İşsizlik Histerisi ve Doğal İşsizlik Oranı Yaklaşımlarının MENA Ülkeleri İçin Ampirik Bir Analizi

Yıl 2016, Cilt: 3 Sayı: 2, 0 - 0, 10.07.2016

Sinan Erdoğan , Cem Doğan

https://doi.org/10.17541/optimum.256388

Cited By: 2

Öz

Bu çalışma, MENA Ülkelerinde doğal işsizlik oranı ve işsizlik histerisi yaklaşımlarını, yatay kesit bağımlılık özelliklerini dikkate alan panel veri analizi yöntemleri kullanılarak 1991-2014 dönemi için test etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Yatay kesit bağımlılık testi sonuçları, tüm değişkenler için yatay kesit bağımlılığın olduğunu göstermektedir. CADF test sonuçlarına göre tüm ülkelerde işsizlik oranları birim kök içermektedir, CIPS test sonucuna göre ise MENA ülkelerinde işsizlik oranları birim kök içermektedir. Bu bağlamda bölgenin tümünde işsizlik oranları üzerinde görülebilecek bir şokun etkisi kalıcı olmaktadır. Bu nedenle; bölge ülkelerinde işsizlik histerisi yaklaşımının geçerli olduğu söylenebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Doğal İşsizlik, İşsizlik Histerisi; MENA Ülkeleri; Panel Veri Birim Kök Analizi

An Empirical Analyses of Unemployment Hysteresis and Natural Rate of Unemployment Approaches for MENA Countries

Öz

This paper aims to test natural rate of unemployment and approach of unemployment hysteresis in MENA*** countries for the period of 1991-2014 by using panel data analysis methods which considering the cross-sectional dependency properties.  Cross-sectional dependency test results indicate that there is cross-section dependency among all variables.  According to CADF test results, unemployment rates in all countries have unit root. According to the CIPS test results, unemployment rates in MENA countries has unit root. In this context, all the impact of a shock can be seen on the unemployment rate in the mentioned region is permanent.  Therefore; it can be said that the current approach of unemployment hysteresis in the region countries are valid.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Natural Unemployment, Unemployment Hysteresis; MENA Countries; Panel Data Unit Root Analysis

