SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi / 2017 / Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 2

The Effects of Passive Labor Market Policies on Unemployment: Experience of Turkey after Global Crisis

Pasif İşgücü Piyasası Politikalarının İşsizliğe Etkileri: Küresel Kriz Sonrası Türkiye Deneyimi

YÜKSEL BAYRAKTAR
Yaşar YAŞARLAR
Pages
1–17
DOI
—
🏛️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)

Findings of the study are as follows: i Total PLMP payments increase unemployment rate in the short-run but do not have a significant effect on unemployment rate in the long-run. ii Based on PLMP programs, in the short-run wage guarantee fund payments and in the longrun unemployment insurance fund payments increase unemployment rate

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study investigated the effects of Passive Labour Market Policies PLMP’s , which were implemented after the global crisis, on unemployment in Turkey.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Two separate econometric models were established to analyse this relationship.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Findings of the study are as follows: i Total PLMP payments increase unemployment rate in the short-run but do not have a significant effect on unemployment rate in the long-run. ii Based on PLMP programs, in the short-run wage guarantee fund payments and in the longrun unemployment insurance fund payments increase unemployment rate
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Küresel Finans Krizi · İşsizlik Oranı · Türkiye İş Kurumu

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of Passive Labour Market Policies PLMP’s , which were implemented after the global crisis, on unemployment in Turkey. Two separate econometric models were established to analyse this relationship. Model-1 is composed of Johansen and Bounds Test cointegration analyses and regression whereas Model-2 is composed of Bounds Tests cointegration analysis, ARDL and ECM models. Findings of the study are as follows: i Total PLMP payments increase unemployment rate in the short-run but do not have a significant effect on unemployment rate in the long-run. ii Based on PLMP programs, in the short-run wage guarantee fund payments and in the longrun unemployment insurance fund payments increase unemployment rate

Özet

Bu çalışmada,Türkiye’de küresel kriz sonrası uygulanan Pasif İşgücü Piyasası Politikalarının PİPP işsizlik üzerindeki etkileri incelenmiştir. Söz konusu ilişkiyi analiz etmek için iki ayrı ekonometrik model kurulmuştur. Model-1, Johansen ve Sınır Testi eşbütünleşme analizleri ve regresyon modeli; Model-2, Sınır Testi eşbütünleşme analizi, ARDL ve ECM modellerinden oluşmaktadır. Çalışmanın bulguları şu şekildedir: i Toplam PİPP ödemeleri işsizlik oranını kısa dönemde artırmakta, uzun dönemde işsizlik oranı üzerinde anlamlı bir etkisi bulunmamaktadır. ii PİPP programları bazında, kısa dönemde ücret garanti fonu ödemeleri,uzun dönemde ise işsizlik sigortası fonu ödemeleri, işsizlik oranını artırmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

BAYRAKTAR, Y., YAŞARLAR, Y. (2017). The Effects of Passive Labor Market Policies on Unemployment: Experience of Turkey after Global Crisis. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 2, 1–17. https://ajindex.com/articles/125793

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Aaronson, D., Mazumder B. ve Schechter S. (2010). What is behind the rise in long- term unemployment?. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago: Economic Perspectives, 2Q, 28-51.
  2. Absar, R., Bui T. ve Young K. (2013). The effect of extending unemployment insurance benefits on state unemployment rates. The Public Purpose, 11, 27-47.
  3. Aiginger, K., Horvath T. ve Mahringer H. (2011). Why labor market performance differed across countries: The impact of institutions and labor market policy. Paris: OECD Nero-Meeting. Baker, D., Glyn A., Howell D. ve Schmitt J. (2004). Unemployment and labour market institutions: The failure of the empirical case for deregulation. ILO Working Paper, 43, 1- 29. Bassanini, A. ve Duval R. (2006). Employment patterns in OECD countries: Reassessing the role of policies and institutions. OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, 35, Erişim adresi OECDiLibrary Belot, M. ve Van Ours J. C. (2000). Does the recent success of some OECD countries in lowering their unemployment rates lie in the clever design of their labour market reforms?. IZA Discussion Paper, (147) Blanchard, O. ve Wolfers J. (2000). The role of shocks and institutions in the rise of European unemployment: The aggregate evidence. Economic Journal, 110, 1-33,
  4. Card, D. ve Levine P. B. (2000). Extended benefits and the duration of UI spells: Evidence from the New Jersey extended benefit program. Journal of Public Economics, 78(1-2), 107–138.
  5. Çetinkaya, E. (2008). Türkiye’de genç işsizliği ile mücadelede aktif işgücü piyasası politikaları. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Sakarya Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Sakarya. De Serres, A. ve Murtin F. (2013). Do policies that reduce unemployment raise its volatility?. OECD Economics Department Working Papers, 1020, 1-30.
  6. Durusoy Öztepe, N. ve Akbaş, S. (2016). Türkiye ve Balkan ülkelerinde işsizlik sorunu ve işsizlik sigortası uygulamaları. Balkan Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi: Uluslararası Yönetim, Ekonomi ve Politika Kongresi (ICOMEP), 717-731.
  7. Elmeskov, J., Martin J., ve Scarpetta S. (1998). Key lessons for labor market reforms: Evidence from OECD Countries’ Experiences. Swedish Economic Policy Review, 5, 205–252.
  8. Engle, R. F. ve Granger C.W.F. (1987). Co-integration and error correction: Representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica, 55(2), 251-276.
  9. Erdoğdu, S. (2010). Küresel krizin istihdama etkileri ve kriz karşıtı işgücü piyasası önlemleri. Memleket Siyaset Yönetim, 5(12), 142-167.
  10. Erol, H., Özdemir, A. ve Yurdakul