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

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 21, 10 - 22, 31.08.2019

Yılmaz Bayar

https://doi.org/10.31199/hakisderg.584681

Cited By: 1

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

• Ahmed, S., Aljane, A. (2014). Labor regulation and unemployment: The case of Tunisia. International Journal in Economics and Business Administration, 2(4), 3-13.
• Bande, R., Karanassou, M. (2009). Labour market flexibility and regional unemployment rate dynamics: Spain 1980–1995. Papers in Regional Science, 88(1), 181-207.
• 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.
• 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
• 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.
• 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.
• Dixon, D. (1992). Unemployment: The economic and social costs (2.baskı). Brotherhood of St Laurence, Melbourne.
• Dumitrescu, E. I., Hurlin, C., (2012). Testing for Granger noncausality in heterogeneous panels. Economic Modelling, 29(4),1450-1460.
• Dünya Bankası (2019). Unemployment, total (% of total labor force) (modeled ILO estimate), https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.UEM.TOTL.ZS (26.05.2019)
• 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.
• Feldmann, H., (2009). The unemployment effects of labor regulation around the world. Journal of Comparative Economics, 37, 76–90.
• 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)
• Granger, C. (1969). Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica, 37(3):424-438.
• Holtz-Eakin, D., Newey, W., Rosen, S. (1988). Estimating vector autoregression with panel data. Econometrica, 56,1371-1395.
• Im, K.S., Pesaran, M.H., Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Economics, 115(1), 53-74.
• Kónya, L. (2006). Exports and growth: Granger causality analysis on OECD countries. Economic Modelling, 23(6), 978–992.
• 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.
• 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.
• Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross-section dependence in panels. University of Cambridge Working Paper CWPE 0435.
• 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.
• Pesaran, M.H., Ullah, A., Yamagata, T. (2008). A bias-adjusted LM test of error cross-section independence. Econometrics Journal, 11,105-127.
• Pesaran, M.H., Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142, 50-93.
• 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)
• 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)
• 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.