Testing the hypotheses of hysteresis and naturel rate of unemployment for youth and female unemployment: evidence from Fourier panel unit root tests for European Union countries

Öz

Testing the validity of hypotheses of the natural rate of unemployment and hysteresis in unemployment rates is important in determining the employment policies to be applied. Generally, unit root tests are used to determine the existence of these hypotheses. The hysteresis hypothesis is represented by the unit root process. If the unit root is rejected, it is concluded that the unemployment series is stationary and the natural rate of unemployment hypothesis is valid. The aim of this study is to test the validity of the natural rate of unemployment or hysteresis hypotheses in the total unemployment, female unemployment, youth unemployment, and young female unemployment rates in 28 European Union countries. For this reason, Fourier panel KSS unit root tests were applied to the unemployment series of total, young, female, and young female in the period 2003Q2-2019Q1. According to the findings, in with fixed and with trend model, total unemployment rate series in all countries except Hungary and Portugal have mean reverting process. In this case, while the hysteresis hypothesis in total unemployment rate is valid for the two countries mentioned, the natural rate of unemployment hypothesis is valid in other countries. Also, the findings show that the hypothesis of natural rate of unemployment is valid for female unemployment in 22 other countries except the UK, Spain, Hungary, Germany, Slovenia and Portugal. Besides, it shows that the hypothesis of natural rate of unemployment is valid in all countries for youth unemployment and in 27 other countries except England for youth female unemployment.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Natural Rate of Unemployment
• Unemployment Hysteresis
• Youth and Female Unemployment
• Fourier Panel Data Unit Root Test

Genç ve Kadın İşsizliğinde Histeri ve Doğal Oran Hipotezlerinin Test Edilmesi: Avrupa Birliği Ülkeleri İçin Fourier Panel Birim Kök Testlerinden Kanıtlar

Öz

İşsizlik oranlarında doğal oran veya histeri hipotezlerinin geçerliliğinin test edilmesi uygulanacak istihdam politikalarının belirlenmesi açısından önemlidir. Söz konusu hipotezlerinin varlığının belirlenmesi için genellikle birim kök testleri kullanılmaktadır. Histeri hipotezi birim kök süreci ile temsil edilirken, birim kökün reddedilmesi halinde işsizlik serisinin durağan olduğu ve doğal oran hipotezinin geçerli olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, 28 Avrupa Birliği ülkesinde toplam işsizlik, kadın işsizliği, genç işsizliği, ve genç kadın işsizliği oranlarında doğal oran veya histeri hipotezinin geçerliliğini test etmektir. Bu nedenle, 2003Q2-2019Q1 dönemi toplam, genç, kadın ve genç kadın işsizlik serilerine Fourier panel KSS birim kök testleri uygulanmıştır. Bulgulara göre, sabit ve trende sahip modelde toplam işsizlikte Macaristan ve Portekiz hariç tüm ülkelerde işsizlik serileri ortalamaya dönme eğilimindedir. Bu durumda bahsedilen iki ülke için toplam işsizlikte histeri hipotezi geçerli iken, diğer ülkelerde doğal oran hipotezinin geçerli olduğunu söylemek mümkündür. Kadın, genç ve genç kadın işsizlik serilerine uygulanan panel birim kök testinden elde edilen bulgular, kadın işsizliğinde İngiltere, İspanya, Macaristan, Almanya, Slovenya ve Portekiz hariç diğer 22 ülkede; genç işsizliğinde tüm ülkelerde ve genç kadın işsizliğinde ise İngiltere hariç diğer 27 ülkede serilerin doğal oran hipotezinin geçerli olduğunu göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Doğal işsizlik oranı
• İşsizlik histerisi
• genç ve kadın işsizliği
• Fourier Panel Birim Kök Testi

Kaynakça

1. Akcan, A. T. (2019). Türkiye’de gençlerin işsizlik histerisi. Kastamonu Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(1), 31-47.
2. Akdogan, K. (2016). Unemployment hysteresis and structural change in Europe. Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey Working Papers, 16/18, 1-30.
3. Arestis, P. & Mariscal, I. B.-F. (2000). OECD unemployment: Structural breaks and stationarity. Applied Economics, 32(4), 399-403.
4. Bai, J. & Ng, S. (2004). A panic attack on unit roots and cointegration. Econometrica, 72(4), 1127-1177.
5. Bai, J. & Ng, S. (2010). Panel unit root tests with cross-section dependence: A further investigation. Econometric Theory, 26(4), 1088-1114.
6. Bakas, D. & Papapetrou, E. (2014a). Unemployment in Greece: Evidence from Greek regions using panel unit root tests. The Quarterly Review of Economic and Finance, 54(4), 551-562.
7. Bakas, D. & Papapetrou, E. (2014b). Unemployment by gender: Evidence from EU countries. International Advances in Economic Research, Springer; International Atlantic Economic Society, 20(1), 103-111.
8. Ball, L. M. (2009). Hysteresis in unemployment: Old and new evidence. NBER Working Paper,14818, 1-35.

