Abstract
This paper proposes a novel approach to testing unemployment hysteresis. It examined the existence of hysteresis in the unemployment rates of four Nordic countries, namely Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, for the period of 2000–2014. The study applied four alternative methods to analyse the data. The best estimation procedure was chosen in a simple and consistent way. As the findings indicated, the ADF test and FADF test failed to reject the null hypothesis of unemployment hysteresis in all four countries. The ADF–SB test produced mixed results: it rejected the null hypothesis of hysteresis for Denmark and Norway, but failed to reject the null hypothesis for Finland and Sweden. The FADF–SB test yielded more consistent findings: it rejected the null hypothesis for all four countries. Furthermore, findings from the F-tests clearly indicated that the FADF–SB test was the best method among the four proposed alternatives. Despite some discrepancies the findings of this study suggest that unemployment in the four Nordic countries had a mean reversion tendency.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bai J, Perron P (1998) Estimating and testing linear models with multiple structural changes. Econometrica 66:47–78. doi:10.2307/2998540
Blanchard OJ, Summers LH (1986) Hysteresis in unemployment. In: NBER working paper no. 2035. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge. doi:10.3386/w2035
Bolat S, Tiwari AT, Erdayi AU (2014) Unemployment hysteresis in the Eurozone area: evidences from nonlinear heterogeneous panel unit root test. Appl Econ Lett 21(8):536–540. doi:10.1080/13504851.2013.872755
Breuer JB, McNown R, Wallace MS (2001) Misleading inferences from panel unit-root tests with an illustration from purchasing power parity. Rev Int Econ 9:482–493. doi:10.1111/1467-9396.00294
Brunello G (1990) Hysteresis and the Japanese unemployment problem: a preliminary investigation. Oxf Econ Pap 42(3):483–500. doi:10.2307/2663057
Camarero M, Carrion-i-Silvestre JL, Tamarit C (2005) Unemployment dynamics and NAIRU estimates for accession countries: a univariate approach. J Comp Econ 33(3):584–603. doi:10.1016/j.jce.2005.04.001
Camarero M, Carrion-i-Silvestre JL, Tamarit C (2006) Testing for hysteresis in unemployment in OECD countries: new evidence using stationarity panel tests with breaks. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 68(2):167–182. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0084.2006.00157.x
Camarero M, Tamarit C (2004) Hysteresis vs. natural rate of unemployment: new evidence for OECD countries. Econ Lett 84(3):413–417. doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2004.02.014
Chang T (2011) Hysteresis in unemployment for 17 OECD countries: stationary test with a Fourier function. Econ Model 28(5):2208–2214. doi:10.1016/j.econmod.2011.06.002
Cheng KM, Durmaz N, Kim H, Michael L, Stern ML (2012) Hysteresis vs. natural rate of US unemployment. Econ Model 29(2):428–434. doi:10.1016/j.econmod.2011.11.012
Dickey PA, Fuller WA (1979) Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time-series with a unit root. J Am Stat Assoc 74(366):427–431. doi:10.2307/2286348
Enders W, Lee J (2012) The flexible Fourier form and the Dickey-Fuller type unit root tests. Econ Lett 117(1):196–199. doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2012.04.081
European Commission (2014) Eurostat. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database
European Commission (2016) Eurostat. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database
Fosten J, Ghoshray A (2011) Dynamic persistence in the unemployment rate of OECD countries. Econ Model 28(3):948–954. doi:10.1016/j.econmod.2010.11.007
Friedman M (1968) The role of monetary policy. Am Econ Rev 58(1):1–17. doi:10.2307/1831652
Furuoka F (2014) Are unemployment rates stationary in Asia-Pacific countries? New findings from Fourier ADF test. Ekon Istraz 27(1):34–45. doi:10.1080/1331677X.2014.947105
Im KS, Pesaran MH, Shin Y (2003) Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. J Econom 115:53–74. doi:10.1016/S0304-4076(03)00092-7
