Testing Unemployment Hysteresis with Multi-Factor Panel Unit Root: Evidence from OECD Countries
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17059/ekon.reg.2022-3-9Keywords:
unemployment, hysteresis, tax wedge, trade union density, minimum wage, panel data, cross-section Augmented Dickey-Fuller, multifactor, unit root, OECDAbstract
Hysteresis is a dominant feature of unemployment in numerous countries. According to the hysteresis hypothesis, it is a well-known fact that high unemployment may persist and remain an economic threat in the long run if policy measures are not taken. In this study, it is tested whether the unemployment rates for 10 selected countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Japan, Netherlands, Spain, Britain and the USA) contain unit root or not, in other words, whether the hysteresis effect is valid for these countries. For this purpose, this study utilises the concept of the multi-factor panel unit root test proposed by Pesaran, Smith and Yamagata. This method measures cross-section dependence through factors. The test analyses whether the unit root is valid or not, using information about a sufficient number of additional explanatory variables. The characteristic of these additional variables is that they must share a common factor with the variable whose stationarity is tested. It is accepted that this common factor causes cross-sectional dependence. We have taken tax wedge, trade union density and minimum wage as factors that cause cross-sectional dependency and affect unemployment hysteresis. In this test developed by the authors, in the case of a multi-factor error structure, the test procedure is completed by using the information contained in 3 additional variables. The study explores not only the validity of unemployment hysteresis but also the factors that affect the rigidity of the unemployment rate. However, the research was unable to encompass the entire OECD countries and all times because of the lack of data. The results showed that the hysteresis is valid for 10 selected OECD countries.
References
Akdoğan, K. (2017). Unemployment hysteresis and structural change in Europe. Empirical Economics, 53(4), 1415– 1440. DOI: 10.1007/s00181-016-1171-8.
Akerlof, G. A. & Yellen, J. L. (1990). The fair wage-effort hypothesis and unemployment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 105(2), 255-283. DOI: 10.2307/2937787.
Albulescu, C. T. & Tiwari, A. K. (2018). Unemployment persistence in EU countries: New evidence using bounded unit root tests. Applied Economics Letters, 25(12), 807–810. DOI: 10.1080/13504851.2017.1368979.
Arestis, P. & Mariscal, I. B.-F. (1999). Unit roots and structural breaks in OECD unemployment. Economics Letters, 65(2), 149–156. DOI: 10.1016/S0165-1765(99)00131-7.
Ayala, A., Cuñado, J. & Gil-Alana, L. A. (2012). Unemployment hysteresis: Empirical evidence for Latin America. Journal of Applied Economics, 15(2), 213-233. DOI: 10.1016/S1514-0326(12)60010-5.
Baltagi, B. H. & Pesaran, M. H., (2007). Heterogeneity and cross section dependence in panel data models: Theory and applications introduction. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 229-232. DOI: 10.1002/jae.955.
Bayat, T., Temiz, M. & Konat, G. (2020). An empirical study on validity of unemployment hysteria hypothesis in Turkey (1923-2019). Pearson Journal of Socıal Sciences & Humanıties, 5(7), 1-7. DOI: 10.46872/pj.87 (In Turk.)
Bayrakdar, S. (2015). Testing for validity of unemployment hysteresis or natural rate of unemployment rate hypothesis. Journal of Economic Policy Researches, 2(2), 45-61. (In Turk.)
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. DOI: 10.5430/ijfr.v7n2p122.
Blanchard, O. J. & Summers, L. H. (1986). Hysteresis and the European unemployment problem. NBER macroeconomics annual, 1, 15-78.
Bolat, S., Tiwari, A. K. & Erdayi, A. U. (2014). Unemployment hysteresis in the Eurozone area: Evidences from nonlinear heterogeneous panel unit root test. Applied Economics Letters, 21(8), 536–540. DOI: 10.1080/13504851.2013.872755.
Bottaso, A., Castagnetti, C. & Conti, M. (2013). And yet they co-move! Public capital and productivity in OECD. Journal of Policy Modeling, 35(5), 713-729. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpolmod.2013.02.007.
Brunello, G. (1990). Hysteresis and “the Japanese unemployment problem”: A preliminary investigation. Oxford Economic Papers, 42, 483–500. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.oep.a041959.
Camarero, M., Carrion-i-Silvestre, J. L. & Tamarit, C. (2005). Unemployment dynamics and NAIRU estimates for accession countries: A univariate approach. Journal of Comparative Economics, 33(3), 584–603. DOI: 10.1016/j. jce.2005.04.001.
