SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2014 / Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 3

Analysing Unemployment Hysteresis in Eurozone with the Second Generation Panel Unit Root Tests

Euro Bölgesinde İşsizlik Histerezisinin İkinci Nesil Panel Birim Kök Testleri ile Analizi

Yrd. Doç. Dr. Bülent Doğru
Pages
77–86
Publication Date
2014-09-01
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)

This results reveals that in most of the euro zone’s countries, not hysteria hypothesis but the natural rate of unemployment hypothesis is valid.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This paper tests unemployment hysteresis using second generation panel unit root tests for 12 European Union countries using the Euro as a common currency for the time period 1999-2012.
📊
Key Findings & Data:For the other 9 countries, the unemployment series is stationary; the existence of the hysteresis effect in unemployment is not accepted.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This results reveals that in most of the euro zone’s countries, not hysteria hypothesis but the natural rate of unemployment hypothesis is valid.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2012 Verileri
⚙️Variables:İşsizlik histerisi · SURADF · CADF

Abstract

This paper tests unemployment hysteresis using second generation panel unit root tests for 12 European Union countries using the Euro as a common currency for the time period 1999-2012. The analyzes are performed with SURADF and CADF panel unit root test taking into account the cross-sectional dependence between individuals. The empirical findings of SURADF test indicate the effect of hysteria for countries Portugal, Greece and Austria, and the empirical findings of CADF test indicate the effect of hysteria for countries Greece, Ireland and Austria. Namely, unemployment series of these countries are not stationary, they contain unit root. For the other 9 countries, the unemployment series is stationary; the existence of the hysteresis effect in unemployment is not accepted. In these countries, temporary shocks do not leave lasting effects. Shocks do not lead to structural transformations on employment. This results reveals that in most of the euro zone’s countries, not hysteria hypothesis but the natural rate of unemployment hypothesis is valid.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı 1999 yılından beri ortak para birimi Euro’yu kullanan 12 AB ülkesinin işsizlik oranlarının histerezis etkisi gösterip göstermediğini yani durağan olup olmadıkları 1980-2012 arası dönemde ikinci nesil panel birim kök testleri ile analiz etmektir. Çalışmada yatay kesit bağımlılığını dikkate alan SURADF ve CADF panel birim kök testleri ile analiz yapılmıştır. Elde edilen ampirik bulgulara Yunanistan, İrlanda ve Avusturya için SURADF testi; Portekiz, Yunanistan ve Avusturya için ise CADF testi histeri etkisine işaret etmektedir. Yani bu ülkelerin işsizlik serileri durağan değildir, birim kök içermektedir. Diğer 9 ülkede işsizlik serileri durağandır, işsizlikte histeri etkisinin varlığı kabul edilmemektedir. Bu ülkelerde geçici şoklar kalıcı etkiler bırakmamaktadır. Şoklar, istihdamda yapısal dönüşümlere yol açmamaktadır. Bu sonuçlar Euro bölgesinin çoğunda histeri önsavının değil, doğal işsizlik oranı önsavının geçerli olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Doğru, Y. D. D. B. (2014). Analysing Unemployment Hysteresis in Eurozone with the Second Generation Panel Unit Root Tests. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 3, 77–86. https://ajindex.com/articles/9393

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Ayala, A. (2012). Unemployment Hysteresis: Empirical Evidence for Latin America, Journal of Applied Economics, Vol XV, No. 2, 213-233
  2. Arestis, P., Mariscal, I. (2000). OECD Unemployment: Structural Breaks and Stationarity. Applied Economics, 32 (4), 399-403.
  3. Barışık, S., Çevik, E. İ. (2008). İşsizlikte Histeri Etkisi: Uzun Hafıza Modelleri. Kamu İş, 9(4), 1-36
  4. Blanchard, O.J., Summers, L. (1986). Hysteresis and the European unemployment problem. In: S. Fischer (ed.), NBER Macroeconomics Annual, Cambridge, MIT Press.
  5. Becker, R., Enders, W., Lee, J. (2006). A stationarity test in the presence of an unknown number of smooth breaks. Journal of Time Series Analysis 27 (3), 381–409
  6. Breuer, B., McNown, R., Wallace, M. (2002). Seriesspecific unit root test with panel data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 64, 527–46.
  7. Breusch, T. and Pagan, A. (1980) The Lagrange multiplier test and its application to model specifications in econometrics. Reviews of Economics Studies, 47, 239–53.
  8. Brunello, G. (1990). Hysteresis and “the Japanese unemployment problem”: a preliminary investigation. Oxford Economic Papers, 42(3), 483-500.
  9. Camarero, M., Tamarıt, C. (2004). Hysteresis vs. natural rate of unemployment: new evidence for OECD countries. Economics Letters, 84(3), 413-417.
  10. Camarero, M., Carrion‐i‐Silvestre, J. L., 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(2), 167-182.
  11. Chang, T., Nieh, K.C., Wei, C.C. (2005). An empirical note on testing hysteresis in unemployment for ten European countries: panel SURADF approach. Applied Economics Letters 12, 881–886.
  12. Chang, T. ( 2011). Hysteresis in unemployment for 17 OECD countries: Stationary test with a Fourier function. ScienceDirect Economic Modelling, 28, 2208-2214
  13. Christopoulos, D.K., Leon-Ledesma M. (2007). Unemployment Hysteresis in EU Countries: What do We Really Know About it? Journal of Economic Studies, 34(2), 80-89.
  14. Choi, I. (2001). Unit roots tests for panel data. Journal of International Money and Finance, 20, 229–72.
  15. Ener, M. And Arıca, F. (2011). Unemployment Hysteresis in Turkey and 15 EU Countries: A Panel Approach. RJEBI, Volume 1, 65-71
  16. Feve, P., Henin, P. Y., Jolivaldt, P. (2003). Testing for hysteresis: unemployment persistence and wage adjustment. Empirical Economics, 28(3), 535-552.
  17. Friedman, M. (1968). The Role of Monetary Policy. American Economic Review, 58, 1–