DOĞAL İŞSİZLİK ORANI MI YOKSA; İŞSİZLİK HİSTERİSİ Mİ?: OECD ÜLKELERİ İÇİN YENİ NESİL PANEL BİRİM KÖK TESTLERİNDEN KANITLAR (1980-2015)

Year 2017, Volume: 17 Issue: 33, 1 - 18, 27.04.2017

Ömer Yalçınkaya , Vedat Kaya

https://doi.org/10.30976/susead.327631

Cited By: 12

Abstract

Enflasyon ve işsizlik oranı arasındaki ilişkiyi Phillips Eğrisi ile açıklayan Keynesyen yaklaşımın aksine günümüzde işsizlik oranının dinamikleri daha çok doğal işsizlik oranı ve işsizlik histerisi hipotezleri üzerinden değerlendirilmektedir. Bu çalışmada uzun dönem işsizlik oranlarının doğal işsizlik veya işsizlik histerisi hipotezlerinden hangisi ile açıklanabilir olduğu, yatay kesit bağımlılığını dikkate alan yeni nesil panel birim kök testleri ile 28 OECD üyesi ülke için 1980-2015 dönemi verilerinden hareketle incelenmektedir. Ayrıca bu ülkelerde işsizlik oranı serisinin durağanlığı yapısal kırılmaları dikkate alan ve almayan yeni nesil panel birim kök testleriyle panel geneli ve paneli oluşturan yatay kesit birimler için ayrı ayrı araştırılmaktadır. Elde edilen bulgular; ülkelerin büyük bölümünde, yapısal kırılmaları dikkate almayan panel birim kök testlerinin işsizlik histerisi hipotezini ve yapısal kırılmaları dikkate alan panel birim kök testlerinin ise doğal işsizlik oranı hipotezini desteklediği belirlenmiştir. Bu durum, ele alınan dönem itibariyle söz konusu ülkelerde önemli makro iktisadi şokların meydana geldiğini, ancak bu şokların işsizlik oranı üzerindeki etkilerinin kalıcı nitelikte olmadığını ortaya koymaktadır.

Keywords

OECD Ülkeleri, Doğal İşsizlik Oranı, İşsizlik Histerisi, Yeni Nesil Panel Birim Kök Testleri

