G7 Ülkelerinde İşsizlik Histerisi Hipotezi: Fourier Fonksiyonlu ve Geleneksel Birim Kök Testleriyle Analiz

Öz

G7 ülkeleri için doğal işsizlik oranı hipotezi mi yoksa işsizlik histerisi hipotezinin mi geçerli olduğunun sorgulanması bu çalışmanın temel amacını teşkil etmektedir. Bu temel çerçevesinde 1970-2023 dönemini kapsayan yıllık zaman serisi verilerinin baz alındığı çalışmada serilerin durağanlığını tespit etmek için geleneksel (PP, KPSS) ve yapısal kırılmalı (ZA, LS) birim kök testlerinin yanı sıra Fourier fonksiyonlu birim kök testleri (F-KPSS, F-ADF) de dikkate alınarak analiz boyutu genişletilmiştir. Elde edilen bulgular ışığında, G7 ülkeleri için işsizlik histerisi hipotezinin geçerliliği farklılık göstermiştir. ABD, Almanya, Japonya ve Kanada için doğal işsizlik oranı hipotezinin geçerli olduğu sonucuna ulaşılırken; Birleşik Krallık, Fransa ve İtalya için ise işsizlik histerisi hipotezinin geçerli bulunduğu, yani işsizliğin bu ülkelerde kalıcı olduğuna dair kanıtlar ortaya çıkmıştır. İşsizlik histerisi hipotezinin geçerli bulunduğu ülkelerde, işsizlikteki kalıcılığın önüne geçmek için ekonomik büyümenin sürdürülebilir olmasının yanı sıra işgücü piyasasındaki uzun vadeli yapısal zorlukları ele alan kapsamlı politikaların geliştirilmesinin gerekliliği önerilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• G7 Ülkeleri
• İşsizlik Histerisi Hipotezi
• Doğal İşsizlik Oranı Hipotezi
• Fourier Birim Kök Testleri

Unemployment Hysteresis Hypothesis in G7 Countries: Analysis with Fourier Function and Traditional Unit Root Tests

Abstract

This study's primary goal is to determine whether the unemployment hysteresis or natural unemployment rate theories apply to the G7 nations. Based on annual time series data from 1970 to 2023, the study has broadened the scope of analysis by taking into account the Fourier function unit root tests (F-KPSS, F-ADF) in addition to the traditional (PP, KPSS) and structural break (ZA, LS) unit root tests to ascertain the series' stationarity. Within the scope of the findings obtained, the unemployment hysteresis hypothesis's validity for the G7 countries has varied. The UK, France, and Italy were found to be valid for the unemployment hysteresis hypothesis, while the USA, Germany, Japan, and Canada were found to be valid for the natural unemployment rate hypothesis. The validity of the hysteresis hypothesis has revealed evidence that unemployment is permanent in these countries. In countries where the unemployment hysteresis hypothesis is valid, it is suggested that in addition to the sustainability of economic growth, comprehensive policies should be developed to address long-term structural difficulties in the labour market in order to prevent the persistence of unemployment.

Keywords

• G7 Countries
• Unemployment Hysteresis Hypothesis
• Natural Unemployment Rate Hypothesis
• Fourier Unit Root Tests

Kaynakça

1. Al-Habees, M.A., & Rumman, M.A. (2012). The Relationship Between Unemployment and Economic Growth in Jordan and Some Arab Countries. World Applied Sciences Journal, 18(5), s. 673-680.
2. Alogoskoufis, G. S., & Manning, A. (1988). On the Persistence of Unemployment. Economic Policy, 3(7), s. 427–469. https://doi.org/10.2307/1344492
3. Alpağut, S. (2024). Validity of Unemployment Hysteresis in European Countries and Türkiye with Fourier Functions. Alanya Acedemic Review, 8(3), s. 780-790. https://doi.org/10.29023/alanyaakademik.1463030
4. Andersen, T. M. (2010). Unemployment Persistence. CESifo Forum, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, 11(01), s. 23-28.
5. Arestis, P., & Mariscal, I. B. F. (1999). Unit Roots and Structural Breaks in OECD Unemployment. Economics Letters, 65(2), s. 149-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0165-1765(99)00131-7
6. Becker, R., Enders, W., & Lee, J. (2006). A Stationarity Test in the Presence of An Unknown Number of Smooth Breaks. Journal of Time Series Analysis, 27(3), s. 381-409. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9892.2006.00478.x
7. Berke, B., Özcan, B., & Dizdarlar, H. I. (2014). Döviz Piyasasının Etkinliği: Türkiye için Bir Analiz. Ege Akademik Bakış, 14(4), s. 621-636.
8. Blanchard, O. J., & Summers, L. H. (1986). Hysteresis and the European Unemployment Problem. NBER Macroeconomics Annual, 1, s. 15-78. https://doi.org/10.3386/w1950

