G7 ülkelerinde işsizlik histerisinin Fourier Doğrusal Olmayan Kantil Birim Kök yaklaşımı ile yeniden incelenmesi

Öz

İşsizlik sorunu sosyo-ekonomik bir sorundur. Bu nedenle her dönem ekonomi yönetimi açısından çözüm üretilmek istenen dinamik bir konudur. İşsizliğin yapısal ve döngüsel yönü politikaların uygulama yönünü belirlemektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı G7 ülkeleri için işsizlik histerisini asimetrik bir perspektiften yeniden inceleyerek yeni bulgularla açıklamaktır. Çalışmada hem geleneksel hem de kantil birim kök testleri kullanılmaktadır. Çalışmanın asıl odak noktası, normal olmayan (kuyruklu) dağılımları, doğrusal olmama durumunu, yapısal değişimleri ve asimetrik ayarlamayı aynı anda kapsayan Fourier doğrusal olmayan kantil birim kök testidir (FNQKS). Bu doğrultuda Fourier ADF (FADF) testi sonucunda iki ülkede birim kök durağan sürece sahipken, Fourier KSS (FKSS) testi sonucunda bir ülkede durağan süreç geçelidir. Fourier QKS (FQKS) testi sonucu iki ülkede birim kök durağan sürece sahipken, asıl odak noktamız olan FNQKS testi sonuçları oldukça farklılaşmaktadır. Buna göre FNQKS testi sonucuna göre Kanada, Almanya, Japonya, İngiltere ve Amerika’da birim kök durağan sürece sahiptir. Bu sonuçlar NRH’nin geçerliliğine işaret etmektedir. Dolayısıyla geleneksel testeler genel itibariyle UH’yi desteklerken, FNQKS testi tersi bir şekilde NRH’ye işaret etmektedir. Kantil bazlı sonuçlar incelendiğinde pozitif ve negatif şokların etkisinin ayrıştığı görülmektedir. Bu bağlamda kantil sonuçları Kanada, Almanya, Japonya, İngiltere ve Amerika’da asimetrik bir yapının varlığını kanıtlamaktadır. Bu bulgular G7 için işsizlik histerisi çerçevesinde yeni bulgular sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• işsizlik histerisi
• G7 ülkeleri
• kantil birim kök testi

Revisiting unemployment hysteresis in G7 countries: Evidence from the Fourier Nonlinear Quantile Unit Root approach

Öz

Unemployment is a socio-economic issue, and as such, it remains a dynamic concern for economic policy authorities across all periods. The structural and cyclical aspect of unemployment determines the implementation direction of policies. This study seeks to reassess the unemployment hysteresis hypothesis in G7 countries from an asymmetric viewpoint and to present novel empirical findings. Both conventional and quantile unit root tests are utilized in the analysis. The primary focus of the study is the Fourier Nonlinear Quantile Unit Root (FNQUR) test, which simultaneously captures non-normal (heavy-tailed) distributions, nonlinearity, structural breaks, and asymmetric adjustments. Based on the findings of the Fourier ADF (FADF) test, two countries exhibit stationary processes, while the Fourier KSS (FKSS) test confirms stationarity for only one country. Similarly, the Fourier QKS (FQKS) test supports stationarity in two countries. However, the results of the FNQKS test, our main focus, differ significantly. Based on the results of the FNQKS test, Canada, Germany, Japan, the UK, and the US exhibit a unit root stationary process. These findings point to the validity of the Natural Rate Hypothesis (NRH). Accordingly, while conventional tests generally support the Unemployment Hysteresis Hypothesis (UH), the FNQKS test, contrarily points toward the NRH. An examination of the quantile-based results reveals that the impacts of positive and negative shocks diverge. In this context, the quantile results provide evidence for the presence of an asymmetric structure in Canada, Germany, Japan, the UK, and the US. This provides new evidence on unemployment hysteresis in the framework of G7 economies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Unemployment hysteresis
• G7 countries
• quantile unit root test

