Is It the Natural Rate Hypothesis or the Hysteresis Hypothesis for Unemployment Rates in Newly Industrialized Economies?

• Authors: Dieu Nsenga , Mirada Nach , Hlalefang Khobai , Clement Moyo , Andrew Phiri

Title variants

Czy stopy bezrobocia w gospodarkach nowo uprzemysłowionych kształtują się zgodnie z hipotezą stopy naturalnej czy z hipotezą histerezy?

• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The focus of our study is on determining whether unemployment rates in 8 New Industrialized Economies conform to the natural rate hypothesis or the hysteresis hypothesis. To this end, we employ a variety of unit of unit root testing procedures to quarterly data collected between 2002:q1 and 2017:q1. Summarizing of our findings, conventional unit root tests which account neither for asymmetries nor structural breaks produce the most inconclusive results. On the other hand, tests which incorporate structural breaks while ignoring asymmetries tends to favour the natural rate hypothesis for our panel of countries. However, simultaneously accounting for asymmetries and unobserved structural breaks seemingly produces the most robust findings and confirms hysteresis in all unemployment rates except for Asian economies/countries of Thailand and the Philippines.

PL

Celem badania było ustalenie czy stopy bezrobocia w 8 gospodarkach nowo uprzemysłowionych kształtują się zgodnie z hipotezą stopy naturalnej czy z hipotezą histerezy. W tym celu zastosowano wiele rodzajów testów pierwiastka jednostkowego w odniesieniu danych kwartalnych zebranych między 1 kwartałem 2002 a 1 kwartałem 2017. Podsumowując ustalenia można stwierdzić, że konwencjonalne testy pierwiastka jednostkowego, które nie uwzględniają ani asymetrii, ani zmian strukturalnych, dają najbardziej niejednoznaczne wyniki. Z drugiej strony, testy uwzględniające zmiany strukturalne przy zignorowaniu asymetrii potwierdzałyby hipotezę stopy naturalnej dla przyjętego panelu państw. Jednak jednoczesne uwzględnienie asymetrii i niezauważalnych zmian strukturalnych wydaje się dawać najbardziej wiarygodne wyniki i potwierdza histerezę w przypadku stóp bezrobocia wszystkich państw, za wyjątkiem gospodarek/państw azjatyckich: Tajlandii i Filipin.

Keywords

EN

natural rate hypothesis; hysteresis hypothesis; unemployment; unit root tests; Fourier function approximation; newly industrialized economies

PL

hipoteza stopy naturalnej; hipoteza histerezy; bezrobocie; testy pierwiastka jednostkowego; aproksymacja Fouriera; gospodarki nowo uprzemysłowione; hipoteza stopy naturalnej; hipoteza histerezy; bezrobocie; testy pierwiastka jednostkowego; aproksymacja Fouriera; gospodarki nowo uprzemysłowione

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Łódzki. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego
• Journal: Comparative Economic Research. Central and Eastern Europe
• Year: 2019
• Volume: 22
• Issue: 4
• Pages: 39-55

Dates

published

2019-12-30

Contributors

author

Dieu Nsenga

• Nelson Mandela University, Department of Economics, Faculty of Business and Economic Studies, Port Elisabeth, South Africa

author

Mirada Nach

• Nelson Mandela University, Department of Economics, Faculty of Business and Economic Studies, Port Elisabeth, South Africa

author

Hlalefang Khobai

• Ph.D., Senior lecturer, North West University, Department of Economics Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences, Port Elisabeth, South Africa

author

Clement Moyo

• Ph.D., post‑doctorate researcher, Nelson Mandela University, Department of Economics, Faculty of Business and Economic Studies, Port Elisabeth, South Africa

author

Andrew Phiri

• Ph.D., Senior lecturer, Nelson Mandela University, Department of Economics, Faculty of Business and Economic Studies, Port Elisabeth, South Africa

