Startseite Is unemployment on steroids in advanced economies?
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Is unemployment on steroids in advanced economies?

  • Gabriel Di Bella , Francesco Grigoli ORCID logo EMAIL logo und Francisco Ramírez
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 29. Juni 2019

Abstract

Conventional macroeconomic theory is based on the idea that demand shocks can only have temporary effects on unemployment, however several European economies display highly persistent unemployment dynamics. The theory of hysteresis points out that, under certain conditions, demand disturbances can have permanent effects. We find strong evidence of unemployment hysteresis in advanced economies since the 1990s. Relying on an identification scheme instigated by an insider/outsider model, we exploit the heterogeneity in impulse responses to demand shocks to investigate what labor institutions soften or amplify these responses. Our results indicate that strengthening labor institutions that promote a faster adjustment of real wages, removing disincentives for firms to hire and for workers to be employed, and improving the matching between labor supply and demand can lessen the effects of adverse demand shocks and lead to a faster reversion of unemployment rates to pre-shock levels.

JEL Classification: E24; E31; E32

References

Amisano, Gianni, and Massimiliano Serati. 2003. “What Goes Up Some-times Stays Up: Shocks and Institutions as Determinants of Unemployment Persistence.” Scottish Journal of Political Economy 50 (4): 440–470.10.1111/1467-9485.5004005Suche in Google Scholar

Ball, Laurence, Brad DeLong, and Larry Summers. 2014. Fiscal Policy and Full Employment.Suche in Google Scholar

Ball, Laurence M. 2009. “Hysteresis in Unemployment: Old and New Evidence.” In National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 14818.10.3386/w14818Suche in Google Scholar

Balmaseda, Manuel, Juan José Dolado, and J David Lopez-Salido. 2000. “The Dynamic Effects of Shocks to Labour Markets: Evidence from OECD Countries.” Oxford Economic Papers 52 (1): 3–23.10.1093/oep/52.1.3Suche in Google Scholar

Blanchard, Olivier J. 2018. “Should We Reject the Natural Rate Hypothesis?” Journal of Economic Perspectives 32 (1): 97–120.10.1257/jep.32.1.97Suche in Google Scholar

Blanchard, Olivier J., and Lawrence H. Summers. 1987. “Hysteresis in Unemployment.” European Economic Review 31 (1-2): 288–295.10.1016/0014-2921(87)90042-0Suche in Google Scholar

Blanchard, Olivier J., and Justin Wolfers. 2000. “The Role of Shocks and Institutions in the Rise of European Unemployment: the Aaggregate Evidence.” The Economic Journal 110 (462): 1–33.10.1111/1468-0297.00518Suche in Google Scholar

Cerra, Valerie, and Sweta Chaman Saxena. 2008. “Growth Dynamics: The Myth of Economic Recovery.” American Economic Review 98 (1): 439–457.10.1257/aer.98.1.439Suche in Google Scholar

Cerra, Valerie, and Sweta Chaman Saxena. 2017. “Business Cycle and its Policy Implications.” International Monetary Fund Working Paper 17/250.10.5089/9781484325759.001Suche in Google Scholar

Christiano, Lawrence J., Martin S. Eichenbaum, and Mathias Trabandt. 2016. “Unemployment and Business Cycles.” Econometrica 84 (4): 1523–1569.10.3982/ECTA11776Suche in Google Scholar

Cœuré, B. 2017. “Scars or Scratches? Hysteresis in the Euro Area.” Speech at the International Center for Monetary and Banking Studies, Geneva.Suche in Google Scholar

Friedman, Milton. 1968. “The Role of Monetary Policy.” American Economic Review 58: 1–17.Suche in Google Scholar

Galí, Jordi. 2015. “Hysteresis and the European Unemployment Problem Revisited.” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 21430.10.3386/w21430Suche in Google Scholar

Grigoli, Francesco, Zsoka Koczan, and Petia Topalova. 2018a. “A Cohort-Based Analysis of Labor Force Participation for Advanced Economies.” International Monetary Fund Working Paper 18/120.10.5089/9781484355251.001Suche in Google Scholar

Grigoli, Francesco, Zsoka Koczan, and Petia Topalova. 2018b. “Drivers of Labor Force Participation in Advanced Economies: Macro and Micro Evidence.” International Monetary Fund Working Paper 18/150.10.5089/9781484361528.001Suche in Google Scholar

Im, Kyung So, M. Hashem Pesaran, and Yongcheol Shin. 2003. “Testing for Unit Roots in Heterogeneous Panels.” Journal of Econometrics 115 (1): 53–74.10.1016/S0304-4076(03)00092-7Suche in Google Scholar

Johansen, Søren. 1991. “Estimation and Hypothesis Testing of Cointegration Vectors in Gaussian Vector Autoregressive Models.” Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 59: 1551–1580.10.2307/2938278Suche in Google Scholar

Layard, Richard, and Stephen Nickell. 1987. The Labour Market. Clarendon.Suche in Google Scholar

Lewis, Jeffrey B., and Drew A. Linzer. 2005. “Estimating Regression Models in which the Dependent Variable is based on Estimates.” Political Analysis 13 (4): 345–364.10.1093/pan/mpi026Suche in Google Scholar

Lindbeck, Assar, and Dennis J. Snower. 1986. “Wage Setting, Unemployment, and Insider-Outsider Relations.” The American Economic Review 76 (2): 235–239.Suche in Google Scholar

Ljungqvist, Lars, and Thomas J. Sargent. 1995. “Welfare States and Unemployment.” Economic Theory 6 (1): 143–160.10.1007/BF01213944Suche in Google Scholar

