F., & Papademos, L. (1975). Targets for monetary policy in the coming year. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity,1975(1), 141–165. https://doi.org/10.2307/2534063.
68. Möller, J. (2005) Industrierenten und Lohnsetzungsverhalten: Gibt es Indizien für die Insider-Outsider Hypothese?. Zeitschrift für Arbeitsmarkt Forschung, 38 (2/3), 165-179.
69. Neudorfer, P., Pichelmann, K., & Wagner, M. (1990). Hysteresis, nairu and long term unemployment in Austria. W. Franz (Ed.), Hysteresis Effects in Economic Models. Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg, 109-121.
70. OECD (2023), OECD Economic Outlook No 111 (Edition 2022/1), OECD Economic Outlook: Statistics and Projections (database). https://doi.org/10.1787/5cdec7d9-en (Erişim Tarihi: 02.01.2023).
71. Omay, T., Ozcan, B., & Shahbaz, M. (2020). Testing the hysteresis effect in the US state-level unemployment series. Journal of Applied Economics, 23(1), 329-348. https://doi.org/10.1080/15140326.2020.1759865.
72. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10663-021-09510-z.
73. Pantula, S. G., Gonzalez-Farias, G., & Fuller, W. A. (1994). A comparison of unit-root test criteria. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 12(4), 449-459. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350015.1994.10524567.
74. Papell, D. H., Murray, C. J., & Ghiblawi, H. (2000). The structure of unemployment. Review of Economics and Statistics, 82(2), 309-315. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465300558696.
75. Phelps, E. S. (1967). Phillips curves, expectations of inflation and optimal unemployment over time. Economica, 34(135), 254-281. https://doi.org/10.2307/2552025.
76. Phelps, E. S. (1968). Money-wage dynamics and labor-market equilibrium. Journal of political economy, 76(4, Part 2), 678-711. https://doi.org/10.1086/259438.
77. Phelps, E. S. (1972). Inflation policy and unemployment theory: The cost-benefit approach to monetary planning. W. W. Norton & Company, INC, New York.
78. Phelps, E. S. (1994). Structural slumps: The modern equilibrium theory of unemployment, interest, and assets. Harvard University Press, Cambridge-Massachusetts, London.
79. Phillips, P. C. B., & Perron, P. (1988). Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika, 75(2), 335-346. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/75.2.335.
80. Poddig, T., Dichtl, H., & Petersmeier, K. (2008), Statistik, Ökonometrie, Optimierung: Methoden und ihre praktischen Anwendungen in Finanzanalyse und Portfoliomanagement. Uhlenbruch Verlag, Bad Soden/Ts.
81. Priewe, J. (1984). Konkurrierende Arbeitsmarkttheorien und Typologien von Arbeitslosigkeit. Wirtschaftsdienst, 64(7), 353-360.
82. Rissman, E. R. (1986). What is the natural rate of unemployment?. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago Economic Perspectives, 10, 3-17.
83. Rodriguez-Gil, A. (2018). Hysteresis and labour market institutions. Evidence from the UK and the Netherlands. Empirical Economics, 55(4), 1985-2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-017-1338-y.
84. Røed, K. (1996). Unemployment hysteresis-macro evidence from 16 OECD countries. Empirical Economics, 21(4), 589-600. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01180703.
85. Romero‐Ávila, D., & Usabiaga, C. (2007). Unit root tests, persistence, and the unemployment rate of the U.S. states. Southern Economic Journal, 73(3), 698-716. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2325-8012.2007.tb00797.x.
86. Samuelson, P. A. (1972a). What classical and neoclassical monetary theory really was. R. C. Merton (Ed.), The collected scientific papers of Paul A. Samuelson Cilt III. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge-Massachusetts, London, 529-543.
87. Samuelson, P. A. (1972b). Some notions on causality and teleology in economics. Robert C. Merton (Ed.), The collected scientific papers of Paul A. Samuelson Cilt III. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge-Massachusetts, London, 428-472.
88. Schira, J. (2021). Statistische Methoden der VWL und BWL: Theorie und Praxis. Pearson Deutschland, München.
89. Sesselmeier, W., & Blauermel, G. (1998). Arbeitsmarkttheorien: Ein Überblick. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg.
90. Sessions, J. G. (1994). Unemployment stigma and multiple labour market equilibria: A social‐psychological interpretation of hysteresis. Labour, 8(3), 355-376. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9914.1994.tb00168.x.
91. Snower, D. J. (1993). Insider-Outsider-Beziehungen und Einkommensverteilung. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, 19(4), 461-469.
92. Song, F. M., & Wu, Y. (1997). Hysteresis in unemployment: Evidence from 48 U.S. states. Economic Inquiry, 35(2), 235-243. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.1997.tb01906.x.
93. Stockhammer, E. (2003). NAIRU-Theorie und keynesianische Ökonomie. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, 29(2), 189-213.
94. Tiwari, A. K. (2014). Unemployment hysteresis in Australia: Evidence using nonlinear and stationarity tests with breaks. Quality & Quantity, 48, 681-695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-012-9795-z.
95. Wallis, K. F. (1987). Time series analysis of bounded economic variables. Journal of Time Series Analysis, 8(1), 115-123. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9892.1987.tb00425.x.
96. Winter-Ebmer, R. (1992). Persistenz von Arbeitslosigkeit. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt/Main, New York.
97. Yaya, O. S., Ogbonna, A. E., & Mudida, R. (2019). Hysteresis of unemployment rates in Africa: New findings from Fourier ADF test. Quality & Quantity, 53(6), 2781-2795. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-019-00894-6.
98. Yilanci, V., Ozkan, Y., & Altinsoy, A. (2020). Testing the unemployment hysteresis in G7 countries: A fresh evidence from Fourier threshold unit root test. Romanian Journal of Economic Forecasting, 23(3), 49-59.