Kaynakça

1. Akcan, A. T., Yagmur, İ., Ergül, M., & Karataş, A. R. (2025). Analysis of unemployment hysteresis of country groups for migration policy: PANIC Fourier evidence. Comparative Migration Studies, 13(47), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40878-025-00467-7
2. Ayala, A., Cunado, J., & Gil-Alana, L. A. (2012). Unemployment hysteresis: Empirical evidence for Latin America. Journal of Applied Economics, XV(2), 213-233. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1514-0326(12)60010-5
3. Bahmani‐Oskooee, M., Chang, T., Niroomand, F., & Ranjbar, O. (2020). Fourier nonlinear quantile unit root test and PPP in Africa. Bulletin of Economic Research, 72(4), 451-481. https://doi.org/10.1111/boer.12230
4. Ball, L., & Mankiw, N. G. (2002). The NAIRU in theory and practice. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(4), 115-136. https://doi.org/10.1257/089533002320951000
5. Ball, L., & Onken, J. (2022). Hysteresis in unemployment: Evidence from OECD estimates of the natural rate. International Finance, 25, 268–284. https://doi.org/10.1111/infi.12424
6. Barro, R. J. (1988). The natural rate theory reconsidered: The persistence of unemployment. The American Economic Review, 78(2), 32-37.
7. Blanchard, O. J., & Summers, L. H. (1986). Hysteresis and the European unemployment problem. NBER Macroeconomics Annual, 1, 15-78. https://doi.org/10.3386/w1950
8. Blanchard, O.J., & Summers, L. H. (1987). Hysteresis in unemployment. European Economic Review, 31, 288-295. https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-2921(87)90042-0

