Document Type : Research Paper


Faculty of Economics, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.



Nowadays, the study of unemployment properties is particularly important as a result of the increase of this variable in recent years. This paper tests the hysteresis hypothesis in youth unemployment at the urban, rural, regional, and general level by using quarterly data in period 2000- 2018. In addition, this paper investigates the stochastic nature of unemployment for thirty regions of Iran. We first employ the ADF and KPSS methods to test the hysteresis hypothesis at the urban, rural and general levels. Second, we apply the IPS, Chio and Fisher methods to examine this test for thirty regions using quarterly data in the period 2005-2018. Finally, the PANIC method is applied to identify the common and idiosyncratic components of unemployment rates at the regional level. The findings of different methods give support to the existence of hysteresis for the youth unemployment at the urban, rural and general level. Also, our empirical findings provide that the evidence is favorable to the existence of hysteresis in some regions. These results implicate supply side policies are effective to reduce youth unemployment at different levels. Also, our empirical findings provide that the evidence is favorable to the existence of hysteresis in some regions. These results implicate supply side policies are effective to reduce youth unemployment at different levels.


Main Subjects

Article Title [Persian]

فرضیه پسماند در بیکاری: شواهدی از بازار کار ایران

Author [Persian]

  • سجاد برخورداری

دانشکده اقتصاد، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.

Abstract [Persian]

هدف این مطالعه، آزمون فرضیه پسماند برای بیکاری جوانان در سطح کلی، منطقه­ای، روستایی وشهری با استفاده از داده­های فصلی برای دوره زمانی 1384-1399 است. همچنین در این مقاله، ماهیت تصادفی بیکاری برای سی استان کشور در این دوره بررسی می­شود.برای این منظور، ابتدا روش­های ADF و KPS برای آزمون فرضیه پسماند در سطح کلی، روستایی و شهری استفاده کردیم. ثانیا، روش­های IPS، Chio و فیشر برای آزمون این فرضیه  در سطح منطقه­ای، به­کار گرفتیم. در نهایت، روش PANIC برای شناسایی اجزای عمومی و تصادفی نرخ­های بیکاری در سطح منطقه­ای، مورد استفاده قرار گرفت.نتایج بکارگیری روش­های مختلف از وجود پسماند برای بیکاری جوانان در سطح کلی، روستایی و شهری در ایران حکایت دارد. همچنین یافته­های تجربی، شواهدی از وجود پسماند در برخی مناطق دارد. این نتایج دلالت براین دارد که سیاست­های سمت عرضه برای کاهش بیکاری جوانان در سطوح مختلف، کارا هستند.

Keywords [Persian]