References

• ARESTIS, Philip ve Iris Biefang-Frisancho Mariscal (2000). “OECD Unemployment: Structural Breaks and Stationarity”, Applied Economics, 32 (4), ss. 399-403.
• ARI, Ayşe, Fatma Zeren ve BurcuÖzcan (2013). “Doğu Asya ve Pasifik Ülkelerinde İşsizlik Histerisi: Panel Veri Yaklaşimi”, İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 35(2), ss. 105-122.
• AYALA, Astrid, Juncal Cuñado ve Luis Albériko Gil-Alana (2012). “Unemployment Hysteresis: Empirical Evidence for Latin America”. Journal of Applied Economics, 15(2), pp. 213-233.
• BARIŞIK, Salih ve İ. Emrah Çevik (2008). “Türkiye’de İşsizlik Histerisinin Yapısal Kırılma ve Güçlü Hafıza Modellemesi ile Sektörel Analizi”, TİSK Akademi, 3(6), ss. 67-87.
• BLANCHARD, Olivier J., ve Lawrance H. Summers (1986). “Hysteresis and The European Unemployment Problem”, NBER Macroeconomics Annual 1986, Volume 1. Mit Press, pp. 15-90.
• BREITUNG, Jörg, (2005). “A Parametric Approach to The Estimation of Cointegration Vectors in Panel Data”, Econometric Reviews, 24(2), pp. 151-173.
• BREUER, Boucher, Robert McNown ve Myles Wallace (2001). “Misleading Inference form Panel Unit Root Tests with an Illustration from Purchasing Power Parity”, Review of International Economics, 9(3), pp. 482-493.
• BRUNELLO, Giorgio (1990). “Hysteresis and “the Japanese Unemployment Problem”: A Preliminary Investiga¬tion”, Oxford Economic Papers, 42(3), pp. 483-500.
• CAMARERO, Mariam, Josep L. Carrion-i-Silvestre ve Cecilio Tamarit (2008). “Unemployment Hysteresis in Transition Countries: Evidence using Stationarity Panel Tests with Breaks”, Review of Development Economics, 12(3), pp. 620-635.
• CAMARERO, Mariam, Josep L. Carrion-i-Silvestre ve Cecilio Tamarit (2006). “Testing for Hysteresis in Unemployment in OECD Countries: New Evidence using Stationarity Panel Tests with Breaks”. Oxford Bulletin of Econo¬mics and Statistics, 68(2), pp. 167-182.
• CAMARERO, Mariam ve Cecilio Tamarit. (2004). "Hysteresis vs. Natural Rate of Unemployment: New Evidence for OECD Countries”, Economics Letters, 84(3), pp. 413-417.
• CARRION-I-SILVESTRE, J. LLUÍS, Barrio-Castro, T. D., ve Lopez-Bazo E. (2005). “BreakingthePanels: An Application tothe GDP Per Capita”, EconometricsJournal, 8(2), pp. 159-175.
• CHANG, Tsangyao ( 2011). “Hysteresis in Unemployment for 17 OECD Countries: Stationary Test with a Fouri¬er Function”, Economic Modelling, 28(5), pp. 2208-2214.
• CHANG, T., Lee, K. C. Nieh ve C. C. Wei (2005). “An Empirical Note on Testing Hysteresis in Unemployment for Ten European Countries: Panel SURADF Approach”, Applied Economics Letters12(14), pp. 881-886.
• CHOU, Hsi Chiung ve Yi-.Chung ZHANG (2012). “Unemployment Hysteresis in G20 Countries: Evidence from Non-Linear Panel Unit-Root Tests”, African Journal of Business Management, 6(49), pp. 11887-11890.
• CUESTAS, Juan C. ve Luis A. Gil-Alana (2011). “Unemployment Hyste-resis,Structural Changes, Non-linearities and Fractional Integration in European Transition Economies”, Department of Economics, University of Sheffield, Sheffield Economic Research Paper Series 2011005. http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/42872/1/SERPS2011005.pdf (15.07.2016).
• DRITSAKI, Chaido ve Melina Dritsaki (2013). "Hysteresis in Unemployment: An Empirical Research for Three Member States of The European Union." Theoretical and Applied Economics, 20(4), pp. 35-46.
• ENER, Meliha ve Feyza Arıca (2011). “Unemployment Hysteresis in Turkey and 15 EU Countries: A Panel Approach”, Research Journal of Economics, Business and ICT, Volume 1, pp. 65-71
• FURUOKA, Fumitaka (2014). “Unemployment Hysteresis in Central Asia”,Munich Personal RePEc Archive, MPRA Paper No: 60323, https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/60323/. (07.7.2016)
• GRAY, David (2004). “Persistent Regional Unemployment Differentials Revisited”, Regional Studies, 38(2), pp. 167-176.
• GÜLOĞLU, Bülent ve M. Serdar İspir (2011). “Doğal İssizlik Oranı mı? İşsizlik Histerisi mi? Türkiye için Sektörel Panel Birim Kök Sınaması Analizi”, Ege Academic Review, 11(2), ss.205-215.
• GUSTAVSSON, Magnus ve Pär Österholm (2010). “The Presence of Unemployment Hysteresis in the OECD: What Can We Learn from out-of-Sample Forecasts?”, Empirical Economics, 38(3), pp.779-792.
• HADRI, Kaddour ve Eiji Kurozumi (2012). “A Simple Panel Stationarity Test in The Presence of Serial Correlation and A Common Factor”, Economics Letters, 115(1), pp. 31-34.
• HADRİ, Kaddour (2000). “TestingforStationarity in Heterogeneous Panel Data”, TheEconometricsJournal,3(2), pp. 148-161.