References

• Albulescu, C., Tiwari, A. (2018), Unemployment hysteresis in EU countries: New evidence using bounded unit root tests, “Applied Economic Letters”, 25 (12), pp. 807–810.
• Ayala, A., Cunado, J. and Gil‑Alana, L. (2012), Unemployment hysteresis: Empirical evidence for Latin America, “Journal of Applied Economics”, 15 (2), pp. 213–233.
• Bahmani‑Oskooee, M., Chang, T. and Ranjbar, O. (2018), Testing hysteresis effect in U.S. state unemployment: New evidence using a nonlinear quantile unit root test, Applied Economics Letters, 25 (4), pp. 249–253.
• Bakas, D., Papapetrou, E. (2014), Unemployment in Greece: Evidence from Greek regions using panel unit root tests, “The Quarterly Review of Economic and Finance”, 54 (4), pp. 551–562.
• Becker, R., Enders, W. and Lee, J. (2006), A stationarity test in the presence of an unknown number of smooth breaks, “Journal of Time Series Analysis”, 27 (3), pp. 381–409.
• Blanchard, O. and Summers, L. (1986), Hysteresis and the European unemployment problem, “NBER Macroeconomic Annual”, Vol. 1, MIT Press, Cambridge.
• Bolat, S., Tiwari, A. and Erdayi, A. (2014), Unemployment hysteresis in the Eurozone are: evidences from nonlinear heterogeneous panel unit root test, “Applied Economics Letters”, 21 (8), pp. 536–540.
• Brunello, G. (1990), Hysteresis and “the Japanese unemployment problem”: A preliminary investigation, Oxford Economic Papers, 42, pp. 483–500.
• Chang, T., Yang, M., Liao, H. and Lee, C. (2007), Hysteresis in unemployment: Evidence from Taiwan’s region data based on panel unit root tests, “Applied Economics”, 39 (10), pp. 1335–1340.
• Cheng, S., Wu, T., Lee, K. and Chang, T. (2014), Flexible Fourier unit root test on unemployment for PIIGS countries, “Economic Modelling”, 36(C), pp. 142–148.
• Christopoulos, D. and Leon‑Ledesma, M. (2010), Smooth breaks and non‑linear mean reversion: Post‑Bretton Woods real exchange rates, “Journal of International Money and Finance”, 29 (6), pp. 1076–1093.
• Cuestas, J., Gil‑Alana, L. and Staehr, K. (2011), A further investigation of unemployment persistence in European transition economies, “Journal of Comparative Economics”, 39 (4), pp. 514–532.
• Davies, R. (1987), Hypothesis testing when a nuisance parameter is present only under the alternative, “Biometrika”, 74 (1), pp. 33–43.
• Enders, W. and Lee, J. (2012), The flexible Fourier form and Dickey‑Fuller type unit root tests, Economic “Letters”, 117, pp. 196–199.
• Friedman, M. (1968), The role of monetary policy, “American Economic Review”, 58 (1), pp. 213–217.
• Friedman, M. (1977), Nobel lecture: Inflation and unemployment, “The Journal of Political Economy”, 85 (3), pp. 451–472.
• Furoka, F. (2014), Are unemployment rates stationary in Asia‑Pacific countries? New findings from Fourier ADF test, “Economic Research‑Ekonomska Istrazivanja”, 27 (1), pp. 34–45.
• Furoka, F. (2017), A new test for analysis hysteresis in European unemployment, “Applied Economic Letters”, 24 (15), pp. 1102–1106.
• Galliant, R. (1981), On the basis in flexible functional form and an essentially unbiased form: the flexible Fourier form, “Journal of Econometrics”, 15 (2), pp. 211–245.
• Garcia‑Cintado, A., Romero‑Avila, D. and Usabiaga, C. (2015), Can the hysteresis hypothesis in Spanish regional unemployment be beaten? New evidence from unit root tests with breaks, “Economic Modelling”, 47, pp. 244–252.
• Gomes, F. and da Silva, C. (2008), Hysteresis vs natural rate of unemployment in Brazil and Chile, “Applied Economic Letters”, 15 (1), pp. 53–56.
• Gustavsson, M. and Osterholm, P. (2006), Hysteresis and non‑linearities in unemployment rates, Applied “Economics Letters”, 13 (9), pp. 545–548.
• Hall, R. (1979), A theory of the natural unemployment rate and the duration of unemployment, “Journal of Monetary Economics”, 5, pp. 153–170.
• Kapetanios, G., Shin, Y. and Snell, A. (2003), Testing for a unit root in the nonlinear STAR framework, “Journal of Econometrics”, 112 (2), pp. 359–379.
• Kruse, R. (2009), A new unit root test against ESTAR based on a class of modified statistics, “Statistical Papers”, 52 (1), pp. 71–85.