9. Ball, L. M. & Mankiw, N. G. (2002). The NAIRU in theory and practice. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(4), 115-136.
10. 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), 381-409.
11. Bekmez, S. & Özpolat, A. (2016). Hysteresis effect on unemployment for men and women: A panel unit root test for oecd countries. International Journal of Financial Research, 7(2), 122-133.
12. Blanchard, O. J. & Summers, L. H. (1986). Hysteresis and the European unemployment problem. NBER Working Paper Series, 1950, 1-78.
13. Blanchard, O. J. & Summers, L. H. (1987). Hysteresis in unemployment. European Economic Review, 31(1-2), 288-295.
14. Blanchard, O. J. & Summers, L. H. (1988). Beyond the natural rate hypothesis. The American Economic Review, 78(2), 182-187.
15. Breitung, J. (2000). The local power of some unit root tests for panel data. Nonstationary Panels, Panel Cointegration, and Dynamic Panels (Advances in Econometrics, 15), (Ed. Badi H. Baltagi; Thomas B. Fomby; R. Carter Hill), JAI Press, Amsterdam, 161-177.
16. Breuer, J. B., McNown, R. & Wallace, M. (2002). Series-specific unit root tests with panel data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 64(5), 527-546.
17. Brunello, G. (1990). Hysteresis and the Japanese unemployment problem: A preliminary investigation. Oxford Economic Papers, 42(3), 483-500.
18. Candelon, B., Dupuy, A. & Gil-Alana, L. (2009). The nature of occupational unemployment rates in the United States: Hysteresis or structural?. Applied Economics, 41(19), 2483–2493.
19. Caporale, G. M. & Gil-Alana, L. (2014). Youth unemployment in Europe: Persistence and macroeconomic determinants. CESifo Working Paper, 4696, 1-19.
20. Carrion-i-Silvestre, J. L., Barrio-Castro, T. & Lopez-Bazo, E. (2005). Breaking the panels: An application to the GDP per capita. The Econometrics Journal, 8(2), 159-175.
21. Chang, C. K. & Chang, T. (2012). Statistical evidence on the mean reversion of real interest rates: SPSM using the panel KSS test with a fourier function. Applied Economics Letters, 19(13), 1299-1304.
22. Chang, T., Lee, K.-C., Nieh, C.-C. & Wei, C.-C. (2005). An empirical note on testing hysteresis in unemployment for ten European countries: Panel SURADF approach, Applied Economics Letters, 12(14), 881-886.
23. Choi, I. (2001). Unit root tests for panel data. Journal of International Money and Finance, 20(2), 249-272.
24. Chortareas, G. & Kapetanios, G. (2009). Getting PPP right: Identifying mean-reverting real exchange rates in panels. Journal of Banking and Finance, 33(2), 390-404.
25. Chou, H. C. & Zhang, Y. C. (2012). Unemployment hysteresis in G20 countries: Evidence from non-linear panel unit-root tests. African Journal of Business Management, 6(49), 11887-11890.
26. Christopoulos, D. K. & Leon-Ledesma, M. (2007). Unemployment hysteresis in EU countries: What do we really know about it?, Journal of Economic Studies, 34(2), 80-89.
27. Cuestas, J. C. & Gil-Alana, L. A. (2011). Unemployment hysteresis, structural changes, non-linearities and fractional integration in European transition economies. Sheffield Economic Research Paper Series, 2011005, 1-35.
28. Dickey, D. A. & Fuller, W. A. (1979). Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74(366), 427-431.
29. Dickey, D. A. & Fuller, W. A. (1981). Likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Econometrica, 49(4), 1057-1072.
30. Doğan, C. & Erdoğan, S. (2016). An empirical analyses of unemployment hysteresis and natural rate of unemployment approaches for MENA countries. Optimum Ekonomi ve Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 3(2), 41-50.
31. Dritsaki, C. & Dritsaki, M. (2013). "Hysteresis in unemployment: An empirical research for three member states of the European Union." Theoretical and Applied Economics, 20(4), 35-46.
32. Dursun, G., & Yakite, H., (2017). Youth unemployment hysteresis in the CEMAC countries: Evidences from SURADF and panel data analysis with multiple structural breaks under cross-sectional dependence. European Congress on Economic Issues-ECOEI 2017, Kocaeli, Turkey.
33. Elike, U., Anoruo, E. & Nwala, K. (2018). Testing for hysteresis in unemployment for African countries using wavelet unit root tests. Journal of Applied Economics and Business Research, 8(3), 185-197.
34. Feve, P., Henin, P. Y. & Jolivaldt, P. (2003). Testing for hysteresis: unemployment persistence and wage adjustment. Empirical Economics, 28, 535–552.