Im KS, Lee J, Tieslau M (2005) Panel LM unit root tests with level shifts. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 67(3):393–419. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0084.2005.00125.x
Kwiatkowski D, Phillips PCB, Schmidt P, Shin Y (1992) Testing the null hypothesis of stationary against the alternative of a unit root: how sure are we that economic time series have a unit root? J Econom 54:159–178. doi:10.1016/0304-4076(92)90104-Y
Layard R, Nickell S, Jackman R (2005) Unemployment: macroeconomic performance and the labour market. Oxford University Press, Singapore
Lee CC, Chang CP (2008) Unemployment hysteresis in OECD countries: centurial time series evidence with structural breaks. Econ Model 25(2):312–325. doi:10.1016/j.econmod.2007.06.002
Lee HY, Wu JL, Lin CH (2010) Hysteresis in East Asian unemployment. Appl Econ 42(7):887–898. doi:10.1080/00036840701720895
Lee J, Strazicich MC (2004) Minimum LM unit root test with one structural break. Working Paper no. 04–17. Department of Economics, Appalachian State University
Lee JD, Lee CC, Chang CP (2009) Hysteresis in unemployment revisited: evidence from panel LM unit root tests with heterogeneous structural breaks. Bull Econ Res 61(4):325–334. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8586.2008.00287.x
Leon-Ledesma MA (2002) Unemployment hysteresis in the US states and the EU: a panel approach. Bull Econ Res 54(2):95–103. doi:10.1111/1467-8586.00141
Levin A, Lin CF, Chu C (2002) Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample properties. J Econom 108:1–24. doi:10.1016/S0304-4076(01)00098-7
Lin PC, Huang HC (2012) Convergence in income inequality? Evidence from panel unit root tests with structural breaks. Empir Econ 43:153–174. doi:10.1007/s00181-011-0482-z
Maddala GS, Wu S (1999) A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 61:631–652. doi:10.1111/1468-0084.0610s1631
Mitchell WF (1993) Testing for unit roots and persistence in OECD unemployment rates. Appl Econ 25(12):1489–1501. doi:10.1080/00036849300000153
Neudorfer P, Pichelmann K, Wagner M (1990) Hysteresis, Nairu and long term unemployment in Austria. Empir Econ 15(2):217–229. doi:10.1007/BF01973454
Palm FC, Smeekes S, Urbain JP (2011) Cross-sectional dependence robust block bootstrap panel unit root tests. J Econom 163:85–104. doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2010.11.010
Perron P, Timothy J, Vogelsang TJ (1992) Non-stationarity and level shifts with an application to purchasing power parity. J Bus Econ Stat 10(3):301–320. doi:10.1080/07350015.1992.10509907
Pesaran MH, Smith LV, Yamagata T (2013) Panel unit root tests in the presence of a multifactor error structure. J Econom 175(2):94–115. doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2013.02.001
Røed K (1996) Unemployment hysteresis-macro evidence from 16 OECD countries. Empir Econ 21(4):589–600. doi:10.1007/bf01180703
Smyth R (2003) Unemployment hysteresis in Australian states and territories: evidence from panel data unit root tests. Aust Econ Rev 36(2):181–192. doi:10.1111/1467-8462.00278
Song FM, Wu Y (1998) Hysteresis in unemployment: evidence from OECD countries. Q Rev Econ Finance 38(2):181–191. doi:10.1016/S1062-9769(99)80111-2
Zivot E, Andrews DWK (1992) Further evidence on the great crash, the oil-price shock, and the unit-root hypothesis. J Bus Econ Stat 10(3):251–270. doi:10.1080/07350015.1992.10509904
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The analysis was conducted using the Ox program. The author is grateful to Professor Jurgen A. Doornik of Oxford University for providing OxEdit free of charge for academic purposes. The current study’s data and OxGauss codes are available at: https://sites.google.com/site/fumitakafuruokaswebpage/data-and-oxgauss-codes-ii/paper-22.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Furuoka, F. A new approach to testing unemployment hysteresis. Empir Econ 53, 1253–1280 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-016-1164-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-016-1164-7