Is there really hysteresis in the OECD unemployment rates? New evidence using a Fourier panel unit root test

dc.authoridStewart, Chris/0000-0001-7893-1364
dc.authoridOmay, Tolga/0000-0003-0263-2258
dc.authorscopusid23978235900
dc.authorscopusid57218886081
dc.authorscopusid56991231900
dc.authorwosidStewart, Chris/J-8242-2019
dc.contributor.authorOmay, Tolga
dc.contributor.authorShahbaz, Muhammad
dc.contributor.authorStewart, Chris
dc.contributor.otherEconomics
dc.date.accessioned2024-07-05T15:19:46Z
dc.date.available2024-07-05T15:19:46Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.departmentAtılım Universityen_US
dc.department-temp[Omay, Tolga] Atilim Univ, Dept Econ, Ankara, Turkey; [Omay, Tolga; Shahbaz, Muhammad] Beijing Inst Technol, Sch Management & Econ, Dept Int Trade & Finance, Beijing, Peoples R China; [Stewart, Chris] Univ Kingston, Sch Law Social & Behav Sci, London, Englanden_US
dc.descriptionStewart, Chris/0000-0001-7893-1364; Omay, Tolga/0000-0003-0263-2258en_US
dc.description.abstractWe investigate the hysteresis hypothesis by proposing a heterogeneous panel unit root test that allows for gradually changing trends and cross-sectional dependence (CSD) among panel members using a flexible Fourier form. Inconclusive results from previous studies are potentially due to using very restrictive specifications with homogenous break structures and/or exogenously determined abrupt breaks. We seek to address these limitations by employing general specifications that are more capable of characterising the true data generation process of unemployment and by allowing for spill-over effects using a bootstrapping procedure to accommodate CSD that must be considered in a globalized world. Extensive simulations suggest that the failure to take structural breaks and CSD into account can lead to misleading conclusions about whether the unemployment rate is stationarity. We apply our test procedure to unemployment data for 23 OECD countries and find conclusive evidence against the hysteresis hypothesis for all these countries.en_US
dc.identifier.citation14
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s10663-021-09510-z
dc.identifier.endpage901en_US
dc.identifier.issn0340-8744
dc.identifier.issn1573-6911
dc.identifier.issue4en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85107517004
dc.identifier.startpage875en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10663-021-09510-z
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14411/2016
dc.identifier.volume48en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000659377400001
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ3
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherSpringeren_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectSmooth breaken_US
dc.subjectPanel unit rooten_US
dc.subjectCross section dependencyen_US
dc.subjectCCEen_US
dc.subjectHysteresisen_US
dc.titleIs there really hysteresis in the OECD unemployment rates? New evidence using a Fourier panel unit root testen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication
relation.isAuthorOfPublicationc49f4d4e-0fdb-400e-ba3c-62ec300b5c96
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscoveryc49f4d4e-0fdb-400e-ba3c-62ec300b5c96
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublicationf17c3770-9c6e-4de2-90e7-73c30275c2f9
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication.latestForDiscoveryf17c3770-9c6e-4de2-90e7-73c30275c2f9

Files

Collections