Camarero, M., Carrion-i-Silvestre, J. L. & 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(2), 167– 182. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0084.2006.00157.x.
Camarero, M., Carrion-i-Silvestre, J. L. & Tamarit, C. (2008). Unemployment hysteresis in transition countries: Evidence using stationarity panel tests with breaks. Review of Development Economics, 12, 620–635. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467- 9361.2008.00476.x.
Camarero, M. & Tamarit, C. (2004). Hysteresis vs. natural rate of unemployment: New evidence for OECD countries. Economics Letters, 84(3), 413–417. DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2004.02.014.
Caporale, G. M. & Gil-Alana, L. A. (2018). Unemployment in Africa: A fractional integration approach. South African Journal of Economics, 86(1), 76–81. DOI: 10.1111/saje.12178.
Chang, T. (2011). Hysteresis in unemployment for 17 OECD countries: Stationary test with a Fourier function. Economic Modelling, 28(5), 2208–2214. DOI: 10.1016/j.econmod.2011.06.002.
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(4), 881–886. DOI: 10.1080/13504850500365871.
Cheng, S.-C., Wu, T.-p., Lee, K.-C. & Chang, T. (2014). Flexible Fourier unit root test of unemployment for PIIGS countries. Economic Modelling, 36, 142–148. DOI: 10.1016/j.econmod.2013.09.021.
Christopoulos, D. K. & León-Ledesma, M. A. (2007). Unemployment hysteresis in EU countries: What do we really know about it? Journal of Economic Studies, 34(2), 80-89. DOI: 10.1108/01443580710745353.
Cooper, R. & John, A. (1988). Coordinating Coordination Failures in Keynesian Models. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 103(3), 441-463. DOI: 10.2307/1885539.
Çekiç, A. (2016). Unemployment hysteresis with Fourier structural break unit root test: The case of Turkey. Journal of Applied Research in Finance and Economics, 2(3), 14-19.
Doğru, B. (2014). Analysing Unemployment Hysteresis in Eurozone with the Second Generation Panel Unit Root Tests. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi [Anadolu University Journal of Social Sciences], 14, 77–86. DOI: 10.18037/ausbd.86450 (In Turk.)
Dritsaki, C. & Dritsaki, M. (2013). Hysteresis in unemployment: an empirical research for three member states of the European Union. Theoretical & Applied Economics, 20(4).
Dursun, G. (2017). Unemployment hysteresis in central and eastern European countries: further evidence from Fourier unit root test. Rome: Econ-World2017@ Rome Proceedings.
Fève, P., Hénin, P. Y. & Jolivaldt, P. (2003). Testing for hysteresis: Unemployment persistence and wage adjustment. Empirical Economics, 28(3), 535–552. DOI: 10.1007/s001810200144.
Furuoka, F. (2012). Unemployment hysteresis in the East Asia-Pacific region: New evidence from MADF and SURADF tests. Asian-Pacific Economic Literature, 26(2), 133–143. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8411.2012.01351.x.
Furuoka, F. (2014). Are unemployment rates stationary in Asia-Pacific countries? New findings from Fourier ADF test. Economic Research-Ekonomska istraživanja, 27(1), 34–45. DOI: 10.1080/1331677X.2014.947105.
Furuoka, F. (2017). A new approach to testing unemployment hysteresis. Empirical economics, 53, 1253–1280. DOI: 10.1007/s00181-016-1164-7.
Garcı́a-Cintado, A., Romero-Ávila, 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. DOI: 10.1016/j. econmod.2015.02.035.
Gomes, F. A. & da Silva, C. G. (2009). Hysteresis versus NAIRU and convergence versus divergence: The behavior of regional unemployment rates in Brazil. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 49(2), 308–322. DOI: 10.1016/j. qref.2007.03.009.
Güriş, B., Tiftikçigil, B. Y. & Tıraşoğlu, M. (2017). Testing for unemployment hysteresis in Turkey: Evidence from nonlinear unit root tests. Quality & Quantity, 51, 35–46. DOI: 10.1007/s11135-015-0292-z.
Kahyaoğlu, H., Tuzun, O., Ceylan, F. & Ekinci, R. (2016). The validity of unemployment hysteresis: a case of Turkey and selected EU countries. Manisa Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi [Manisa Celal Bayar University Journal of Social Sciences], 14(4), 103–128. DOI: 10.18026/cbayarsos.280055 (In Turk.)