Maddala, Gangadharrao S., and Shaowen Wu. 1999. “A Comparative Study of Unit Root Tests with Panel Data and a New Simple Test.” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 61 (S1): 631–652.10.1111/1468-0084.0610s1631Suche in Google Scholar

Mortensen, Dale T., and Christopher A. Pissarides. 1999. “Unemployment Responses to ‘Skill-Biased’ Technology Shocks: The Role of Labour Market Policy.” The Economic Journal 109 (455): 242–265.10.1111/1468-0297.00431Suche in Google Scholar

Nickell, Stephen, Luca Nunziata, and Wolfgang Ochel. 2005. “Unemployment in the OECD Since the 1960s. What Do We Know?” The Economic Journal 115 (500): 1–27.10.1111/j.1468-0297.2004.00958.xSuche in Google Scholar

Nunziata, Luca. 2002. Unemployment, Labour Market Institutions and Shocks. No 2002-W16, Economics Papers from Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.Suche in Google Scholar

Osterwald-Lenum, Michael. 1992. “A Note with Quantiles of the Asymptotic Distribution of the Maximum Likelihood Cointegration Rank Test Statistics.” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and statistics 54 (3): 461–472.10.1111/j.1468-0084.1992.tb00013.xSuche in Google Scholar

Pedroni, Peter. 2013. “Structural Panel VARs.” Econometrics 1 (2): 180–206.10.3390/econometrics1020180Suche in Google Scholar

Pesaran, M. Hashem, and Ron Smith. 1995. “Estimating Long-Run Relationships from Dynamic Heterogeneous Panels.” Journal of Econometrics 68 (1): 79–113.10.1016/0304-4076(94)01644-FSuche in Google Scholar

Petrosky-Nadeau, Nicolas, and Lu Zhang. 2017. “Solving the Diamond–Mortensen–Pissarides Model Accurately.” Quantitative Economics 8 (2): 611–650.10.3982/QE452Suche in Google Scholar

Pissarides, Christopher A. 2000. Equilibrium Unemployment Theory. MIT press.Suche in Google Scholar

Pizzinelli, Carlo, Konstantinos Theodoridis, and Francesco Zanetti. 2018. “State Dependence in Labor Market Fluctuations: Evidence, Theory, and Policy Implications.”Suche in Google Scholar

Thomas, Carlos, and Francesco Zanetti. 2009. “Labor Market Reform and Price Stability: An Application to the Euro Area.” Journal of Monetary Economics 56 (6): 885–899.10.1016/j.jmoneco.2009.06.002Suche in Google Scholar

White, Halbert. 1980. “A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity.” Econometrica 48: 817–838.10.2307/1912934Suche in Google Scholar

Zanetti, Francesco. 2011a. “Labor Market Institutions and Aggregate Fluctuations in a Search and Matching Model.” European Economic Review 55 (5): 644–658.10.1016/j.euroecorev.2010.10.001Suche in Google Scholar

Zanetti, Francesco. 2011b. “Labour Policy Instruments and the Cyclical Behaviour of Vacancies and Unemployment.” Economica 78 (312): 779–787.10.1111/j.1468-0335.2010.00872.xSuche in Google Scholar

Zivot, Eric, and Donald W. K. Andrews. 2002. “Further Evidence on the Great Crash, the Oil-Price Shock, and the Unit-Root Hypothesis.” Journal of Business & Economic Statistics 20 (1): 25–44.10.1198/073500102753410372Suche in Google Scholar


Author Note

The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the IMF or IMF policy. We thank, without implicating, Valerie Cerra, Bertrand Gruss, Alvar Kangur, Lin Li, Malhar Nabar, Maury Obstfeld, Jiri Podpiera, Gonzalo Varela, and the participants to the 21st Dynamic Econometrics Conference at George Washington University for their comments and suggestions.


Published Online: 2019-06-29

©2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Contributions
  2. An empirical study on the New Keynesian wage Phillips curve: Japan and the US
  3. Risk averse banks and excess reserve fluctuations
  4. Advances
  5. Signaling in monetary policy near the zero lower bound
  6. Contributions
  7. Robust learning in the foreign exchange market
  8. Foreign official holdings of US treasuries, stock effect and the economy: a DSGE approach
  9. Discretion rather than rules? Outdated optimal commitment plans versus discretionary policymaking
  10. Agency costs and the monetary transmission mechanism
  11. Advances
  12. Optimal monetary policy in a model of vertical production and trade with reference currency
  13. The financial accelerator and marketable debt: the prolongation channel
  14. The welfare cost of inflation with banking time
  15. Prospect Theory and sentiment-driven fluctuations
  16. Contributions
  17. Household borrowing constraints and monetary policy in emerging economies
  18. The macroeconomic impact of shocks to bank capital buffers in the Euro Area
  19. The effects of monetary policy on input inventories
  20. The welfare effects of infrastructure investment in a heterogeneous agents economy
  21. Advances
  22. Collateral and development
  23. Contributions
  24. Financial deepening in a two-sector endogenous growth model with productivity heterogeneity
  25. Is unemployment on steroids in advanced economies?
  26. Monitoring and coordination for essentiality of money
  27. Dynamics of female labor force participation and welfare with multiple social reference groups
  28. Advances
  29. Technology and the two margins of labor adjustment: a New Keynesian perspective
  30. Contributions
  31. Changing demand for general skills, technological uncertainty, and economic growth
  32. Job competition, human capital, and the lock-in effect: can unemployment insurance efficiently allocate human capital
  33. Fiscal policy and the output costs of sovereign default
  34. Animal spirits in an open economy: an interaction-based approach to the business cycle
  35. Ramsey income taxation in a small open economy with trade in capital goods
Heruntergeladen am 4.11.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/bejm-2019-0064/html
Button zum nach oben scrollen