G7 Ülkelerinde İşsizlik Histerisi: Doğrusal ve Doğrusal Olmayan Kanıtlar

Öz

İşsizlik histerisi hipotezi, makroekonomik şokların işsizlik oranları üzerinde kalıcı etkiler yaratabileceğini ileri sürmektedir. Bu çalışma, G7 ülkelerinde işsizlik histerisinin geçerliliğini doğrusal ve doğrusal olmayan birim kök testleri kullanarak incelemektedir. Analizde, Ocak 2000–Aralık 2024 dönemine ait aylık ve mevsimsellikten arındırılmış işsizlik oranları kullanılmıştır. Öncelikle Harvey vd. (2008) doğrusal olmayanlık testi uygulanmıştır. Sonuçlara göre Kanada ve İtalya doğrusal olmayan dinamikler sergilerken, diğer G7 ülkelerinde doğrusal yapı hakimdir. Doğrusal seriler için Augmented Dickey–Fuller (ADF), Phillips–Perron (PP) ve Kwiatkowski–Phillips–Schmidt–Shin (KPSS) birim kök testleri uygulanmış; ayrıca yapısal kırılmaya izin veren Perron (1989) ve Zivot–Andrews (1992) testlerinden yararlanılmıştır. Doğrusal olmayan serilerde ise Kapetanios–Shin–Snell (KSS), Kruse (2011) ve Hepsag (2021) testleri kullanılmıştır. Bulgular, doğrusal yapı gösteren ülkelerde yapısal kırılmalar dikkate alındığında dahi işsizlik oranlarının durağan olmadığını ve şokların kalıcı etkiler yarattığını göstermektedir. Doğrusal olmayan ülkelerden Kanada’da ortalamaya dönüş gözlenirken, İtalya’da işsizlik oranı durağanlık göstermemekte ve histerisi hipotezini desteklemektedir. Genel olarak sonuçlar, işsizlik histerisinin G7 ülkelerinde ülkeye özgü kurumsal yapı ve uyum mekanizmalarına bağlı olarak farklılaştığını ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İşsizlik Histerisi
• NAIRU
• Yapısal Kırılmalar

Unemployment Hysteresis in G7 Countries: Linear and Nonlinear Evidence

Öz

The unemployment hysteresis hypothesis suggests that macroeconomic shocks may generate persistent effects on unemployment rates. This study investigates the validity of unemployment hysteresis in G7 countries by accounting for linearity, structural breaks, and nonlinear adjustment dynamics. Monthly, seasonally adjusted unemployment rates covering January 2000–December 2024 are analyzed. Linearity is first examined using the Harvey et al. (2008) test, which identifies nonlinear dynamics in Canada and Italy, while unemployment series in the remaining G7 countries display linear behavior. For linear cases, stationarity is assessed using the Augmented Dickey–Fuller (ADF), Phillips–Perron (PP), and Kwiatkowski–Phillips–Schmidt–Shin (KPSS) tests, together with Perron (1989) and Zivot–Andrews (1992) tests allowing for structural break. Nonlinear series are analyzed using the Kapetanios–Shin–Snell (KSS), Kruse (2011), and Hepsag (2021) tests. The results indicate persistent unemployment in linear economies, nonlinear mean reversion in Canada, and strong hysteresis in Italy, highlighting heterogeneous unemployment dynamics across G7 countries.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Unemployment Hysteresis
• NAIRU
• Structural Breaks

Kaynakça

1. Alpağut, S. (2024). Validity of unemployment hysteresis in European countries and Türkiye with Fourier functions. Alanya Akademik Bakış, 8(3), 780-790. https://doi.org/10.29023/alanyaakademik.1463030
2. Ball, L. and Mankiw, N.G. (2002). The NAIRU in theory and practice. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(4), 115-136. https://doi.org/10.1257/089533002320951000
3. Ball, L. and Onken, J. (2022). Hysteresis in unemployment: Evidence from OECD estimates of the natural rate. International Finance, 25(3), 268-284. https://doi.org/10.1111/infi.12424
4. Blanchard, O.J. and Summers, L.H. (1986). Hysteresis in unemployment. In P. Garonna, P. Mori and P. Tedeschi (Eds.), Economic models of trade unions (pp. 235-242). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2378-5_11
5. Caner, M. and Hansen, B.E. (2001). Threshold autoregression with a unit root. Econometrica, 69(6), 1555-1596. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0262.00257
6. 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
7. Christopoulos, D.K. and León‐Ledesma, M.A. (2007). Unemployment hysteresis in EU countries: What do we really know about it? Journal of Economic Studies, 34(2), 80-89. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443580710745353
8. Corakci, A., Omay, T. and 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://journals.economic-research.pl/