Khraief, N., Shahbaz, M., Heshmati, A. & Azam, M. (2020). Are unemployment rates in OECD countries stationary? Evidence from univariate and panel unit root tests. The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 51, 100838. DOI: 10.1016/j.najef.2018.08.021.
Klinger, S. & Weber, E. (2016). Detecting unemployment hysteresis: A simultaneous unobserved components model with Markov switching. Economics Letters, 144, 115–118. DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2016.04.027.
Koçbulut, Ö. & Bolat, S. (2017). The validity of unemployment hysteresis and natural rate hypothesis in Balkan countries: an empirical evaluation. Kafkas Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi [Kafkas University Journal of the Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences], 8(16), 295-317. (In Turk.)
Koçyiğit, A., Bayat, T. & Tüfekçi, A. (2011). Unemployment hysteresis in Turkey and application of STAR models. Marmara Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi [Marmara University Journal of Economic and Administrative Sciences], 31(2), 45-60. (In Turk.)
Layard, R. & Bean, C. (1989). Why does unemployment persist? The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 371-396. DOI: 10.2307/3440117.
Lee, C.-F. (2010). Testing for unemployment hysteresis in nonlinear heterogeneous panels: International evidence. Economic Modelling, 27(5), 1097–1102. DOI: 10.1016/j.econmod.2010.03.010.
Lee, C.-C. & Chang, C.-P. (2008). Unemployment hysteresis in OECD countries: Centurial time series evidence with structural breaks. Economic Modelling, 25, 312–325. DOI: 10.1016/j.econmod.2007.06.002.
Lee, H.-Y., Wu, J.-L. & Lin, C.-H. (2010). Hysteresis in East Asian unemployment. Applied Economics, 42, 887–898.DOI: 10.1080/00036840701720895.
Lee, J.-D., Lee, C.-C. & Chang, C.-P. (2009). Hysteresis in unemployment revisited: evidence from panel LM unit root tests with heterogeneous structural breaks. Bulletin of Economic Research, 61, 325–334. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467- 8586.2008.00287.x.
Leibenstein, H. (1957). Economic Backwardness and Economic Growth. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
León-Ledesma, M. A. (2002). Unemployment hysteresis in the US states and the EU: A panel approach. Bulletin of Economic Research, 54(2), 95–103. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8586.00141.
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. DOI: 10.1016/S0304-4076(01)00098-7.
Lindbeck, A. & Snower, D. J. (1989). The insider-outsider theory of employment and unemployment. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Marjanovic, G., Maksimovic, L. & Stanisic, N. (2015). Hysteresis and the NAIRU: The case of countries in transition. Prague Economic Papers, 2015(5), 503–515. DOI: 10.18267/j.pep.526.
Marques, A. M., Lima, G. T. & Troster, V. (2017). Unemployment persistence in OECD countries after the Great Recession. Economic Modelling, 64, 105–116. DOI: 10.1016/j.econmod.2017.03.014.
Mednik, M., Rodriguez, C. M. & Ruprah, I. J. (2012). Hysteresis in unemployment: Evidence from LatinAmerica. Journal of International Development, 24(4), 448–466. DOI: 10.1002/jid.1755.
Meng, M., Strazicich, M. C. & Lee, J. (2017). Hysteresis in unemployment? Evidence from linear and nonlinear unit root tests and tests with non-normal errors. Empirical Economics, 53, 1399–1414. DOI: 10.1007/s00181-016-1196-z.
Mitchell, W. F. (1993). Testing for unit roots and persistence in OECD unemployment rates. Applied Economics, 25(12), 1489-1501. DOI: 10.1080/00036849300000153.
Munir, Q. & Ching, K. S. (2015). Revisiting the hysteresis hypothesis in unemployment in selected emerging economies. International Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(3).
Neudorfer, P., Pichelmann, K. & Wagner, M. (1990). Hysteresis, NAIRU and long-term unemployment in Austria.In: Hysteresis effects in economic models (pp. 109-121). Physica-Verlag HD.
Omay, T., Özcan, B. & Shahbaz, M. (2020). Testing the hysteresis effect in the US state-level unemployment series. Journal of Applied Economics, 23(1), 329–348. DOI: 10.1080/15140326.2020.1759865.
