OECD ÜLKELERİNDE İŞSİZLİK HİSTERİSİ: FOURIER PANEL KPSS TESTİNDEN YENİ KANITLAR

Öz

İşsizlik oranları üzerine meydana gelen şokların kalıcı olup olmadığı konusunda literatürde iki farklı görüş bulunmaktadır. Bunlar doğal işsizlik oranı hipotezi ile histeri hipotezidir. Doğal işsizlik oranı hipotezine göre, işsizlik doğal ve durağan bir süreçtir. Dolayısıyla meydana gelen bir şok işsizlik oranı üzerinde kalıcı bir etkiye sahip değildir. Histeri hipotezine göre ise, iş piyasasındaki katılıklardan dolayı, meydana gelen şoklar işsizlik oranı üzerinde kalıcı bir etkiye sahiptir. Bu bağlamda, ülkelerin işsizlik oranlarının nasıl bir süreç izlediğini analiz etmek önemlidir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, OECD ülkelerinde işsizlik histerisi hipotezinin geçerliliğini araştırmaktır. Bu kapsamda çalışmada 28 OECD ülkesine ait 1980-2016 dönemini kapsayan yıllık işsizlik oranı verileri kullanılmıştır. İşsizlik oranının durağanlığı, Nazlıoğlu ve Karul 2017 tarafından önerilen Fourier Panel KPSS durağanlık testi ile incelenmiştir. Elde edilen bulgular, OECD ülkelerinde histeri hipotezinin geçerli olduğunu göstermektedir. Bununla birlikte, bireysel sonuçlar panel veri analizi bulgularından farklılaşmaktadır. Buna göre 28 OECD ülkesinden 16'sında işsizlik histerisi hipotezi geçerli iken, diğer ülkelerde doğal işsizlik oranı hipotezi geçerlidir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İşsizlik Histerisi,OECD Ülkeleri,Fourier Durağanlık Testi

UNEMPLOYMENT HYSTERESIS IN OECD COUNTRIES: NEW EVIDENCE FROM FOURIER PANEL KPSS TEST

Öz

There are two different views in the literature on whether the shocks on unemployment rates are permanent. These are the hysteresis hypothesis with the natural unemployment rate hypothesis. According to the natural unemployment rate hypothesis, unemployment is a natural and stationary process. Therefore, a shock does not have a permanent impact on the unemployment rate. According to the hysteresis hypothesis, because of the rigidity in the labor market, the shocks that occur have a lasting effect on the unemployment rate. In this context, it is important to analyze how countries ' unemployment rates are following a process. The purpose of this study is to investigate the validity of unemployment hysteresis hypothesis in OECD countries. In this context, the annual unemployment rate data for 28 OECD countries covering the period 1980-2016 was used. The stationarity of the unemployment rate was investigated by Fourier Panel KPSS stationarity test proposed by Nazlioğlu and Karul 2017 . The findings suggest that the hysteresis hypothesis is valid in OECD countries. However, individual results differ from panel data analysis findings. Accordingly, while 16 of the 28 OECD countries have an unemployment hysteresis hypothesis, the natural unemployment rate hypothesis is valid in other countries

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Hysteresis in Unemployment,OECD Countries,Fourier Stationarity Test

Kaynakça

1. Bakas, Dimitrios and Papapetrou, Evangelia (2014), “Unemployment by Gender: Evidence from EU Countries”, International Advances in Economic Research, 20(1), p. 103-111.
2. Becker, Raşf - Enders, Walter - Lee, Junsoo (2006), “A Stationarity Test in the Presence of an Unknown Number of Smooth Breaks”, Journal of Time Series Analysis, 27(3), p. 381-409.
3. Blanchard, Oliver, J. and Summers, Lawrence, H. (1986), “Hysteresis and the European Unemployment Problem”, NBER Macroeconomics Annual, 1, p. 15-78.
4. Breusch, Trevor, S. and Pagan, Aadrian, R. (1980), “The Lagrange Multiplier Test and Its Applications to Model Specification in Econometrics”, The Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), p. 239-253.
5. Brunello, Giorgio (1990), “Hysteresis and “the Japanese Unemployment Problem”: A Preliminary Investigation”, Oxford Economic Papers, 42(3), p. 483-500.
6. Carrion-i-Silvestre, Josep, L. - Kim, Dukpa - Perron, Pierre. (2009), “GLS-Based Unit Root Tests with Multiple Structural Breaks under both The Null and the Alternative Hypotheses”, Econometric Theory, 25(6), p. 1754-1792.
7. Chang, Tsangyao (2011), “Hysteresis in Unemployment for 17 OECD Countries: Stationary Test with a Fourier Function”, Economic Modelling, 28(5), p. 2208-2214.
8. Chang, Tsangyao - Lee, Kuei, C. - Nieh, Chien, C. - Wei, Ching, C. (2005). “An Empirical Note on Testing Hysteresis in Unemployment for Ten European Countries: Panel SURADF Approach”, Applied Economics Letters, 12(14), p. 881-886.