35. Friedman, M. (1968). The role of monetary policy. American Economic Review, 58(1), 1-17.
36. Furuoka, F. (2014a). Does hysteresis exist in unemployment? New findings from fourteen regions of the Czech Republic. Finance a úvěr-Czech Journal of Economics and Finance, 64(1), 59-78.
37. Furuoka, F. (2014b). Hysteresis in European labour market. MPRA Paper, 60946, 1-14.
38. Garcia-Cintado, A., Romero-Avila, D. & Usabiaga C. (2015). Can the hysteresis hypothesis in Spanish regional unemployment be beaten? New evidence from unit root tests with breaks. Economic Modelling, 47, 244-252.
39. Gil-Alana, L. A., Özdemir, Z. A. & Tansel, A. (2017). Long memory in Turkish unemployment rates. IZA Institute of Labor Economics Discussion Paper Series, 11053, 1-36.
40. Güloğlu, B. ve İspir S. (2011). Doğal işsizlik oranı mı? İşsizlik histerisi mi? Türkiye için sektörel panel birim kök sınaması analizi. Ege Akademik Bakış, 11(2): 205-215.
41. Hadri, K. (2000). Testing for stationarity in heterogeneous panel data. The Econometrics Journal, 3(2), 148-161.
42. Hadri, K. & Kurozumi, E. (2011). A locally optimal test for no unit root in cross-sectionally dependent panel data. Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics, 52(2), 165-184.
43. Hadri, K. & Rao, Y. (2008). Panel stationarity test with structural breaks. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 70(2), 245-269.
44. Hall, R. (1975). The rigidity of wages and the persistence of unemployment. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 6(2), 301-350.
45. Im, K. S., Lee, J. & Tieslau, M. (2005). Panel LM unit-root tests with level shifts. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 67(3), 393-419.
46. Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H. & Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115(1), 53-74.
47. Jump, R. & Stockhammer, E. (2018). New evidence on unemployment hysteresis in the EU. https://www.euroframe.org/files/user_upload/euroframe/docs/2018/Conference/Session%204/EUROF18_Jump_Stockhammer.pdf
48. Kanalıcı Akay, H., Nargeleçekenler, M. & Yılmaz, F. (2011). Hysteresis in unemployment: Evidence from 23 OECD countries. Ekonomický časopis, 59(5), 488-505.
49. Kapetanios, G., Shin, Y. & Snell, A. (2003). Testing for a unit root in the nonlinear STAR framework”, Journal of Econometrics, 112(2), 359-379.
50. Kılıç, N.Ö., Karabulut, K. & Uğurlu, S. (2018). Is unemployment hysteresis hypothesis valid for France, Germany and Turkey? Unit root analysis with structural break. Turkish Studies- İktisat, Finans ve Siyaset, 13(30), 213-223.
51. Kim, N. (2018). The analysis of hysteresis in youth unemployment (in Korean). Bank of Korea Economic Research Institute Working Papers, 2018-37.
52. Kurozumi, E. (2002). Testing for stationarity with a break. Journal of Econometrics, 108(1), 63-99.
53. Lanzafame, M. (2010). Hysteresis and the regional NAIRU’s in Italy”, Bulletin of Economic Research, 64(3), 415-429.
54. Lee, H. Y., Wu, J. L. & Chiung, H. L. (2010). Hysteresis in East Asian unemployment”, Applied Economics, 42(7), 887-898.
55. Lee, J. & Strazicich, M. C. (2003). Minumum lagrange multiplier unit root test with two structural breaks. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(4), 1082-1089.
56. Lee, J. & Strazicich, M. C. (2013). Minumum LM unit root test with one structural break. Economics Bulletin, 33(4), 2483-2492.
57. Lee, J. & Tieslau, M. (2019). Panel LM unit-root tests with level and trend shifts. Economic Modelling, 80, 1-10.
58. Leon-Ledesma, M. A. (2002). Unemployment hysteresis in the US states and the EU: A panel approach. Bulletin of Economic Research, 54(2), 95-104.
59. Leon-Ledesma, M. A. & McAdam, P. (2004). Unemployment, hysteresis and transition. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 51(3), 377-401.
60. Levin, A., Lin, C. F. & Chu, C. S. J. (2002). Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample properties. Journal of Econometrics, 108(1), 1-24.
61. Liew, V. K.-S., Chia, R. C.-J. & Puah, C.-H. (2012). Does hysteresis in unemployment occur in OECD countries? Evidence from parametric and non-parametric panel unit roots tests. International Journal of Economics and Management, 6(2), 446-458.
62. Liu, D., Sun, C. & Lin, P. (2012). Hysteresis hypothesis in unemployment and labour force participation rates: Evidence from Australian states and territories. Australian Economic Papers, 51(2), 71-84.
63. Lumsdaine, R. L. & Papell, D. H. (1997). Multiple trend breaks and the unit-root hypothesis. Review of Economics and Statistics, 79(2), 212-218.
