Does Unemployment Invariance Hypothesis Hold for Canada?

Tansel, Aysit and Ozdemir, Zeynel Abidin and Aksoy, Emre (2016): Does Unemployment Invariance Hypothesis Hold for Canada?

Abstract

This article explores the long-run relationship between unemployment rate and labor force participation rate in Canada. The cointegration analysis vindicates the existence of a long-run relationship between these two variables. This finding leads us to doubt the pertinence of the unemployment invariance hypothesis for Canada. This is consistent with the empirical studies for Japan, Sweden and the United States, but contradicts the empirical studies for Australia, Romania and Turkey. There are contradictory studies for the United Kingdom.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Unemployment Invariance Hypothesis; Unemployment; Labor Force Participation; Cointegration; Canada
• Subjects: E - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics > E2 - Consumption, Saving, Production, Investment, Labor Markets, and Informal Economy > E24 - Employment ; Unemployment ; Wages ; Intergenerational Income Distribution ; Aggregate Human Capital ; Aggregate Labor Productivity; J - Labor and Demographic Economics > J2 - Demand and Supply of Labor > J21 - Labor Force and Employment, Size, and Structure; J - Labor and Demographic Economics > J6 - Mobility, Unemployment, Vacancies, and Immigrant Workers > J64 - Unemployment: Models, Duration, Incidence, and Job Search

References

Elliot, G., Rothenberg, T. J. and Stock, J. H. (1996) “Efficient tests for an autoregressive unit root”,Econometrica, vol. 64, pp. 813–36.

Emerson, J. (2011) “Unemployment and labor force participation in the United States”, Economics Letters, vol. 111, pp. 203–6.

Gustavsson, M. and Österholm, P. (2006) “The informational value of unemployment statistics: a note on the time series properties of participation rates”, Economics Letters, vol. 92, pp.428–433.

Hjalmarsson, E., and P. Österholm. (2010) “Testing for Cointegration Using the Johansen Methodology When Variables are Near-Integrated: size distortions and partial remedies”, Empirical Economics, vol.39, pp.51–76.

Johansen, S. (1988) “Statistical analysis of cointegration vectors”, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, vol. 12, pp. 231–54.

Johansen, S. (1991) “Estimation and hypothesis testing of cointegration vectors in Gaussian vector autoregressive models”, Econometrica, vol. 59, pp. 1551–80.

Kakinaka, M. and Miyamoto, H. (2012) “Unemployment and labour force participation in Japan”, Applied Economics Letters, vol. 19, pp. 1,039–43.

Karanassou, M. and Snower, D. J. (2004) “Unemployment invariance”, German Economic Review, vol. 5, pp. 297–317.

Kwiatkowski, D., Phillips, P. C., Schmidt, P. and Shin, Y. (1992) “Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root: How sure are we that economic time series have a unit root?”, Journal of Econometrics, vol. 54, pp. 159–78.

Layard, R., Nickell, S. and Jackman, R. (1991) Unemployment: Macroeconomic Performance and the Labour Market, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Oţoiu, A. and Ţiţan, E. (2016) “Does the unemployment invariance hypothesis hold for Romania?”, Applied Economics Letters, vol.23(12), pp. 884-887.

Osterholm, P. (2010) “Unemployment and labour-force participation in Sweden”, Economics Letters, vol. 106, pp. 205–8.

Tansel, A., Ozdemir, Z. A., and Aksoy, E. (2016) “Unemployment and labour force participation in Turkey”, Applied Economics Letters, vol.23(3), pp.184-187.

Van, P. N. (2016) “Examining the unemployment invariance hypothesis: The case of Australia”, The Australian Economic Review, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 54–8.