9. Christopoulos, Dimitris, K. and León‐Ledesma, Miguel, A. (2007), “Unemployment Hysteresis in EU Countries: What Do We Really Know about It?” Journal of Economic Studies, 34(2), p. 80-89.
10. Dickey, David, A. and Fuller, Wayne, A. (1981), “Likelihood Ratio Statistics for Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root”, Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 49(4), p. 1057-1072.
11. Dritsaki, Chaido - Dritsaki, Melina (2013), “Hysteresis in Unemployment: an Empirical Research for Three Member States of the European Union”, Theoretical & Applied Economics, 20(4), p. 35-46.
12. Enders, Walter and Lee, Junsoo (2012), “A Unit Root Test Using a Fourier Series to Approximate Smooth Breaks”, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 74(4), p. 574-599.
13. Friedman, Milton (1968), “The Role of Monetary Policy”, American Economic Review, 58, p. 1– 17.
14. Furuoka, Fumitaka (2012), “Unemployment Hysteresis in the East Asia‐Pacific Region: New Evidence from MADF and SURADF Tests”, Asian‐Pacific Economic Literature, 26(2), p. 133-143.
15. Gallant, A. Ronald (1981), “On the Bias in Flexible Functional Forms and an Essentially Unbiased Form: the Fourier Flexible Form”, Journal of Econometrics, 15(2), p. 211-245.
16. Gallant, A. Ronald, and Souza, Geraldo (1991), “On the Asymptotic Normality of Fourier Flexible Form Estimates”, Journal of Econometrics, 50(3), p. 329-353.
17. García-Cintado, Alejandro - Romero-Ávila, Diego - Usabiaga, Carlos (2015), “Can the Hysteresis Hypothesis in Spanish Regional Unemployment be Beaten? New Evidence from Unit Root Tests with Breaks”, Economic Modelling, 47, p. 244-252.
18. Gray, David (2004), “Persistent Regional Unemployment Differentials Revisited”, Regional Studies, 38, p. 167-176.
19. Gustavsson, Magnus and Österholm, Par (2006), “Hysteresis and Non-Linearities in Unemployment Rates”, Applied Economics Letters, 13(9), p. 545-548.
20. Güriş, Burak - Tiftikçigil, Burcu, Y. - Tıraşoğlu, Muhammed (2017), “Testing for Unemployment Hysteresis in Turkey: Evidence from Nonlinear Unit Root Tests”, Quality & Quantity, 51(1), p. 35-46.
21. Jaeger, Albert, and Parkinson, Martin (1994), “Some Evidence on Hysteresis in Unemployment Rates”, European Economic Review, 38(2), p. 329-342.
22. Jones, Paul, M. and Enders, Walter (2014), “On the Use of the Flexible Fourier Form in Unit Root Tests, Endogenous Breaks, and Parameter Instability”, Recent Advances in Estimating Nonlinear Models, (Editor:Jun Ma and Mark Wohar), Springer, New York, p. 59-83.
23. Kapetanios, George (2005), “Unit‐Root Testing against The Alternative Hypothesis of up to M Structural Breaks”, Journal of Time Series Analysis, 26(1), p. 123-133.
24. Layard, Richard - Nickell, Stephen - Jackman, Richard (2005), Unemployment: Macroeconomic Performance and the Labour Market, Oxford University Press, New York.
25. León‐Ledesma, Miguel, and McAdam, Peter (2004), “Unemployment, Hysteresis and Transition”, Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 51(3), p. 377-401.
26. Lee, Jun-De - Lee, Chien, C. - Chang, Chun, P. (2009), “Hysteresis in Unemployment Revisited: Evidence from Panel LM Unit Root Tests with Heterogeneous Structural Breaks”, Bulletin of Economic Research, 61(4), p. 325-334.
27. Lee, Junsoo, and Strazicich, Mark, C. (2003), “Minimum Lagrange Multiplier Unit Root Test with Two Structural Breaks”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(4), p. 1082-1089.
28. Lee, Junsoo, and Strazicich, Mark, C. (2004), “Minimum LM Unit Root Test with One Structural Break. Manuscript, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University, p. 1-16.
29. Lee, Chingnun - Wu, Jhy-Lin - Yang, Lixiong (2016), “A Simple Panel Unit‐Root Test with Smooth Breaks in the Presence of a Multifactor Error Structure”, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 78(3), p. 365-393.