Özcan, B. (2012). Is unemployment hysteresis hypothesis valid for OECD countries? The analysis of unit root tests with structural breaks. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi [Erciyes University Journal of Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences], (40), 95-117. (In Turk.)
Özkan, Y. & Altınsoy, A. (2015). Effect of hysteria on employment and unemployment (Turkey, 1988-2014). Siyaset, Ekonomive Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi [Journal of Politics, Economics and Management Studies], 3, 123-130. (In Turk.)
Özpence, A. İ. & Ergen, E. (2017). Analysis of unemployment hysteresis in Turkey: Structural break unit root test. Journal of Economics Finance and Accounting, 4, 368–376. DOI: 10.17261/Pressacademia.2017.747.
Öztürk, M. (2020). Validity Of the Unemployment Hysteresis Hypothesis in Turkey: Multidimensional and Asymmetrical Approach. OPUS Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi [OPUS Journal of Society Research], 15, 4882–4910. DOI: 10.26466/opus.725553.
Papell, D. H., Murray, C. J. & Ghiblawi, H. (2000). The structure of unemployment. Review of Economics and Statistics, 82(2), 309–315. DOI: 10.1162/003465300558696.
Pata, U. K. (2020). An Empirical Analysis of the Unemployment Hysteresis in OECD Countries: Fourier Panel Stationary Tests. SGD-Sosyal Güvenlik Dergisi [Journal of Social Security], 10(1), 125-144. DOI: 10.32331/sgd.753027 (In Turk.)
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. DOI: 10.1002/jae.951.
Pesaran, M. H., Smith, L. V. & Yamagata, T. (2013). Panel unit root tests in the presence of a multifactor error structure. Journal of Econometrics, 175(2), 94–115. DOI: 10.1016/j.jeconom.2013.02.001.
Røed, K. (1996). Unemployment hysteresis-macro evidence from 16 OECD countries. Empirical Economics, 21(4), 589-600. DOI: 10.1007/BF01180703.
Romero-Ávila, D. & Usabiaga, C. (2008). On the persistence of Spanish unemployment rates. Empirical Economics, 35(1), 77–99. DOI: 10.1007/s00181-007-0144-3
Saraç, T. B. (2014 Hysteresis Effect in Unemployment: Turkey Case. Ege Academic Review, 14(3), 335-344. (In Turk.)
Sargan, J. D. & Bhargava, A. (1983). Testing residuals from least squares regression for being generated by the Gaussian random walk. Econometrica, 51(1), 153–174. DOI: 10.2307/1912252.
Smyth, R. (2003). Unemployment hysteresis in Australian states and territories: Evidence from panel data unit root tests. Australian Economic Review, 36(2), 181–192. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8462.00278.
Song, F. M. & Wu, Y. (1998). Hysteresis in unemployment: evidence from OECD countries. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 38(2), 181-192. DOI: 10.1016/S1062-9769(99)80111-2.
Srinivasan, N. & Mitra, P. (2012). Hysteresis in unemployment: Fact or fiction? Economics Letters, 115(3), 419–422.DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2011.12.070.
Stockhammer, E. & Sturn, S. (2011). The impact of monetary policy on unemployment hysteresis. Applied Economics, 44(21), 2743-2756. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2011.566199.
Tekin, İ. (2018). Unemployment Hysteresis in Turkey: Stationarity Tests with Fourier Functions. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İktisadi İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi [Dokuz Eylul University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences Journal], 33, 97–127. DOI: 10.24988/deuiibf.2018331685 (In Turk.)
Xie, H., Chang, T., Grigorescu, A. & Hung, K. (2018). Revisit hysteresis unemployment in eastern European countries using quantile regression. Ekonomický časopis, 66(5), 522-537.
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. DOI: 10.1007/s11135-019-00894-6.
Yıldırım, S. (2011). Testing the validity of hysteresis hypothesis for Turkey with CKP multiple structural breaks unit root test. Akdeniz İİBF Dergisi [Akdeniz İİBF journal], 11(22), 28-47. (In Turk.)
Yılancı, V. (2009). Analyzing the Unemployment Hysteresis for Turkey under Structural Breaks. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 10(2), 324-335. (In Turk.)
Zeren, F. & İşlek, H. (2019). Is per capita real GDP stationary in the D-8 countries? Evidence from a panel unit root test. In: Ö. Korkmaz, E. Ç. Akay (Eds.), Selected Topics in Applied Econometrics (pp. 67-86). Peter Lang.