9. Byrne, D., & Strobl, E. (2004). Defining Unemployment in Developing Countries: Evidence from Trinidad and Tobago. Journal of Development Economics, 73(1), s. 465-476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2002.12.005
10. Caporale, G. M., Gil-Alana, L. A., & Trejo, P. V. (2022). Unemployment Persistence in Europe: Evidence from the 27 EU Countries. Heliyon, 8(2), s. 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e08898
11. Chang, T. (2011). Hysteresis in Unemployment for 17 OECD Countries: Stationary Test with A Fourier Function. Economic Modelling, 28(5), s. 2208-2214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2011.06.002
12. Christopoulos, D. K., & León‐Ledesma, M. A. (2007). Unemployment Hysteresis in EU Countries: What Do We Really Know About It? Journal of Economic Studies. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443580710745353
13. Doğaner, A. (2022). Avrupa Birliği Ülkelerinde İşsizlik Histerisi Hipotezinin Doğrusal ve Doğrusal Olmayan Birim Kök Testleriyle Tespiti: 1991-2020 Dönemi. İstanbul İktisat Dergisi, 72, s. 753-785. https://doi.org/10.26650/ISTJECON2022-1100547
14. Enders, W., & Lee, J. (2012). The Flexible Fourier Form and Dickey–Fuller Type Unit Root Tests. Economics Letters, 117(1), s. 196-199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2012.04.081
15. Friedman, M. (1968). The Role of Monetary Policy. American Economic Review, 58 (1), 1–17.
16. Glynn, J., Nelson, P., & Reetu, V. (2007). Unit Root Tests and Structural Breaks: A Survey with Applications. Journal of Quantitative Methods for Economics and Business Administration, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, 3(1), s. 63-79.
17. Herranz, E. (2017). Unit Root Tests. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics, 9(3), e1396. DOI:10.1002/wics.1396
18. Jaeger, A., & Parkinson, M. (1994). Some Evidence on Hysteresis in Unemployment Rates. European Economic Review, 38(2), s. 329-342. https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-2921(94)90061-2
19. Jiang, Y., Cai, Y., Peng, Y-T., & Chang, T. (2019). Testing Hysteresis in Unemployment in G7 Countries Using Quantile Unit Root Test with Both Sharp Shifts and Smooth Breaks. Social Indicators Research, 142, s. 1211–1229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-018-1948-6
20. Kesici, H. Ç. (2020). An Analysis for Unemployment Hysteresis in G7 Countries. Eurasian Econometrics, Statistics & Emprical Economics Journal, 17, s. 19-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.17740/eas.stat.2020-V17-02
21. Kılıç, N. Ö., Karabulut, K., & Uğurlu, S. (2018). Is Unemployment Hysteresis Hypothesis Valid for France, Germany and Turkey? Unit Root Analysis with Structural Break. Economics, Finance and Politics, 13(30), s. 213-223. DOI: 10.7827/TurkishStudies.14251
22. 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 the Economic Time Series Have A Unit Root? Journal of Econometrics, 54, s. 159-178.
23. Lee, J., & 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. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3211829
24. Lean, H. H., & Smyth, R. (2015). Testing for Weak-Form Efficiency of Crude Palm Oil Spot and Future Markets: New Evidence from A GARCH Unit Root Test with Multiple Structural Breaks. Applied Economics, 47, s. 1710-1721. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2014.1002905
25. León-Ledesma, M. A. (2000). Unemployment Hysteresis in the US and the EU: A Panel Data Approach. Department of Economics Discussion Paper, No. 0006, University of Kent.
26. Lumsdaine, R. L., & Papell, D. H. (1997). Multiple Trend Breaks and the Unit Root Hypothesis. Review of Economics and Statistics, 79 (2), s. 212-218.
27. Mitchell, W. F. (2000). The Causes of Unemployment. In S. Bell (Ed.), The Unemployment Crisis in Australia: Which Way Out? (s. 49–87). Cambridge University Press.
28. 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), s. 875-901. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10663 021-09510-z
29. Öner, C. (2010). Unemployment: The Curse of Joblessness. International Labor Office, Global Employment Trends, Finance & Development https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/basics/unemploy.htm (Erişim Tarihi: 01.07.2025).
30. Özbek, S., & Türkmen, S. (2021). Is Unemployment Hysteresis or Natural Rate of Unemployment? New Evidence from E7 and G7 Countries. Bingöl University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 22, s. 643-661. https://doi.org/10.29029/busbed.930288
31. Phelps, E. S. (1968). Money–Wage Dynamics and Labor–Market Equilibrium. Journal of Political Economy, 76(4, Part 2), s. 678–711.
32. Phillips, P. C. B., & Perron, P. (1988). Testing for A Unit Root in Time Series Regression. Biometrika, 75(2), s. 335-346.
33. Romero-Ávila, D., & Usabiaga, C. (2007). Unit Root Tests, Persistence, and the Unemployment Rate of the U.S. States. Southern Economic Journal, 73(3), s. 698-716. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20111919
34. Sahoo, M., & Sahoo, J. (2019). The Relationship Between Unemployment and Some Macroeconomic Variables: Empirical Evidence from India. Theoretical and Applied Economics, 1(618), s. 115-128.
35. Solarin, S.A., Lafuente, C., Gil Alana, L.A., & González Blanch, M.J. (2024). Persistence in the Unemployment and Inflation Relationship. Evidence from 38 OECD Countries. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 16, s. 1236–1257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-02034-4
36. World Bank. World Development Indicators. https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators, (Erişim Tarihi: 10.02.2025).
37. Yaya, O. S., Ogbonna, E., Gil-Alana, L. A., Furuoka, F., & Vo, X. V. (2022). Testing Unemployment Hysteresis in European Countries: Argument Based on Three-Generation Unit Root Tests. SSRN Electronic Journal, 4158893. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4158893
38. Yılancı, V. (2009). Analyzing the Unemployment Hysteresis for Turkey Under Structural Breaks. Doğuş University Journal, 10(2), s. 324-335.
39. Yılancı, V., Ozkan, Y., & Altınsoy, 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), s. 49-59.
40. Yılmaz, M. (2023). An Econometric Study on the Validity of the Unemployment Hysteresis Hypothesis in EU-15 and EU-28. OPUS– Journal of Society Research, 20(Special Issue Human Behavior and Social Institutions), s. 842-851. https://doi.org/10.26466/opusjsr.1329033
41. Zivot, E., & Andrews, D. W. K. (1992). Further Evidence on the Great Crash, the Oil-Price Shock, and the Unit-Root Hypothesis. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 10(3), s. 251-270.