9. Boukraine, W. (2021). Unemployment hysteresis in Middle-Income countries. Journal of Developing Countries, 6(1), 137-149. https://doi.org/10.20473/jde.v6i1.22617
10. Broock, W. A., Scheinkman, J. A., Dechert, W. D., & Lebaron, B. (1996). A test for independence based on the correlation dimension. Econometric Reviews, 15(3), 197-235. https://doi.org/10.1080/07474939608800353
11. Burda, M. C. (1988). Is there a capital shortage in Europe?. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 124, 38-57. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02708618
12. Chang, T., & Lee, C. H. (2011). Hysteresis in unemployment for G-7 countries: Threshold unit root test. Romanian Journal of Economic Forecasting, 4, 5-14.
13. Cheratian, I., Goltabar, S., & Gil-Alana, L. (2023). The unemployment hysteresis by territory, gender, and age groups in Iran. SN Business & Economics, 3(44), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43546-023-00424-5
14. Christopoulos, D. K., & Leon-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
15. Cross, R. B. (1987). Hysteresis and instability in the natural rate of unemployment. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 89(1), 71-89. https://doi.org/10.2307/3440485
16. Cross, R., Darby, J., Ireland, J., & Piscitelli, L. (1998, June). Hysteresis and unemployment: A preliminary investigation. Paper presented at Computing in Economics and Finance (CEF'99), Boston, MA.
17. Çalışkan Kesici, H. (2020). G-7 ülkelerinde işsizlik histerisi için bir analiz [An analysis for unemployment hysteresis in G7 countries]. Eurasian Academy of Sciences Eurasian Econometrics, Statistics & Emprical Economics Journal, 17, 19–29. https://doi.org/10.17740/eas.stat.2020-V17-02
18. Enders, W., & Lee, J. (2012). A unit root test using a Fourier series to approximate smooth breaks. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 74(4), 574-599. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2011.00662.x
19. Ergül, M. (2024). Türkiye’de cinsiyete göre işsizlik histerisinin geleneksel ve Fourier testlerle analizi [Analysis of unemployment hysteresis by gender in Turkey with traditional and Fourier tests]. Bulletin of Economic Theory and Analysis, 9(1), 329-346. https://doi.org/10.25229/beta.1414454
20. Eryer, A., & Konuk, T. (2023). İşsizlik histerisi hipotezinin geçerliliği: G8 ülkeleri için ekonometrik bir uygulama [The validity of the unemployment hysteria hypothesis: An econometric application for the G8 countries]. Erzincan Binali Yıldırım Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(1), 30-39. https://doi.org/10.46482/ebyuiibfdergi.1291998
21. Friedman, M. (1968). The role of monetary policy. The American Economic Review, 58(1), 1-17.
22. Furuoka, F. (2017). A new approach to testing unemployment hysteresis. Empirical Economics, 53, 1253-1280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-016-1164-7
23. Güloğlu, B., & İspir, M.S. (2011). Doğal işsizlik oranı mı? İşsizlik histerisi mi? Türkiye için sektörel panel birim kök sınaması analizi [Is natural rate of unemployment or hysteresis? Sector specific panel unit root test analysis for Turkey]. Ege Akademik Bakış, 11(2), 205–215.
24. Gustavsson, M., & Österholm, P. (2006). Hysteresis and non-linearities in unemployment rates. Applied Economics Letters, 13, 545-548. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504850500401437
25. Jaeger, A., & Parkinson, M. (1994). Some evidence on hysteresis in unemployment rates. European Economic Review, 38, 329-342. https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-2921(94)90061-2
26. Jarque, C. M., & Bera, A. K. (1987). A test for normality of observations and regression residuals. International Statistical Review, 55(2), 163-172. https://doi.org/10.2307/1403192
27. 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, 1211-1229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-018-1948-6
28. Karatas, A. R. (2024). Türkiye’de farklı boyutlarıyla işsizlik histerisinin geleneksel ve Fourier testlerle analizi [Analysis of different dimensions of unemployment hysteria in Türkiye with traditional and Fourier tests]. Dicle Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(27), 453–473. https://doi.org/10.53092/duiibfd.1406080
29. 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, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.najef.2018.08.021
30. Kılıç, E., Ergen, E. & Yavuz, E. (2022). OECD ülkelerinde işsizlik histerisinin incelenmesi: Doğrusal olmayan ve Fourier kırılmalı testlerden kanıtlar [Examining unemployment hysteresis in OECD countries: Evidence from unit root tests with non-linearity and Fourier breaks]. Nişantaşı Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 10(1), 27–48. https://doi.org/10.52122/nisantasisbd.1090723
31. Kilic, E., Yavuz E., Ergen, E., & Yarasir Tulumce, S. (2023). Asymmetric persistence and unemployment hysteresis question in emerging markets: Evidence from advanced quantile unit-root tests. Studies in Economics and Econometrics, 47(3), 244-261. https://doi.org/10.1080/03796205.2023.2208742
32. Koenker, R., & Xiao, Z. (2004). Unit root quantile autoregression inference. Journal of The American Statistical Association, 99(467), 775-787. https://doi.org/10.1198/016214504000001114
33. Layard, R., Nickell, S., & Jackman, R. (1991). Unemployment: Macroeconomic performance and the labour market. Oxford Univercity Press.
34. Li, H., & Park, S. Y. (2018). Testing for a unit root in a nonlinear quantile autoregression framework. Econometric Reviews, 37(8), 867-892. https://doi.org/10.1080/00927872.2016.1178871
35. Li, H., & Zheng, C. (2018). Unit root quantile autoregression testing with smooth structural changes. Finance Research Letters, 25, 83-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2017.10.008
36. 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
37. 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
38. Özbek, S., & Türkmen, S. (2021). İşsizlik histerisi mi, doğal işsizlik oranı mı? E7 ve G7 ülkelerinden yeni kanıtlar [Is unemployment hysteresis or natural rate of unemployment? New evidence from E7 and G7 countries]. Bingöl Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (22), 643–661. https://doi.org/10.29029/busbed.930288
39. Papell, D. H., Murray, C. J., & Ghiblawi, H. (2000). The structure of unemployment. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 82(2), 309-315. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465300558696
40. 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
41. Phelps, E. S. (1968). Money-wage dynamics and labor-market equilibrium. Journal of Political Economy, 76(4), 678-711. https://doi.org/10.1086/259438
42. Roed, K. (1996). Unemployment hysteresis-macro evidence from 16 OECD countries. Empirical Economics, 21, 589-600. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01180703
43. Saraç, T.B. (2014). İşsizlikte histeri etkisi: Türkiye örneği [Hysteresis effect in unemployment]. Ege Akademik Bakış, 14(3), 335–344.
44. Song, F. M., & Wu, Y. (1998). Hysteresis in unemployment: Evidence from OECD countries. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 38(2), 181-192. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1062-9769(99)80111-2
45. Tekin, İ. (2018). Türkiye’de işsizlik histerisi: Fourier Fonksiyonlu Durağanlık Sınamaları [Unemployment hysteresis in Türkiye: Stationarity tests with Fourier functions]. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İktisadi İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 33(1), 97-127. https://doi.org/10.24988/deuiibf.2018331685
46. Yaya, O. S., Ogbonna, A. E., & Mudida, R. (2019). Hysteresis of unemployment rates in Africa: New findings from Fourier ADF test. Quality & Quantity, 53, 2781-2795. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-019-00894-6
47. 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, XXIII(3), 49-59.
48. Yucel, A. G. & Nazlioglu, S. (2025). Unemployment dynamics in the United Kingdom: A quarter-millennium perspective. Economics Letters, 254, 112468, 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2025.112468