64. Maddala, G. S. & Wu, S. (1999). A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61(S1), 631-652.
65. Marjanovic, G. & Mihajlovic, V. (2014). Analysis of hysteresis in unemployment rates with structural breaks: The case of selected European countries. Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, 25(4), 378-386.
66. Mednik, M., Rodriguez, C. & Ruprah I. (2012), “Hysteresis in unemployment: Evidence from Latin America”, Journal of International Development, 24(4), 448-466.
67. Mohan, R., Kemegue, F. & Sjuib, F. (2008). Hysteresis in unemployment: panel unit roots tests using state level data. Journal of Business & Economics Research, 6(2), pp. 53-60.
68. Moon, H. R. & Perron, B. (2004). Testing for a unit root in panels with dynamic factors. Journal of Econometrics, 122(1), 81-126.
69. Nelson, C. R. & Plosser, C. I. (1982). Trends and random walks in macroeconomic time series: Some evidence and implications. Journal of Monetary Economics, 10(2), 139-162.
70. Nsenga, D., Nach, M., Khobai, H., Moyo, C. & Phiri, A. (2019): Is it the natural rate or hysteresis hypothesis for unemployment rates in Newly Industrialized Economies?. Comparative Economic Research Central and Eastern Europe, 22(4), 39-55.
71. Perron, P. (1989). The great crash, the oil price shock, and the unit root hypothesis. Econometrica, 57(6), 1361-1401.
72. Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A simple unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265-312.
73. Phelps, E. S. (1967). Phillips curves, expectations of inflation and optimal unemployment overtime. Economica, 34(135), 254-281.
74. Phelps, E. S. (1968). The role of monetary policy. American Economic Review, 58(1), 1-17.
75. Phelps, E.S. (1994). Structural slumps: The modern equilibrium theory of unemployment, ınterest, and assets. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
76. Phillips, P. C. B. & Perron, P. (1988). Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika, 75(2), 335-346.
77. Phillips, P. C. B. & Sul, D. (2003). Dynamic panel estimation and homogeneity testing under cross section dependence. The Econometrics Journal, 6(1), 217-259.
78. Pikoko, V. & Phiri, A. (2018). Is there hysteresis in South African unemployment? Evidence from the post-recessionary period. Nelson Mandela University Department of Economics Working Paper Series, 2018/3, 1-31.
79. Pissarides, C. (1992). Loss of skill during unemployment and the persistence of employment shocks. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(4), 1371-1391.
80. Queneau, H. & Sen, H. (2008). Evidence on the dynamics of unemployment by gender. Applied Economics, 40(16), 2099-2108.
81. Roed, K. (1996). Unemployment hysteresis – macro evidence from 16 OECD countries. Empirical Economics, 21(4), 589-600.
82. Romero-Avila, D. & Usabiaga, C. (2007). Unit root tests and persistence of unemployment: Spain vs. the United States. Applied Economics Letters, 14(6), 457-461.
83. Sessions, J. G. (1994). Unemployment stigma and multiple labour market equilibria: A social-psychological explanation of hysteresis. Labour, 8(3), 355-376.
84. Smyth, R. (2003). Unemployment hysteresis in Australian states and territories: Evidence from panel data unit root tests. Australian Economic Review, 36(2), 181-192.
85. Song, F. & Wu, Y. (1997). Hysteresis in unemployment: Evidence from 48 U.S. states”, Economic Inquiry, 35(2), 235-243.
86. Ucar, N. & Omay, T. (2009). Testing for unit root in nonlinear heterogeneous panels. Economics Letters, 104(1), 5-8.
87. Vogelsang, T. J & Perron, P. (1998). Additional tests for a unit root allowing for a break in the trend function at an unknown time. International Economic Review, 39(4), 1073-1100.
88. Westerlund, J. (2012). Testing for unit roots in panel time-series models with multiple level breaks. The Manchester School, 80(6), 671-699.
89. Yılancı, V. (2009). Yapısal kırılmalar altında Türkiye için işsizlik histerisinin sınanması. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 10(2), 324-335.
90. Yılancı, V. (2020). Testing the unemployment hysteresis ın G7 countries: A fresh evidence from fourier threshold unıt root test. Romanian Journal of Economic Forecasting, XXIII(3), 49-59.
91. Zivot, E. & Andrews, D. W. K. (1992). Further evidence on the great crash, the oil-price shock, and the unit root hypothesis. Journal Business & Economic Statistics, 10(3), 251-270.