SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Namık Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Meslek Yüksek Okulu Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 8 Sayı: 2

The Impact of Active Fiscal Policies on Unemployment Dynamics: Findings from Nordic Countries

Aktif Mali Politikaların İşsizlik Dinamikleri Üzerindeki Etkisi: Nordik Ülkelerden Bulgular

Selçuk Balı(SELCUK UNIVERSITY)0000-0001-5117-8720
Pages
84–101
Publication Date
2026-10-30
🏛️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)

These findings suggest that sustained investment in active labour market policies can strengthen labour market matching efficiency and contribute to reducing persistent unemployment

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examines the relationship between the unemployment rate and the job vacancy rate in the labor markets of Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden within the framework of the Beveridge Curve.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Panel data and dynamic panel data methods were applied using data from the period 2000–2024.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:These findings suggest that sustained investment in active labour market policies can strengthen labour market matching efficiency and contribute to reducing persistent unemployment
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2000–2024 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Aktif Mali Politikalar · İşsizlik Dinamikleri · Beveridge Eğrisi

Abstract

This study examines the relationship between the unemployment rate and the job vacancy rate in the labor markets of Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden within the framework of the Beveridge Curve. Panel data and dynamic panel data methods were applied using data from the period 2000–2024. In addition to the job vacancy rate, the effects of economic growth, inflation, and active labor market expenditures on unemployment were also evaluated in the analysis. Unlike most previous Beveridge Curve studies focusing primarily on unemployment and job vacancies, this study explicitly incorporates active labour market expenditures into both static and dynamic panel data models, providing a comparative fiscal policy perspective for the Nordic countries. The findings show a negative and statistically significant relationship between the job vacancy rate and the unemployment rate. Furthermore, a persistence effect on unemployment was detected, and it was determined that active labor market expenditures have a reducing effect on unemployment. The results reveal that the Beveridge Curve remains valid in the Nordic countries and that institutional structures and active labour market policies play an important role in labour market performance. These findings suggest that sustained investment in active labour market policies can strengthen labour market matching efficiency and contribute to reducing persistent unemployment

Özet

Bu çalışma, Danimarka, Finlandiya, Norveç ve İsveç'in işgücü piyasalarındaki işsizlik oranı ile iş açığı oranı arasındaki ilişkiyi Beveridge Eğrisi çerçevesinde incelemektedir. 2000-2024 dönemine ait veriler kullanılarak panel veri ve dinamik panel veri yöntemleri uygulanmıştır. Analizde, iş açığı oranına ek olarak, ekonomik büyüme, enflasyon ve aktif işgücü piyasası harcamalarının işsizlik üzerindeki etkileri de değerlendirilmiştir. İşsizlik ve iş açığına odaklanan önceki Beveridge Eğrisi çalışmalarının çoğunun aksine, bu çalışma aktif işgücü piyasası harcamalarını hem statik hem de dinamik panel veri modellerine açıkça dahil ederek, İskandinav ülkeleri için karşılaştırmalı bir mali politika perspektifi sunmaktadır. Bulgular, iş açığı oranı ile işsizlik oranı arasında negatif ve istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir ilişki olduğunu göstermektedir. Ayrıca, işsizlik üzerinde bir kalıcılık etkisi tespit edilmiş ve aktif işgücü piyasası harcamalarının işsizliği azaltıcı bir etkiye sahip olduğu belirlenmiştir. Sonuçlar, Beveridge Eğrisinin İskandinav ülkelerinde geçerliliğini koruduğunu ve kurumsal yapıların ve aktif işgücü piyasası politikalarının işgücü piyasası performansında önemli bir rol oynadığını ortaya koymaktadır. Bu bulgular, aktif işgücü piyasası politikalarına yapılan sürekli yatırımın, işgücü piyasası eşleşme verimliliğini güçlendirebileceğini ve kalıcı işsizliğin azaltılmasına katkıda bulunabileceğini göstermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Balı, S. (2026). The Impact of Active Fiscal Policies on Unemployment Dynamics: Findings from Nordic Countries. Namık Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Meslek Yüksek Okulu Dergisi, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 2, 84–101. https://doi.org/10.56493/nkusbmyo.1973199

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (40)

