KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Sosyoekonomi / 2013 / Cilt: 20 - Sayı: 20

Institutional Rigidities and Their Effects on Labor Demand in Turkey

Selçuk GÜL
Sayfa
—
Yayın Tarihi
2013-09-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Estimates in which the openness variable is included show that openness effects labour demand in negative direction.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:This study analyzes the effects of one of the institutional rigidities in Turkish labour market; job security regulations introduced with new labour code legislated in 2003, on the labour demand.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:By examining the periods before and after the year 2003 with panel data methods, the changes in the responsiveness of labour demand to the changes in labour costs are investigated.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Estimates in which the openness variable is included show that openness effects labour demand in negative direction.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:2003 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Özet

This study analyzes the effects of one of the institutional rigidities in Turkish labour market; job security regulations introduced with new labour code legislated in 2003, on the labour demand. By examining the periods before and after the year 2003 with panel data methods, the changes in the responsiveness of labour demand to the changes in labour costs are investigated. In the study in which TURKSTAT Manufacturing Industry Statistics are used, it is found that the responsiveness of labour demand to the changes in labour costs increased after 2003. It is concluded that the labour costs and job security regulations which influence these costs indirectly are effective on the hiring and firing decisions of employers. When a distinctive analysis based on gender is made, it is found that while the results related demand for male workers are similar with the total demand estimates; the demand for female workers does not have a significant response to the changes in labour costs. Estimates in which the openness variable is included show that openness effects labour demand in negative direction.

Abstract

This study analyzes the effects of one of the institutional rigidities in Turkish labour market; job security regulations introduced with new labour code legislated in 2003, on the labour demand. By examining the periods before and after the year 2003 with panel data methods, the changes in the responsiveness of labour demand to the changes in labour costs are investigated. In the study in which TURKSTAT Manufacturing Industry Statistics are used, it is found that the responsiveness of labour demand to the changes in labour costs increased after 2003. It is concluded that the labour costs and job security regulations which influence these costs indirectly are effective on the hiring and firing decisions of employers. When a distinctive analysis based on gender is made, it is found that while the results related demand for male workers are similar with the total demand estimates; the demand for female workers does not have a significant response to the changes in labour costs. Estimates in which the openness variable is included show that openness effects labour demand in negative direction.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

GÜL, S. (2013). Institutional Rigidities and Their Effects on Labor Demand in Turkey. Sosyoekonomi, Cilt: 20 - Sayı: 20. https://ajindex.com/articles/139762

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (14)

  1. Abraham, K.G. & S.N. Houseman (1993), “Does employment Protection Inhibit Labor Market Flexibility? Lessons from Germany, France and Belgium”, Upjohn Institute Working Paper, No. 93-16,, 15.10.2010.
  2. Baltagi, B.H. (2005), Econometric Analysis of Panel Data, 3ed, West Sussex: John Wiley. Bentolila, S., J.J. Dolado, W. Franz and C. Pissarides (1994), “Labor flexibility and wages: Lessons from Spain”, Economic Policy, 9(18), 53-99.
  3. Besley, T. and R. Burgess (2004), “Can Labor Regulation Hinder Economic Performance? Evidence from India”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119(1), 91-134.
  4. Burgess, S., M. Knetter and C. Michealacci (2000), “Employment and Output Adjustment in the OECD: A Disaggregate Analysis of the Role of Job Security Provisions”, Economica, New Series, 67(267), 419-435.
  5. Daniel, K. and W.S. Siebert (2005), “Does Employment Protection Reduce the Demand for Unskilled Labor?”, International Economic Journal, 19(2), 197-222.
  6. Di Tella, R. and R. MacCulloch (2005), “The consequences of labor market flexibility: Panel evidence based on survey data”, European Economic Review, 49, 1225–1259.
  7. Downes, A.S., N. Mamingi and R.M.B. Antoine (2000), “Labor Market Regulation and Employment in the Caribbean”, Inter-American Development Bank Working Paper, No 388. Fallon, P.R. and R.E.B. Lucas (1991), “The Impact of Changes in Job Security Regulations in India and Zimbabwe”, The World Bank Economic Review, 5(3), 395-413.
  8. Feldmann, H. (2009), “The Unemployment Effects of Labor Regulation around the World”, Journal of Comparative Economics, 37, 76–90.
  9. Garibaldi, P., L. Pacelli and A. Borgarello (2003), “Employment Protection Legislation and the Size of Firms”, IZA Discussion Papers, No 787,, 16.10.2010.
  10. Günçavdı, Ö. and S. Küçükçifçi (2000), “Açık bir ekonomide sektörel emek yoğunluklarının hesaplanması”, ODTÜ Gelişme Dergisi, 27 (1-2), 133-148.
  11. Hausman, J.A. (1978), “Specification tests in econometrics”, Econometrica, 46, 1251-1271.
  12. Heckman, J.J. and C. Pages (2000). “The cost of job security regulation: Evidence from Latin American Countries”, Inter-American Development Bank Working Paper, No 430. ILO, (2010), Employment protection legislation database – EPLex,, 15.12.2012.
  13. Lazear, E. (1990), “Job Security Provisions and Employment”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 105(3), 699-726.
  14. Mondino, G. and S. Montoya (2000), “The Effects of Labor Market Regulations on Employment Decisions by Firms: Empirical Evidence for Argentina”, Inter-American Development Bank