SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Dicle Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2024 / Cilt: 14 Sayı: 27

ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENT DIMENSIONS OF UNEMPLOYMENT HYSTERIA IN TÜRKİYE WITH TRADITIONAL AND FOURIER TESTS

TÜRKİYE’DE FARKLI BOYUTLARIYLA İŞSİZLİK HİSTERİSİNİN GELENEKSEL VE FOURIER TESTLERLE ANALİZİ

Ali Rauf Karataş(KARABÜK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-1031-6722
Pages
453–473
Publication Date
2024-05-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

According to the results of traditional and structural break unit root tests, robust evidence is found to support the unemployment hysteresis hypothesis.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The high unemployment rates experienced globally after the Great Depression made unemployment one of the most important problems of macroeconomics.
📊
Key Findings & Data:After the oil shocks in the 1970s, the idea that temporary shocks in the economy may have permanent effects on unemployment rates gave rise to the unemployment hysteresis hypothesis, which emerged as an alternative to the classical macroeconomic prediction.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:According to the results of traditional and structural break unit root tests, robust evidence is found to support the unemployment hysteresis hypothesis.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2014 Verileri
⚙️Variables:İşsizlik · İşsizlik Histerisi · Birim Kök Testleri

Abstract

The high unemployment rates experienced globally after the Great Depression made unemployment one of the most important problems of macroeconomics. After the oil shocks in the 1970s, the idea that temporary shocks in the economy may have permanent effects on unemployment rates gave rise to the unemployment hysteresis hypothesis, which emerged as an alternative to the classical macroeconomic prediction. Using monthly data for the period 2014:M1-2023:M8, this study tests the unemployment hysteresis hypothesis in Türkiye with Augmented Dickey–Fuller (ADF), Fourier Augmented Dickey–Fuller (FADF) and Fractional Frequency FADF unit root tests with four different dimensions: Unemployment rate, combined rate of time-related underemployment and unemployment, combined rate of unemployment and potential labour force and composite measure of labour underutilization. According to the results of traditional and structural break unit root tests, robust evidence is found to support the unemployment hysteresis hypothesis. Accordingly, deviations in unemployment rates in Türkiye are becoming persistent and therefore, unemployment is still an important structural problem for the Turkish economy.

Özet

Büyük Buhran sonrası küresel ölçekte tecrübe edilen yüksek işsizlik oranları, işsizlik olgusunu makroekonominin önemli sorunlarından biri haline getirmiştir. 1970’li yıllardaki petrol şokları sonrasında ise ekonomideki geçici şokların işsizlik oranları üzerinde kalıcı etkilere sebep olabileceği fikri, işsizlik histerisi hipotezini doğurmuş ve söz konusu hipotez klasik makro iktisadi öngörüye bir alternatif olarak ortaya çıkmıştır. Bu çalışma, 2014:1-2023:8 dönemi aylık verilerini kullanarak, Türkiye’de işsizlik histerisi hipotezini; işsizlik oranı, zamana bağlı eksik istihdam ve işsizlerin bütünleşik oranı, işsiz ve potansiyel işgücünün bütünleşik oranı ve atıl işgücü oranı olmak üzere dört farklı boyutuyla Genişletilmiş Dickey-Fuller (ADF), Fourier Genişletilmiş Dickey-Fuller (FADF) ve Kesirli Frekanslı FADF birim kök testleri ile sınamıştır. Geleneksel ve yapısal kırılmaları dikkate alan birim kök testleri sonuçlarına göre işsizlik histerisi hipotezini destekleyen güçlü kanıtlara ulaşılmıştır. Buna göre Türkiye’de işsizlik oranlarındaki sapmalar kalıcı hale gelmekte ve bu sebeple işsizlik, ülke ekonomisi için halen önemli bir yapısal sorun olarak gözükmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Karataş, A. R., *, A. R. K. (2024). ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENT DIMENSIONS OF UNEMPLOYMENT HYSTERIA IN TÜRKİYE WITH TRADITIONAL AND FOURIER TESTS. Dicle Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 14 Sayı: 27, 453–473. https://doi.org/10.53092/duiibfd.1406080

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (67)