  1. Acemoglu, D. (2002). Technical change, inequality, and the labor market. Journal of Economic Literature, 40(1), 7–72. doi:10.1257/0022051026976
  2. Arellano, M., & Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Review of Economic Studies, 58(2), 277–297. doi:10.2307/2297968
  3. Baltagi, B. H. (2005). Econometric analysis of panel data (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
  4. Barnichon, R., & Figura, A. (2015). Labor market heterogeneity and the aggregate matching function. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 7(4), 222–249. https://doi.org/10.1257/mac.20130070
  5. Beveridge, W. H. (1944). Full employment in a free society. George Allen & Unwin.
  6. Blanchard, O. J., & Diamond, P. (1989). The Beveridge curve. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 20(1), 1–76. doi:10.2307/2534495
  7. Blanchard, O. J., & Diamond, P. (1990). The cyclical behavior of the gross flows of U.S. workers. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 21(2), 85–155. doi:10.2307/2534505
  8. Bonthuis, M., Jarvis, V., & Vanhala, J. (2016). Shifts in euro area Beveridge curves and their determinants. IZA Journal of Labor Policy, 5, Article 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40173-016-0076-7
  9. Bouvet, F. (2012). The Beveridge curve in Europe: New evidence using national and regional data. Applied Economics, 44(27), 3585–3604. doi:10.1080/00036846.2011.581216
  10. Christl, M. (2020). The Beveridge curve and Austrian labor market reforms. Empirica, 47(3), 567–593. doi:10.1007/s10663-019-09452-4
  11. Destefanis, A., & Fonseca, R. (2017). Matching Efficiency and Labour Market Reform in Italy: A Macroeconometric Assessment. Labour, 21(1), 57–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9914.2006.00368.x
  12. Diamond, P. A. (1982). Aggregate demand management in search equilibrium. Journal of Political Economy, 90(5), 881–894. doi:10.1086/261099
  13. Dow, J. C. R., & Dicks-Mireaux, L. A. (1958). The excess demand for labour: A study of conditions in Great Britain, 1946–1956. Oxford Economic Papers, 10(1), 1–33. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.oep.a040756
  14. Elsby, M. W. L., Michaels, R., & Solon, G. (2009). The ins and outs of cyclical unemployment. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 1(1), 84–110. doi:10.1257/mac.1.1.84
  15. Eurostat. (2024). Job vacancy statistics database. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat
  16. Foster, D. F. (1974). Unemployment and vacancies: The Beveridge curve in the United Kingdom. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 36(3), 167–185. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0084.1974.mp36003002.x
  17. Ghayad, R., & Dickens, W. T. (2012). What can we learn by disaggregating the Beveridge curve? Public Policy Briefs, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, 12(3), 1–12.
  18. Gregg, P., & Petrongolo, B. (1997). Random or non-random matching? Implications for the use of the UV curve as a measure of matching effectiveness. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 59(3), 443–445. doi:10.1111/1468-0084.00076
  19. Groshen, E. L., & Potter, S. (2003). Has structural change contributed to a jobless recovery? Current Issues in Economics and Finance, 9(8), 1–7.
  20. Hansen, B. (1970). Excess demand, unemployment, vacancies, and wages. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(1), 1–23. doi:10.2307/1880548
  21. Helpman, E., & Itskhoki, O. (2010). Labour market rigidities, trade and unemployment. Review of Economic Studies, 77(3), 1100–1137. doi:10.1111/j.1467-937X.2010.00600.x
  22. Hobijn, M., & Şahin, A. (2013). Beveridge curve shifts across countries since the Great Recession. IMF Economic Review, 61(4), 566–600. doi:10.1057/imfer.2013.14
  23. Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115(1), 53–74.
  24. Kanık, M., Sunel, E., & Taşkın, T. (2014). Unemployment and Vacancies in Turkey: The Beveridge Curve and Matching Function. Central Bank Review, 14. Ankara, Türkiye: Central Bank of the Republic of Türkiye.
  25. 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.
  26. Ljungqvist, L., & Sargent, T. J. (1998). The European unemployment dilemma. Journal of Political Economy, 106(3), 514–550. doi:10.1086/250020
  27. Mortensen, D. T. (1982). Property rights and efficiency in mating, racing, and related games. American Economic Review, 72(5), 968–979.
  28. Mortensen, D. T., & Pissarides, C. A. (1994). Job creation and job destruction in the theory of unemployment. Review of Economic Studies, 61(3), 397–415. doi:10.2307/2297896
  29. Nickell, S., Nunziata, L., & Ochel, W. (2005). Unemployment in the OECD since the 1960s: What do we know? Economic Journal, 115(500), 1–27. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0297.2004.00958.x
  30. OECD. (2009). OECD employment outlook: Tackling the jobs crisis. OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/empl_outlook-2009-en
  31. OECD. (2024). OECD statistics database. Retrieved from https://stats.oecd.org
  32. Pedroni, P. (1999). Critical values for cointegration tests in heterogeneous panels with multiple regressors. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61(S1), 653–670.
  33. Petrongolo, B., & Pissarides, C. A. (2001). Looking into the black box: A survey of the matching function. Journal of Economic Literature, 39(2), 390–431. doi:10.1257/jel.39.2.390
  34. Pissarides, C. A. (2000). Equilibrium unemployment theory (2nd ed.). MIT Press.
  35. Sağlam, A., & Günalp, E. (2012). Türkiye’de Beveridge Eğrisi’nin analizi. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 67(4), 145–168.
  36. Shimer, R. (2005). The cyclical behavior of equilibrium unemployment and vacancies. American Economic Review, 95(1), 25–49. doi:10.1257/0002828053828572
  37. Taylor, J. (1972). The behaviour of the unemployment and vacancy rates in Britain. Economica, 39(153), 134–152. doi:10.2307/2552080
  38. Tatar, İ. (2023). Türkiye’de Beveridge Eğrisi’nin ampirik analizi: ARDL yaklaşımı. İnternational Journal of Social and Humanities Sciences Research (JSHSR), 10 (95), 1201-1212.https://doi.org/10.26450/jshsr.3639
  39. Tokatlıoğlu, A. (2016). Kriz sonrası dönemde Türkiye’de Beveridge Eğrisi’nin dönüşümü. Çalışma ve Toplum, 48(1), 173–198.
  40. World Bank. (2024). World Development Indicators database. Retrieved from https://databank.worldbank.org