INTERACTION BETWEEN LABOR MARKET REGULATIONS AND UNEMPLOYMENT: EVIDENCE FROM OECD COUNTRIES

Öz

The unemployment due to its economic and social costs is among the primary targets of economic policies for all the countries. The losses in individual revenues and living standards resulting as a result of unemployment, decreases in national income and tax revenues and budget deficits are among the main economic costs of the unemployment. The social deprivation and disturbances and the increases in crime rates, suicides, and divorce rates, moral corruption, health problems, and decreases in life expectancy are also among the major social costs of the unemployment. However, the unemployment rate differs considerably among the countries. The specification of the differences in transnational unemployment rates is important to determine and implement the right policies in combat with the unemployment. This study analyzed the reciprocal interaction between labor market regulations and unemployment in 36 OECD countries during the period of 2000-2016 through panel causality analysis developed by Dumitrescu ve Hurlin (2012) regarding the limited empirical literature. We revealed that labor regulations had significant effects on the unemployment.  

Anahtar Kelimeler

• labor market regulations,unemployment,panel causality analysis

İŞGÜCÜ PİYASASI DÜZENLEMELERİ İLE İŞSİZLİK ARASINDAKİ ETKİLEŞİM: OECD ÜLKELERİ ÖRNEĞİ

Öz

İşsizlik, ekonomik ve sosyal maliyetleri nedeni ile tüm ülkelerin ekonomi politikalarının öncelikli hedefleri arasında yer almaktadır. İşsizlik sonucu kişilerin gelir kaybı ve yaşam standartlarında düşüş, milli gelir ve vergi gelirlerinde düşüş ile bütçe açıkları işsizliğin başlıca ekonomik maliyetleri arasında yer almaktadır. Ayrıca sosyal mahrumiyet ve sosyal kargaşalar ile bunlar sonucu ortaya çıkan suç oranlarında, intiharlarda ve boşanma oranlarında artış, ahlaki bozulma, sağlık sorunları ve beklenen yaşam süresindeki düşüşler de işsizliğin başlıca sosyal maliyetlerini oluşturmaktadır. Bununla birlikte, işsizlik oranı ülkeler arasında önemli farklılıklar göstermektedir. Ülkeler arası işsizlik oranlarındaki farklılıkların nedenlerinin tespiti, işsizlik ile mücadelede doğru politikaların belirlenmesi ve uygulanması açısından önem taşımaktadır. Bu kapsamda işsizliğin kurumsal, ekonomik ve sosyal çok sayıda belirleyicisi bulunmaktadır. Bu çalışmada ilgili kısıtlı ampirik literatür de dikkate alınarak Dumitrescu ve Hurlin (2012) tarafından geliştirilen panel nedensellik analizi kullanılarak 2000-2016 döneminde 36 OECD ülkesinde işgücü piyasası düzenlemeleri ile işsizlik arasındaki karşılıklı etkileşim analiz edilmiştir. Çalışma sonucunda işgücü düzenlemelerinin işsizlik üzerinde anlamlı etkiye sahip olduğu belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İşgücü Piyasası Düzenlemeleri,İşsizlik,Panel Nedensellik Analizi

Kaynakça

1. Ahmed, S., Aljane, A. (2014). Labor regulation and unemployment: The case of Tunisia. International Journal in Economics and Business Administration, 2(4), 3-13.
2. Bande, R., Karanassou, M. (2009). Labour market flexibility and regional unemployment rate dynamics: Spain 1980–1995. Papers in Regional Science, 88(1), 181-207.
3. Bassanini, A., Duval R. (2007). The determinants of unemployment across OECD countries: reassessing the role of policies and institutions. OECD Economic Studies, 42, 7-86.
4. Bernal-Verdugo, L.E., Furceri, D., Guillaume, D. (2012). Labor market flexibility and unemployment: New empirical evidence of static and dynamic effects. IMF Working Paper, WP/12/64
5. Breusch, T. S., Pagan, A.R. (1980). The lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification tests in econometrics. Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239–53.
6. Deakin, S., Malmberg, J., Sarkar, P. (2014). How do labour laws affect unemployment and the labour share of national income? The experience of six OECD countries, 1970–2010. International Labour Review, 153(1), 1-27.
7. Dixon, D. (1992). Unemployment: The economic and social costs (2.baskı). Brotherhood of St Laurence, Melbourne.
8. Dumitrescu, E. I., Hurlin, C., (2012). Testing for Granger noncausality in heterogeneous panels. Economic Modelling, 29(4),1450-1460.

9. Dünya Bankası (2019). Unemployment, total (% of total labor force) (modeled ILO estimate), https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.UEM.TOTL.ZS (26.05.2019)
10. Elmeskov, J., Martin, J., Scarpetta S. (1998). Key lessons for labor market reforms: Evidence from OECD countries experience. Swedish Economic Policy Review, 5, 205- 252.
11. Feldmann, H., (2009). The unemployment effects of labor regulation around the world. Journal of Comparative Economics, 37, 76–90.
12. Fraser Enstitüsü (2019). Economic freedom, https://www.fraserinstitute.org/economic-freedom/dataset?geozone=world&year=2016&page=dataset&min-year=2&max-year=0&filter=0 (16.05.2019)
13. Granger, C. (1969). Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica, 37(3):424-438.
14. Holtz-Eakin, D., Newey, W., Rosen, S. (1988). Estimating vector autoregression with panel data. Econometrica, 56,1371-1395.
15. Im, K.S., Pesaran, M.H., Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Economics, 115(1), 53-74.
16. Kónya, L. (2006). Exports and growth: Granger causality analysis on OECD countries. Economic Modelling, 23(6), 978–992.
17. Karanassou, M., Snower, D.J. (1998). How labour market flexibility affects unemployment: Long-term implications of the chain reaction theory. Economic Journal, 108, 832-849.
18. Kovacı, S., Belke, M., Bolat, S. (2018). İşgücü piyasası düzenlemelerinin işsizliğe etkileri: Seçilmiş OECD ülkeleri için panel veri kanıtları. Journal of Social And Humanities Sciences Research, 5, 2030-2042.
19. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross-section dependence in panels. University of Cambridge Working Paper CWPE 0435.
20. Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265-312.
21. Pesaran, M.H., Ullah, A., Yamagata, T. (2008). A bias-adjusted LM test of error cross-section independence. Econometrics Journal, 11,105-127.
22. Pesaran, M.H., Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142, 50-93.
23. Piton, C., Rycx, F. (2018). The unemployment impact of product and labour market regulation: Evidence from European countries. IZA DP No. 11582, https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/11582/the-unemployment-impact-of-product-and-labour-market-regulation-evidence-from-european-countries (10.05.2019)
24. Rafi, B. (2015). The impact of labour market regulation on the unemployment rate: Evidence from OECD economies. Australian Government Department of Industry, Innovation and Science Research Paper 1/2016, https://esacentral.org.au/images/RafiM.pdf (10.05.2019)
25. Zribi, T.E.G., Temmi, H., Zrelli, N. (2014). Can labor market flexibility affect unemployment? A panel data analysis. Journal of Human Resources Management and Labor Studies, 2(1), 17-40.