SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Optimum Ekonomi ve Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi / 2016 / Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 2

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

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

Sinan ERDOĞAN
Cem DOĞAN
Pages
0–0
Publication Date
2016-07-10
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)

Cross-sectional dependency test results indicate that there is cross-section dependency among all variables.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis: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.
📊
Key Findings & Data:According to CADF test results, unemployment rates in all countries have unit root.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Cross-sectional dependency test results indicate that there is cross-section dependency among all variables.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2014 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Doğal İşsizlik · İşsizlik Histerisi · MENA Ülkeleri

Abstract

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.

Özet

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.

🔖

Cite This Article

ERDOĞAN, S., DOĞAN, C. (2016). An Empirical Analyses of Unemployment Hysteresis and Natural Rate of Unemployment Approaches for MENA Countries. Optimum Ekonomi ve Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 2, 0–0. https://ajindex.com/articles/34371

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Arestis, P. ve Mariscal, I.BF. (1999) Unit Roots and Structural Breaks in OECD Countries. Economics Letters, 65: 149–56.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. Blanchard, O. J. ve Summers, L. H. (1986). Hysteresis and the European Unemployment Problem. NBER Working Paper Series, No.1950.
  5. Blanchard, O. ve Summers, L. (1987). Hysteresis in Umemployment. European Economic Review, 31(1): 288-95.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. Brunello, G. (1990) Hysteresis and the Japanese Unemployment Problem: A Preliminary Investigation. Oxford Economic Papers, 42: 483-500.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. Chang, T., Nieh, K.C. ve Wei, C.C. (2005). An Empirical No