Kaynakça

• Arestis, P. ve Mariscal, I.BF. (1999) Unit Roots and Structural Breaks in OECD Countries. Economics Letters, 65: 149–56.
• Arı, A., Zeren, F. ve Özcan B. (2013). Unemployment Hysteresis in East Asian and Pacıfıc Countries : A Panel Data Approach. Marmara Üniversity Journal of Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 35(2): 105-122.
• Baltagi, Badi; Feng, Qu; and Kao, Chihwa (2012). A Lagrange Multiplier Test for Cross-Sectional Dependence in a Fixed Effcts Panel Data Model. Center for Policy Research, Paper 193. htt://surface.syr.edu/cpr/193
• Barro, R. (1988). The Natural Rate Theory Reconsidered: The Persistence of Unemployment. American Economic Review, 78(2): 32-37.
• Blanchard, O. J. ve Summers, L. H. (1986). Hysteresis and the European Unemployment Problem. NBER Working Paper Series, No.1950.
• Blanchard, O. ve Summers, L. (1987). Hysteresis in Umemployment. European Economic Review, 31(1): 288-95.
• Blanchard, O. ve Wolfers, J. (2000). The Role of Shocks and Institutions in the Rise of European Unemployment: The Aggregate Evidence. Economic Journal, 110(462): 1-33.
• Breitung, J., Pesaran, M.H. (2008). Unit Roots and Cointegration in Panels, In: Matyas, L., Sevestre, P. (Eds.), The Econometrics of Panel Data, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 279-322.
• Breusch, P. S.; Pagan, A. R. (1980). The Lagrange Multiplier Test and Its Applications to Model Specification in Econometrics. Review of Economic Studies, 11(7); 239-253.
• Brunello, G. (1990) Hysteresis and the Japanese Unemployment Problem: A Preliminary Investigation. Oxford Economic Papers, 42: 483-500.
• Camarero, M., Carrion-i-Silverstre, J.L. ve Tamarit, C. (2006). Testing for Hysteresis in Unemployment in OECD Countries: New Evidence Using Stationarity Panel Tests with Breaks. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 68: 167–82.
• Camarero, M., Carrion-i-Silverstre, J.L. ve Tamarit, C. (2008). Unemployment Hysteresis in Transition Countries: Evidence Using Stationarity Panel Tests with Breaks, Review of Development Economics. Review of Development Economics, 12(3), 620-635.
• Candelon, B., Dupuy, A, ve Gil-Alana, L.A. (2009). The Nature of Occupational Unemployment Rates in the United States: Hysteresis or Structural?. Applied Economics, 41: 2483–2493.
• Caporale, G.M. ve Gil-Alana, L.A. (2007) . Modelling the US,UK and Japanese Unemployment Rates: Fractional Integration and Structural Breaks. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 52(11): 4998-5013.
• Chang, T., Nieh, K.C. ve Wei, C.C. (2005). An Empirical Note on Testing Hysteresis in Unemployment for Ten European Countries: Panel SURADF Approach. Applied Economics Letters, 12: 881-886.
• Doğru, B. (2014). Analysing Unemployment Hysteresis in Eurozone with the Secong Generation Panel Unit Root Tests. Anadolu Üniversity Journal of Social Sciences, 14(3): 77-86.
• Feve, P., Henin, P.Y. ve Jolivaldt, P. (2003). Testing for Hysteresis: Unemployment Persistence and Wage Adjustment. Empirical Economics, 28: 535–552.
• Friedman, M. (1968) “The Role of Monetary Policy” American Economic Review, 58: 1-17.
• Gray, D. (2004). Persistent Regional Unemployment Differentials Revisited. Regional Studies, 38: 167-176.
• Güloğlu, B ve İspir S. (2011). Is natural rate of unemployment or hysteresis? Sector sprecific panel unit root test Analysis for Turkeyi. Ege Academic Review, 11(2): 205-2015.
• International Labour Organisation (2016). (Online: http://laborsta.ilo.org/applv8/data/c3e.html), Data Accessed: 25.05.2016
• Layard, R., Nickell, S., ve Jackman, R. (1991). Unemployment, Macroeconomic Performance and the Labour Market. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
• Leon-Ledesma, M.A. ve McAdam, P. (2004). Unemployment, Hysteresis and Transition. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 51(3):377-401.
• O’Sullivan, Anthony; Rey, Marie-Estelle; Mendez, Jorge Galvez (2011). Opportunities and Challanges in MENA Region (Online:http://www.oecd.org/mena/49036903.pdf), Data Accessed: 07.07.2015.
• Makdisi, Samir,; Fattah, Zeki; Limam, Imed (2000). Determinants of Growth in MENA Countries. World Bank: Global Development Network.
• Murray, C.J. ve Pappell, H. (2001). Testing for Unit Roots in Panels in The Presence Of Structural Change With An Application to OECD Unemployment. Badi H. Baltagi, Thomas B. Fomby ve R. Carter Hill (eds.) Nonstationary Panels, Panel Cointegration, and Dynamic Panels (Advances in Econometrics, Volume 15), Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
• Pesaran, M. Hashem (2004). General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 20, 264-309.
• Pesaran, M. Hashem (2007). A Simple Panel Unit Root Test in the Presence of Cross-Section Dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22, 265-312.
• Pissarides, C. (1990). Equilibrium Unemployment Theory, Oxford, Basil Blackwell.
• Phelps, E.S. (1968). The Role of Monetary Policy. American Economic Review, 58: 1-17.
• Phelps, E.S. (1999). Behind This Structural Boom: The Role of Asset Valuations. American Economic Review, 89: 63-68.
• Roed, K. (1996). Unemployment Hysteresis - Macro Evidence from 16 OECD Countries. Empirical Economics 21: 589-600.
• Saraç, T. B. (2014). Hysteresis Effects in Unemployment: Turkey Case. Ege Academic Review, 14(3): 335-344.
• Smyth, R. (2003). Unemployment Hysteresis in Australian States and Territories: Evidence from Panel Data Unit Root Tests. The Australian Economic Review, 36: 181-192.
• Song, F.M. ve Wu, Y. (1998). Hysteresis Unemployment: Evidence from OECD Countries. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 38: 181-192.
• Tokatlıoğlu, İ., Öztürk, F. ve Ardor H. N. (2014). Hysteresis effect in Selected EU Countries and Turkey Labour Market: RATCHET Model Analysis. Sosyoekonomi, 2014(2): 297-320.
• Yılancı, V. (2009). Analyizing the Unemployment Hysteresis for Turkey Under Structural Breaks Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 10(2): 324-335.
• Westerlund, J., Breitung, J. (2013). Lessons from a decade of IPS and LLC. Econometric Review, 32, 547-591.
• World Bank (2016). World Development Indicators.(Online: http://databank.worldbank.org/data /reports.aspx?source=2&Topic=3), Data Accessed: 20.05.2016.