  1. Akcan, A. T. (2019). Türkiye’de gençlerin işsizlik histerisi. Kastamonu Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(1), 31-47.
  2. Akcan, A. T., Yıldırım, B., Karataş, A. R., & Yılmaz, M. (2023). Teachers’ views on the effect of STEM education on the labor market. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1184730. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1184730
  3. Atabey, A. Ö. (2024). Türkiye’de Farklı Gruplar İtibarıyla İşsizlikte Histeri Etkisinin Analizi: Çoklu Yapısal Kırılmalı ve Fourier Birim Kök Testlerinden Kanıtlar. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 15(1), 76-88.
  4. Atamer, M. A., Mehmet, U., & Ülger, M. (2023). Türkiye Ekonomisinde İşsizlik Histerisi Hipotezinin Geçerliliğinin Analizi: 1988-2020 Dönemi. Ekonomi Politika ve Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8(2), 283-304.
  5. Bahmani-Oskooee, M., & Hasanzade, M. (2020). Asymmetric Link between U.S. Tariff Policy and Income Distribution: Evidence from State Level Data. Open Economies Review, 31(4), 821-857. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11079-020-09584-5
  6. Ball, L. (2014). Long-term damage from the Great Recession in OECD countries. European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies, 11(2), 149-160.
  7. Ball, L., & Mankiw, N. G. (2002). The NAIRU in theory and practice. Journal of economic Perspectives, 16(4), 115-136.
  8. Ball, L., & Onken, J. (2022). Hysteresis in unemployment: Evidence from OECD estimates of the natural rate. International Finance, 25(3), 268-284. https://doi.org/10.1111/infi.12424
  9. Bayrakdar, S. (2015). Türkiye için İşsizlik Histerisi ya da Doğal İşsizlik Oranı Hipotezinin Geçerliliğinin Sınanması. Journal of Economic Policy Researches, 2(2), 45-61.
  10. Bierens, H. J. (1997). Testing the unit root with drift hypothesis against nonlinear trend stationarity, with an application to the US price level and interest rate. Journal of Econometrics, 81(1), 29-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(97)00033-X
  11. Blanchard, O. J., & Summers, L. H. (1986a). Fiscal increasing returns, hysteresis, real wages and unemployment. National Bureau of Economic Research Cambridge, Mass., USA. https://www.nber.org/papers/w2034
  12. Blanchard, O. J., & Summers, L. H. (1986b). Hysteresis and the European Unemployment Problem. NBER Macroeconomics Annual, 1, 15-78. https://doi.org/10.1086/654013
  13. Blanchard, O. J., & Summers, L. H. (1986c). Hysteresis in unemployment (2035; ss. 235-242). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2378-5_11
  14. Bozoklu, S., Yilanci, V., & Gorus, M. S. (2020). Persistence in per capita energy consumption: A fractional integration approach with a Fourier function. Energy Economics, 91, 104926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2020.104926
  15. Brunello, G. (1990). Hysteresis and “the Japanese unemployment problem”: A preliminary investigation. Oxford Economic Papers, 42(3), 483-500.
  16. Camarero, M., & Tamarit, C. (2004). Hysteresis vs. natural rate of unemployment: New evidence for OECD countries. Economics Letters, 84(3), 413-417.
  17. Cerra, M. V., & Saxena, M. S. C. (2017). Booms, crises, and recoveries: A new paradigm of the business cycle and its policy implications. International Monetary Fund. https://books.google.com/books?hl=tr&lr=&id=vUAZEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA3&dq=Booms,+Crises,+and+Recoveries:+A+New+Paradigm+of+the+Business+Cycle+and+its+Policy+Implications&ots=abcoItfYnO&sig=MxnR5aO2dwdR2a-JKevyPidYshA
  18. Cerra, V., Fatás, A., & Saxena, S. C. (2023). Hysteresis and business cycles. Journal of Economic Literature, 61(1), 181-225.
  19. Chang, T. (2011). Hysteresis in unemployment for 17 OECD countries: Stationary test with a Fourier function. Economic Modelling, 28(5), 2208-2214.
  20. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504850500365871
  21. Cheng, K. M., Durmaz, N., Kim, H., & Stern, M. L. (2012). Hysteresis vs. Natural rate of US unemployment. Economic Modelling, 29(2), 428-434.
  22. Coşkun, N. (2021). Genç nüfusta işsizlik histerisinin sınanması: Türkiye örneği. Bulletin of Economic Theory and Analysis, 6(1), 97-112.
