SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ege Akademik Bakış / 2011 / Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 2

Is natural rate of unemployment or hysteresis? Sector-specific panel unit root test analysis for Turkey

Doğal işsizlik oranı mı? İşsizlik histerisi mi? Türkiye için sektörel panel birim kök sınaması analizi

Bülent GÜLOĞLU
M. Serdar İSPİR
Pages
205–215
Publication Date
2022-10-12
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)

Unlike the other studies, the results obtained in this study show that the sectoral unemployment can be explained by a special case of the natural rate of unemployment hypothesis.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study we investigate whether sector-specific unemployment in Turkey is explained by natural rate of unemployment or hysteresis hypothesis.
📊
Key Findings & Data:We employ sectoral unemployment rate in nine Turkish leading sectors covering the period 1988-2008 and test the stationarity of unemployment rates.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Unlike the other studies, the results obtained in this study show that the sectoral unemployment can be explained by a special case of the natural rate of unemployment hypothesis.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2008 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In this study we investigate whether sector-specific unemployment in Turkey is explained by natural rate of unemployment or hysteresis hypothesis. We employ sectoral unemployment rate in nine Turkish leading sectors covering the period 1988-2008 and test the stationarity of unemployment rates. For the test we use a recently developed panel unit root test which allows for different number of structural breaks in unemployment series in different dates. Unlike the other studies, the results obtained in this study show that the sectoral unemployment can be explained by a special case of the natural rate of unemployment hypothesis.

Özet

Bu çalışmada Türkiye’de sektörel işsizliğin doğal işsizlik oranı önsavıyla mı yoksa işsizlik histerisi önsavıyla mı açıklanabilir olduğu incelenmektedir. Bu amaçla Türkiye’deki 9 sektörün 1988-2008 dönemini kapsayan işsizlik oranı serilerinden oluşan panel veri seti oluşturularak, işsizlik serilerinin durağanlığı sınanmaktadır. Durağanlık, son dönemlerde geliştirilen ve her sektörde farklı tarihlerde ve farklı sayılarda kırılmaya izin veren bir panel birim kök sınamasıyla sınanmaktadır. Elde edilen sonuçlar diğer çalışma sonuçlarından farklı olarak Türkiye Ekonomisini oluşturan sektörlerin işsizlik oranlarının doğal işsizlik önsavının özel bir türü tarafından açıklanabilir olduğunu göstermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÜLOĞLU, B., İSPİR, M. S. (2022). Is natural rate of unemployment or hysteresis? Sector-specific panel unit root test analysis for Turkey. Ege Akademik Bakış, Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 2, 205–215. https://ajindex.com/articles/495483

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Arestis, P. ve Mariscal, I.BF. (1999) “Unit Roots and Structural Breaks in OECD Countries” Economics Letters, 65: 149–56.
  2. Bai, J. ve Perron, P. (1998) “Estimating and Testing Linear Models with Multiple Structural Changes” Econometrica, 66(1), 47–78.
  3. Barışık, S. ve Çevik, İ.E. (2008) “Türkiye’de İşsizlik Histerisinin Yapısal Kırılma ve Güçlü Hafıza Modellemesi ile Sektörel Analizi” TİSK Akademi, 3(6):67-87.
  4. Barro, R. (1988) “The Natural Rate Theory Reconsidered: The Persistence of Unemployment” American Economic Review, 78(2): 32-37.
  5. Blanchard, O. J. ve Summers, L. H. (1986) “Hysteresis and the European Unemployment Problem” NBER Working Paper Series, No.1950.
  6. Blanchard, O. ve Summers, L. (1987) “Hysteresis in Umemployment” European Economic Review, 31(1): 288-95.
  7. 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.
  8. Breusch, T. ve Pagan, A. (1980) “The Lagrange Multiplier Test and Its Application to Model Specifications in Econometrics” Reviews of Economics Studies, 47: 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. Carrion-i-Silverstre, J.L., Del Barrio-Castro, T. ve Lopez-Bazo, E. (2005a) “Breaking the Panels: An Application to the GDP Per Capita”, Econometrics Journal, 8(2):159-175.
  15. Carrion-i-Silverstre, J.L. (2005b) “Health Care Expenditure and GDP: Are They Broken Stationary?” Journal of Health Economics, 24(5):939-854.
  16. Chang, T., Nieh, K.C. ve Wei, C.C. (2005) “An Empirical Note on Testing