• Lanzafame, M. (2010), The nature of regional unemployment in Italy, “Empirical Economics”, 39, pp. 877–895.
• Lee, C. (2010), Testing for unemployment hysteresis in nonlinear heterogeneous panels: International evidence, “Economic Modelling”, 27 (5), pp. 1097–1102.
• Lee, J. and Strazicich, M. (2004), Minimum Lagrange multiplier unit root with two structural breaks, “The Review of Economics and Statistics”, 85 (4), pp. 1082–1089.
• Lee, J. and Strazicich, M. (2013), Minimum LM unit root with one structural break, “Economics Bulletin”, 33 (4), pp. 2483–2493.
• Leon‑Ledesma, M. and McAdam, P. (2004), Unemployment, hysteresis and transition, “Scottish Journal of Political Economy”, 51 (3), pp. 377–401.
• Li, J., Ranjbar, O. and Chang, T. (2017), Unemployment hysteresis n PIIGS countries: A new test with both sharp and smooth breaks, “The Singapore Economic Review”, 62 (5), pp. 1165–177.
• Lindbeck, A. and Snower, D. (1988), Cooperation, harassment, and involuntary unemployment: An insider‑outside appraoch, “America Economic Review”, 78 (1), pp. 167–188.
• Liu, D., Sun, C. and Lin, P. (2012), Hysteresis hypothesis in unemployment and labour force participation rates: Evidence from Australian states and territories, “Australian Economic Papers”, 51 (2), pp. 71–84.
• Lumsdaine, R. and Papell, D. (1997), Multiple trend breaks and the unit‑root hypothesis, “Review of Economics and Statistics”, 79 (2), pp. 212–218.
• Marques, A., Lima, G. and Troster, V. (2017), Unemployment persistence in OECD countries after the Great Recession, “Economic Modelling”, 64, pp. 105–116.
• Mednik, M., Rodriguez, C. and Ruprah, I. (2012), Hysteresis in unemployment: Evidence from Latin America, “Journal of International Development”, 24 (4), pp. 448–466.
• Meng, M., Strazicich, M. and Lee, J. (2017), Hysteresis in unemployment? Evidence from linear nonlinear unit root tests and tests with non‑normal errors, “Empirical Economics”, 53 (4), pp. 1399–1414.
• Mitchell, W. (1993), Testing for unit roots and persistence in OECD unemployment rates, “Applied Economics”, 25 (12), pp. 1489–1501.
• Nelson, C. and Plosse, C. (1982), Trends and random walks in macroeconomic time series: Some evidence and implications, “Journal of Monetary Economics”, 10 (2), pp. 139–162.
• Perron, P. (1989), The great crash, the oil price shock, and the unit root hypothesis, “Econometrica”, 57 (6), pp. 1361–1401.
• Phelps, E. (1967), Phillips curves, expectations of inflation and optimal unemployment over time, “Economica”, 34 (135), pp. 254–281.
• Phelps, E. (1968), Money‑wage dynamics and labor‑market equilibrium, “Journal of Political Economy”, 76 (4), pp. 678–711.
• Phillips, A. (1958), The relation between unemployment and the rate of change of money wage rates in the United Kingdom, 1861–1957, “Economica”, 25 (100), pp. 283–299.
• Rodrigues, P. and Taylor, R. (2012), The flexible Fourier form and local generalized least squares de‑trending unit root tests, “Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics”, 74 (5), 7, pp. 36–759.
• Roed, K. (1996), Unemployment hysteresis – Macro evidence from 16 OECD countries, “Empirical Economics”, 21 (4), pp. 589–600.
• Song, F. and Wu, Y. (1997), Hysteresis in unemployment: Evidence from 48 U.S. states, “Economic Inquiry”, 35 (2), pp. 235–243.
• Song, F. and Wu, Y. (1998), Hysteresis in unemployment: Evidence from OECD countries, “The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance”, 38 (2), pp. 181–192.
• Smyth, R. (2003), Unemployment hysteresis in Australian states and territories: Evidence from panel data unit root tests, “Australian Economic Review”, 36 (2), pp. 181–192.
• Ucar, N. and Omay, T. (2009), Testing for unit root in nonlinear heterogeneous panels, “Economic Letters”, 104 (1), pp. 5–8.
• Yilanci, V. (2008), Are unemployment rates non‑stationary or non‑linear? Evidence from 19 OECD countries, “Economic Bulletin”, 3 (47), pp. 1–5.
• Zivot, E. and Andrews, Donald W.K. (1992), Further evidence on the Great Crash, the oil‑price shock, and the unit‑root hypothesis, “Journal of Business and Economic Statistics”, 10 (3), pp. 251–270.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/cer-2019-0031