  23. Çiçen, Y. B. (2020). Global Krizde Cinsiyet ve Medeni Duruma Göre İşsizlik Histerisi: Türkiye İçin Fourıer Durağanlık Analizi. Akademik Hassasiyetler, 7(13), 505-525.
  24. 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(366a), 427-431. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1979.10482531
  25. Enders, W., & Lee, J. (2012). The flexible Fourier form and Dickey–Fuller type unit root tests. Economics Letters, 117(1), 196-199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2012.04.081
  26. Ergül, M., & Karataş, A. R. (2023). Covid-19 Pandemisinin Dünya İş Gücü Piyasası Üzerine Etkileri. 115-129.
  27. Friedman, M. (1968). The Role of Monetary Policy. 58(1-17).
  28. Furuoka, F. (2017). A new approach to testing unemployment hysteresis. Empirical Economics, 53(3), 1253-1280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-016-1164-7
  29. Galbraith, K. (2010). İktisat Tarihi. Dost Kitabevi Yayınları.
  30. Gray, D. (2004). Persistent Regional Unemployment Differentials Revisited. Regional Studies, 38(2), 167-176. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340042000190145
  31. Güloğlu, B., & İspir, M. S. (2011). Doğal işsizlik oranı mı? İşsizlik histerisi mi? Türkiye için sektörel panel birim kök sınaması analizi. Ege Akademik Bakış, 11(2), 205-215.
  32. Güran, T. (2012). İktisat Tarihi. Der Yayınları. ILO. (2013). 19th International Conference of Labour Statisticians. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---stat/documents/publication/wcms_220535.pdf
  33. İslatince, H. (2018). Klasik Okul. İçinde İktisadi Düşünceler Tarihi (ss. 59-79). Anadolu Üniversitesi.
  34. Jaeger, A., & Parkinson, M. (1994). Some evidence on hysteresis in unemployment rates. European economic review, 38(2), 329-342.
  35. Keynes, J. M. (1936). The general theory of interest, employment and money. London: MacMillan.
  36. Lee, C.-C., & Chang, C.-P. (2008). Unemployment hysteresis in OECD countries: Centurial time series evidence with structural breaks. Economic Modelling, 25(2), 312-325.
  37. Lee, J., Lee, C., & Chang, C. (2009). Hysteresıs in unemployment revisited: Evidence from panel LM unit root tests with heterogeneous structural breaks. Bulletin of Economic Research, 61(4), 325-334. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8586.2008.00287.x
  38. Levačić, R., & Rebmann, A. (1982). Macroeconomics: An introduction to Keynesian-neoclassical controversies. https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1130000798197838592
  39. Lindbeck, A., & Snower, D. J. (2002). The insider-outsider theory: A survey. Available at SSRN 325323. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=325323
  40. Lumsdaine, R. L., & Papell, D. H. (1997). Multiple trend breaks and the unit-root hypothesis. Review of economics and Statistics, 79(2), 212-218.
  41. MacKinnon, J. G. (1996). Numerical distribution functions for unit root and cointegration tests. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 11(6), 601-618. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1255(199611)11:6 3.0.CO;2-T
  42. Mayergoyz, I. D. (2003). Mathematical models of hysteresis and their applications. Academic press. https://books.google.com/books?hl=tr&lr=&id=AYy6nQjdmIwC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Mathematical+Models+of+Hysteresis&ots=c-Pd-LUttt&sig=qp_twGkyEy8QVld4x_Ukrz1-q6Y
  43. Mota, P. R., & Vasconcelos, P. B. (2022). Hysteresis in the Dynamics of Employment by Activity Sector. Review of Political Economy, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/09538259.2022.2105139
  44. Neudorfer, P., Pichelmann, K., & Wagner, M. (1990). Hysteresis, Nairu and long term unemployment in Austria. Empirical Economics, 15(2), 217-229. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01973454
  45. Omay, T., Ozcan, B., & Shahbaz, M. (2020). Testing the hysteresis effect in the US state-level unemployment series. Journal of Applied Economics, 23(1), 329-348. https://doi.org/10.1080/15140326.2020.1759865
  46. O’Shaughnessy, T. (2011). Hysteresis in unemployment. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 27(2), 312-337.
  47. Phelps, E. S. (1967). Phillips curves, expectations of inflation and optimal unemployment over time. Economica, 254-281.