30. Lin, Cheng, H. - Kuo, Nai, F. - Yuan, Cheng, D. (2008), “Nonlinear vs. Nonstationary of Hysteresis in Unemployment: Evidence from OECD Economies”, Applied Economics Letters, 15(6), p. 483-487.
31. Lumsdaine, Robin, L. and Papell, David, H. (1997), “Multiple Trend Breaks and the Unit-Root Hypothesis”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 79(2), p. 212-218.
32. Marques, Andre, M. - Lima, Gilberto, T. - Troster, Victor (2017), “Unemployment Persistence in OECD Countries after the Great Recession”, Economic Modelling, 64, p. 105-116.
33. Meng, Ming - Strazicich, Mark, C. - Lee, Junsoo (2017), “Hysteresis in Unemployment? Evidence from Linear and Nonlinear Unit Root Tests and Tests with Non-Normal Errors”, Empirical Economics, 53(4), p. 1399-1414.
34. Mitchell, William, F. (1993), “Testing for Unit Roots and Persistence in OECD Unemployment Rates”, Applied Economics, 25(12), p. 1489-1501.
35. Munir, Qaiser - Ching, Kok, S. (2015), “Revisiting the Hysteresis Hypothesis in Unemployment in Selected Emerging Economies”, Journal of Economic & Management Perspectives, 9(3), 22-32.
36. Narayan, Paresh, K. and Popp, Stephan (2010), “A New Unit Root Test with Two Structural Breaks in Level and Slope at Unknown Time”, Journal of Applied Statistics, 37(9), p. 1425-1438.
37. Nazlioglu, Şaban and Karul, Cagın (2017), “A Panel Stationarity Test with Gradual Structural Shifts: Re-Investigate the International Commodity Price Shocks”, Economic Modelling, 61, p. 181- 192.
38. Perron, Pierre (1989), “The Great Crash, the Oil Price Shock, and the Unit Root Hypothesis”, Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 57(6), p. 1361-1401.
39. Perron, Pierre (1997), “Further Evidence on Breaking Trend Functions in Macroeconomic Variables”, Journal of Econometrics, 80(2), p. 355-385.
40. Pesaran, M. Hashem - Ullah, Aman - Yamagata, Takashi (2008), “A Bias‐Adjusted LM Test of Error Cross‐Section Independence”, The Econometrics Journal, 11(1), p. 105-127.
41. Phelps, Edmund, S. (1967), “Phillips Curves, Expectations of Inflation and Optimal Unemployment over Time”, Economica, 34(13), p. 254-281.
42. Phelps, Edmund, S. (1968), “Money-Wage Dynamics and Labor-Market Equilibrium”, Journal of Political Economy, 76(4), p. 678–711.
43. Phelps, Edmund, S. (1994), Structural Slumps: The Modern Equilibrium Theory of Unemployment, Interest, and Assets, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
44. Romero-Avila, Diego, and Usabiaga, Carlos (2007), “Unit Root Tests, Persistence, and the Unemployment Rate of the US States”, Southern Economic Journal, 73, p. 698-716.
45. Rİed, Knut (1996), “Unemployment Hysteresis-Macro Evidence from 16 OECD Countries”, Empirical Economics, 21(4), p. 589-600.
46. Sessions, John, G. (1994), “Unemployment Stigma and Multiple Labour Market Equilibria: A Social‐Psychological Interpretation of Hysteresis”, Labour, 8(3), p. 355-376.
47. Song, Frank, M. - Wu, Yangru (1998), “Hysteresis in Unemployment: Evidence from OECD Countries”, The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 38(2), p. 181-192.
48. Strazicich, Mark, C. - Tieslau, Margie - Lee, Junsoo (2001), “Hysteresis in Unemployment? Evidence from Panel Unit Root Tests with Structural Change”, Universidad del Norte de Texas, mimeo.
49. Tiwari, Aviral, K. (2014), “Unemployment Hysteresis in Australia: Evidence Using Nonlinear and Stationarity Tests with Breaks”, Quality & Quantity, 48(2), p. 681-695.
50. Yaya, OlaOluwa, S. - Ogbonna, Ahamuefula, E. - Mudida, Robert (2019), “Hysteresis of Unemployment Rates in Africa: New Findings from Fourier ADF Test”, Quality & Quantity, 53(6), p. 2781-2795.
51. Yilanci, Veli (2008), “Are Unemployment Rates Nonstationary or Nonlinear? Evidence from 19 OECD Countries”, Economics Bulletin, 3(47), p. 1-5.
52. Zivot, Eric and Andrews, Donald, W. K. (2002), “Further Evidence on the Great Crash, the Oil-Price Shock, and the Unit-Root Hypothesis”, Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 20(1), p. 25-44.