9. Cuestas, J.C. and Gil-Alana, L. (2024). Unemployment hysteresis by sex and education attainment in the EU. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 15(1), 801-827. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01106-1
10. Dickey, D.A. and Fuller, W.A. (1979). Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74(366a), 427-431. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1979.10482531
11. Dickey, D.A. and Fuller, W.A. (1981). Likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 1057-1072. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912517
12. Enders, W. and Granger, C.W.J. (1998). Unit-root tests and asymmetric adjustment with an example using the term structure of interest rates. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 16(3), 304-311. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/
13. Friedman, M. (1968). The role of monetary policy. The American Economic Review, 58(1), 1-17. Retrieved from https://www.aeaweb.org/
14. Gil-Alana, L.A., González-Blanch, M.J. and Poza, C. (2025). Labour market mismatches in G7 countries: a fractional integration approach. Applied Economics, 57(7), 736-752. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2024.2305620
15. Güriş, B. (2020). R uygulamalı doğrusal olmayan zaman serileri analizi. Der Yayınevi, İstanbul.
16. Güriş, S., Çağlayan Akay, E. and Güriş, B. (2020). R ile temel ekonometri. Der Yayınevi: İstanbul.
17. Harvey, D.I., Leybourne, S.J. and Xiao, B. (2008). A powerful test for linearity when the order of integration is unknown. Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics & Econometrics, 12(3). Retrieved from https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/
18. 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
19. Hepsağ, A. (2022). Ekonometrik zaman serileri analizlerinde güncel yöntemler (WinRats Uygulamalı). DER Yayınları: İstanbul.
20. Immel, L. (2021). The impact of labor market reforms on income inequality: Evidence from the German Hartz reforms (Working Paper Series No. 347). Retrieved from https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/231543
21. Jiang, Y., Cai, Y., Peng, Y.T. and 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(3), 1211-1229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-018-1948-6
22. Kapetanios, G., Shin, Y. and 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
23. Khraief, N., Shahbaz, M., Heshmati, A. and Azam, M. (2020). Are unemployment rates in OECD countries stationary? Evidence from univariate and panel unit root tests. The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 51, 100838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.najef.2018.08.021
24. Kizilkaya, O., Mike, F. and Kizilkaya, F. (2024). Unemployment hysteresis in central and Eastern European countries during EU-membership. Acta Oeconomica, 74(2), 225-240. https://doi.org/10.1556/032.2024.00011
25. 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
26. Lee, J.D., Lee, C.C. and 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
27. Leybourne, S., Newbold, P. and Vougas, D. (1998). Unit roots and smooth transitions. Journal of Time Series Analysis, 19(1), 83-97. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9892.00078
28. Marques, A.M., Lima, G.T. and Troster, V. (2017). Unemployment persistence in OECD countries after the Great Recession. Economic Modelling, 64, 105-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2017.03.014
29. Modigliani, F. and 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
30. Mota, P.R. (2023). Aggregate demand uncertainty outbreaks and employment hysteresis in G7 countries. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 47(4), 707–738. https://doi.org/10.1080/01603477.2023.2268090
31. Özbek, S. and Türkmen, S. (2021). İşsizlik histerisi mi, doğal işsizlik oranı mı? E7 ve G7 ülkelerinden yeni kanıtlar. Bingöl Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 22, 643-662. https://doi.org/10.29029/busbed.930288
32. Papell, D.H., Murray, C.J. and Ghiblawi, H. (2000). The structure of unemployment. Review of Economics and Statistics, 82(2), 309-315. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465300558696
33. Pata, U.K. (2020). OECD ülkelerinde işsizlik histerisinin ampirik bir analizi: Fourier panel durağanlık testi. Sosyal Güvenlik Dergisi, 10(1), 125-144. https://doi.org/10.32331/sgd.753027
34. Perron, P. (1989). The great crash, the oil price shock, and the unit root hypothesis. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 1361-1401. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913712
35. Phelps, E. (1967). Phillips curves, expectations of inflation and optimal unemployment over time. Economica, 34(3), 254-81. https://doi.org/10.2307/2552025
36. Phelps, E.S. (1994). Structural slumps: The modern equilibrium theory of unemployment, interest and assets. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
37. Phelps, E.S. (1999). Behind this structural boom: The role of asset valuations. American Economic Review, 89(2), 63-68. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.89.2.63
38. Pissarides, C.A. (1992). Loss of Skill during unemployment and the persistence of employment shocks. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(4), 1371-1391. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118392
39. Yılancı, V. (2009). Yapısal kırılmalar altında Türkiye için işsizlik histerisinin sınanması. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 10(2), 324-335. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/doujournal
40. Yıldırım, S., Ertuğrul, H.M. and Soytaş, U. (2015). Türkiye’de Aylık istihdam serisinin durağanlığı: Geleneksel, yapısal kırılmalı ve mevsimsel birim kök test uygulamaları. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 15(4), 91-102. https://doi.org/10.18037/ausbd.16380
41. 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), 842-851. https://doi.org/10.26466/opusjsr.1329033
42. Yilanci, V. (2008). Are unemployment rates nonstationary or nonlinear? Evidence from 19 OECD countries. Economics Bulletin, 3(47), 1-5. Retrieved from http://www.accessecon.com/
43. Yilanci, V., Ozkan, Y. and 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. Retrieved from https://ipe.ro/
44. Zivot, E. and 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, 20(1), 25-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1391541