  48. Phelps, E. S. (1968). Money-Wage Dynamics and Labor-Market Equilibrium. Journal of Political Economy, 76(4, Part 2), 678-711. https://doi.org/10.1086/259438
  49. Phelps, E. S. (1994). Structural slumps: The modern equilibrium theory of unemployment, interest, and assets. Harvard University Press. https://books.google.com/books?hl=tr&lr=&id=5_VOmYA4HF4C&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=+Structural+Slumps:+The+Modern+Equilibrium+Theory+of+Unemployment,+Interest,+and+Assets&ots=9Xnlkb1YBs&sig=8z42O7wnyZZSC7e04UTr8EuuaU4
  50. Phillips, A. W. (1958). The relation between unemployment and the rate of change of money wage rates in the United Kingdom, 1861-1957. economica, 25(100), 283-299.
  51. Richardson, P., Boone, L., Giorno, C., Meacci, M., Rae, D., & Turner, D. (2000). The concept, policy use and measurement of structural unemployment: Estimating a time varying NAIRU across 21 OECD countries. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/the-concept-policy-use-and-measurement-of-structural-unemployment_785730283515
  52. Salop, S. C. (1979). A model of the natural rate of unemployment. The American Economic Review, 69(1), 117-125.
  53. Say, J. B. (1836). A treatise on political economy: Or the production, distribution, and consumption of wealth. Grigg & Elliot. https://books.google.com/books?hl=tr&lr=&id=qnsPAAAAYAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&dq=john+baptiste+say&ots=qoah1LAgio&sig=JIG82RuPlcZLS2twl7lMBDyZLww
  54. Sessions, J. G. (1994). Unemployment Stigma and Multiple Labour Market Equilibria: A Social‐Psychological Interpretation of Hysteresis. LABOUR, 8(3), 355-376. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9914.1994.tb00168.x
  55. Skousen, M. (2011). İktisadi Düşünce Tarihi Modern İktisadın İnşası. Liberte Yayınları.
  56. Smyth, R. (2003). Unemployment Hysteresis in Australian States and Territories: Evidence from Panel Data Unit Root Tests. Australian Economic Review, 36(2), 181-192. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8462.00278
  57. Song, F. M., & Yangru, W. (1997). Hysteresis in unemployment evidence from 48 U.S. states. Economic Inquiry, 35(2), 235-243. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.1997.tb01906.x
  58. Taş, S., & Uğur, B. (2017). Türkiye için İşsizlik Histerisi mi, Yoksa Doğal Oran Hipotezi mi Geçerlidir? Çukurova Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(1), 25-45.
  59. Tekin, İ. (2018). Türkiye’de işsizlik histerisi: Fourier fonksiyonlu durağanlık sınamaları. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İktisadi İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 33(1), 97-127.
  60. TÜİK. (2023a). Hanehalkı İşgücü Araştırmasında Yapılan Düzenlemelere İlişkin Metodoloji Dökümanı. https://www.tuik.gov.tr/indir/metodolojikDokumanlar/hia_metod_tr.pdf
  61. TÜİK. (2023b). İstihdam, İşsizlik ve Ücret. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Kategori/GetKategori?p=Istihdam,-Issizlik-ve-Ucret-108
  62. Üçler, Y. T., Yıldırım, M., Akcan, A. T., & Ak, Ö. K. (2023). Türkiye’de genç kadın ve genç erkeklerin işsizlik histerisi. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 10(2), 1071-1082.
  63. Yaya, O. S., Ogbonna, A. E., & Mudida, R. (2019). Hysteresis of unemployment rates in Africa: New findings from Fourier ADF test. Quality & Quantity, 53(6), 2781-2795. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-019-00894-6
  64. Yılancı, V. (2009). Yapısal Kırılmalar Altında Türkiye için İşsizlik Histerisinin Sınanması. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 10(2), 324-335.
  65. Yurtkuran, S. (2021a). Çevresel Kuznets eğrisi hipotezinin geçerliliği ve yeşil lojistik: Türkiye örneği. Balıkesir Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 24(45), 171-201. https://doi.org/10.31795/baunsobed.874990
  66. Yurtkuran, S. (2021b). Türkiye’de İşsizlik Histerisi Hipotezi: Fourier Birim Kök Testleri’nden Yeni Kanıtlar. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 12(1), 70-80.
  67. Zivot, E., & Andrews, D. W. K. (1992). Further Evidence on the Great Crash, the Oil-Price Shock, and the Unit-Root Hypothesis. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 10(3), 251. https://doi.org/10.2307/1391541