• IM, K. So, M. Hashem Pesaran ve Yongcheol Shin (2003). “Testing for Unit Roots in Heterogeneous Panels”, Journal of Econometrics, 115(1), pp. 53-74.
• JOHANSEN, Kåre (2002). “Hysteresis in Unemployment: Evidence from Norwegian Counties”, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Department of Economics Working Paper Series No. 6/2002, http://www.svt.ntnu.no/iso/WP/2002/6hysterwp.pdf,. (01.07.2016)
• JONES, David R. ve D. N. Manning (1992). “Long Term Unemployment, Hysteresis and The Unemployment-Vacancy Relationship: A Regional Analysis”, Regional Studies, 26(1), pp. 17-29.
• KHRAIEF, Naceur., Muhammad Qaiser Shahbaz, Almas Heshmati ve Muhammad A. Azam (2015). “Are Unemployment Rates in OECD Countries Stationary? Evidence from Univariate and Panel Unit Root Tests”, IZA Discussion Paper No: 9571.
• LEE, Chien Chiang ve Chun-Ping Chang (2008). “Unemployment Hysteresis in OECD Countries: Centurial Time Series Evidence with Structural Breaks”,Economic Modelling, 25(2), pp. 312-325.
• LEE, Hsiu Yun.; Jyh Lin Wu ve Chiung H. Lin (2010). “Hysteresis in East Asian Unemployment”, Applied Economics, 42(7), pp. 887-898.
• LEE, Jun D., Chien C. LEE ve Chun P. Chang (2009). “Hysteresis in Unemployment Revisited: Evidence from Panel LM Unit Root Tests with Heterogeneous Structural Breaks”, Bulletin of Economic Research, 61(4), pp. 325-334.
• LEON-LEDESMA, Miguel. A. ve McAdam, Peter (2004). “Unemployment, Hysteresis and Transition”, Scottish Journal o f Political Economy, 51(3), pp. 377-401.
• LEVIN, Andrew, Chien Fu Lin ve Chia-Shang James Chu (2002). “Unit Root Tests in Panel Data: Asymptotic and Finite-Sample Properties”, Journal of Econometrics, 108(1), pp. 1-24.
• MEDNIK, Matias, , César Rodriguez ve Inder J. Ruprah (2008). “Hysteresis in Unemployment: Evidence from Latin America”, Inter-American Development Bank Office of Evaluation and Oversight Working Paper: OVE/WP-04/08.
• MIKHAIL, Ossama, Curtis J. Eberwein ve Jagdish Handa. (2003). “The Measurement of Persistence and Hysteresis in Aggregate Unemployment”, University of Central Florida, Orlando, http://econwpa.repec.org/eps/mhet/papers/0311/0311002.pdf. (02.07.2016).
• MITCHELL, William F. (1993). “Testing for Unit Roots and Persistence in OECD Unemployment Rates”, Applied Econometrics, 25(12), pp. 1489-1501.
• MOHAN, Ramesh, Francis Kemegue ve Fahlino Sjuib (2008). “Hystere-sis In Unemployment: Panel Unit Roots Tests Using State Level Data”, Journal of Business & Economics Research, 6(2), pp. 53-60.
• MURRAY, Christian J. ve David H. Pappell (2001). Testing for Unit Roots in Panels in The Presence Of Structural Change with An Application to OECD Unemployment, Ed: Badi H. Baltagi, Thomas B. Fomby ve R. Carter Hill, Nonstationary Panels,Panel Cointegration, and Dynamic Panels (Advances in Econometrics,Volume 15), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 223-238.
• ÖZCAN, Burcu (2012). “İşsizlik Histerisi Hipotezi OECD Ülkeleri İçin Geçerli mi? Yapısal Kırılmalı Birim Kök Analizi”, Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 40, ss. 95-117.
• PESARAN, M. Hashem, Aman Ullah ve TakashiYamagata (2008). “A Bias‐Adjusted LM Test of Error Cross‐SectionIndependence”, TheEconometricsJournal, 11(1), pp. 105-127.
• PESARAN, M. Hashem (2007). “A Simple Panel UnitRoot Test in The Presence of Cross‐SectionDependence”, Journal of AppliedEconometrics, 22(2), pp. 265-312.
• RØED, Knut. (1996). “Unemployment Hysteresis Macro Evidence from 16 OECD Countries”, Empirical Economics, 21(4), pp. 589-600.
• SONG, Frank M ve Yangru Wu (1998). “Hysteresis Unemployment: Evidence from OECD Countries”, The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 38(2), pp. 181-192.
• STRAZICICH, Mark C. Margie, Tieslau ve Junsoo Lee (2001). “Hysteresis in Unemployment? Evidence from Panel Unit Root Test with Structural Change”, University of North Texas Working Paper, No.01-08.
• TARTICI, Melis (2015). “A Reinvestigation of the Hysteresis Hypothesis in the OECD Countries,” Econometrics Letters, 2(1), pp. 22-40.
• TAYLOR, Mark P., ve Lucio Sarno (1998). “The Behavior of Real Exchange Rates During The Post-Bretton Woods Period”, Journal of International Economics, 46(2), pp. 281-312.
• TOKATLIOĞLU, İbrahim, Fahriye Öztürk ve Hakan Naim Ardor (2014). “AB Ülkeleri ve Türkiye İşgücü Piyasasında Histeri Etkisi: RATCHET Modeli Analizi”, Sosyoekonomi, 22, ss. 298.320.
• YILANCI, Veli (2009). “Yapısal Kırılmalar Altında Türkiye İçin İşsizlik Histerisinin Sınanması, Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi”, 10(2), ss. 324-335.
• YILDIRIM, Kemal, Doğan Karaman ve Murat Taşdemir (2013). Makro Ekonomi, 11. Baskı, Seçkin Yayıncılık, Ankara.