  • بازار نیروی کار
  • بیکاری
  • پسماند
  • روش PANIC
Akay, E. Ç., Oskonbaeva, Z., & Bülbül, H. (2020). What do unit root tests tell us
about unemployment hysteresis in transition economies?. Applied Economic
Analysis. 28(84).
Akdoğan, K. (2017). Unemployment hysteresis and structural change in Europe.
Empirical Economics, 53(4), 1415-1440.
Akhbari, R., & Taee, H. (2017). Identifying hysteresis effect in unemployment
rate with emphasis on second generation panel unit root and panic method.
Journal of Applied Economics Studies in Iran, 6(22), 1-31.
Albulescu, C. T., & Tiwari, A. K. (2018). Unemployment persistence in EU
countries: new evidence using bounded unit root tests. Applied Economics
Letters, 25(12), 807-810.
Bai, J., & Ng, S. (2004). A PANIC attack on unit roots and cointegration.
Econometrica, 72(4), 1127-1177.
Ball, L., & Onken, J. (2021). Hysteresis in unemployment: evidence from OECD
estimates of the natural rate. International Finance. 3(22).
Barkhordari, Iranian Journal of Economic Studies, 11(1) 2022, 15-30 29
Bekmez, S., & Ozpolat, A. (2016). Hysteresis effect on unemployment for men
and women: a panel unit root test for OECD countries. International Journal
of Financial Research, 7(2), 122-133.
Blanchard, O. J., & Summers, L. H. (1986). Hysteresis and the European
unemployment problem. NBER macroeconomics annual, 1, 15-78.
Blanchard, O. J., & Summers, L. H. (1986). Hysteresis in unemployment.
European Economic Review, 31 (1-2), 288-295.
Camarero, M., Carrion‐i‐Silvestre, J. L., & Tamarit, C. (2006). Testing for
hysteresis in unemployment in OECD countries: new evidence using
stationarity panel tests with breaks. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and
Statistics, 68(2), 167-182.
Carlin, W., & Soskice, D. (1990). Macroeconomics and the wage bargain (Vol.
1). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Carruth, A. A., Hooker, M. A., & Oswald, A. J. (1998). Unemployment equilibria
and input prices: Theory and evidence from the United States. Review of
economics and Statistics, 80(4), 621-628.
Chang, T., Lee, K. C., Nieh, C. C., & Wei, C. C. (2005). An empirical note on
testing hysteresis in unemployment for ten European countries: panel
SURADF approach. Applied Economics Letters, 12(14), 881-886.
Cheng, K. M., Durmaz, N., Kim, H., & Stern, M. L. (2012). Hysteresis vs. natural
rate of US unemployment. Economic Modelling, 29(2), 428-434.
Cheratian, I., Goltabar, S., & Gil-Alana, L. A. (2021). The dynamics of
unemployment by territory, gender, and age groups in Iran. Gender, and Age
Groups in Iran (March 7, 2021).
Choi, I.. (2002). Combination Unit Root Tests for Cross-Sectionally Correlated
Panels, mimeo, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
Eisazadeh, S., & Tabarsi, M. (2013). Does Unemployment Hysteresis Exist in
Economy of Iran?. International Journal of Asian Social Science, 3(8), 1717-
Ferit, K. U. L. A., & Aslan, A. (2014). Unemployment Hysteresis in Turkey: Does
Education Matter?. International Journal of Economics and Financial
Issues, 4(1), 35-39.
Friedman, M. (1995). The role of monetary policy. Essential Readings in
Economics, 215-231.
Furuoka, F. (2014). Does Hysteresis Exist in Unemployment? New Findings from
Fourteen Regions of the Czech Republic. Finance a Uver: Czech Journal of
Economics & Finance, 64(1).
Gallegos, C., Hernandez, M., and Lizarraga, A. (2012). Hysteresis in Mexico: a
PANIC approach, International Journal of Business, Humanities and
Technology, 2 (7).
Garcia, C, A., Romero, D. and Usabiaga, C. (2005). PANIC in Spanish
unemployment, Jornadas de Economica Laboral, 83(331), 611-646.
30 Barkhordari, Iranian Journal of Economic Studies, 11(1) 2022, 15-30
Gozgor, G. (2013). Testing unemployment persistence in Central and Eastern
European countries. International Journal of Economics and Financial
Issues, 3(3), 694-700.
Gregory, R. G. (1986). Wages policy and unemployment in Australia. Economica,
53(210), S53-S74.
Hoon, H. T., & Phelps, E. S. (1997). Growth, wealth and the natural rate: Is
Europe's jobs crisis a growth crisis?. European Economic Review, 41(3-5),
Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in
heterogeneous panels. Journal of econometrics, 115(1), 53-74.
Jump, R. C., & Stockhammer, E. (2018). New evidence on unemployment
hysteresis in the EU. mimeo.
Lindbeck, A., & Snower, D. (1988). Long Term Unemployment and
Macroeconomic Policy, American Economic Review, 78, 38-43
McAdam, P., & León-Ledesma, M. A. (2003). Unemployment, hysteresis and
transition. Available at SSRN 457300.
Phelps, E. S. (1967). Phillips curves, expectations of inflation and optimal
unemployment over time. Economica, 254-281.
Phelps, E. S. (1968). Money-wage dynamics and labor-market equilibrium.
Journal of political economy, 76(4, Part 2), 678-711.
Phelps, E. S., & Zoega, G. (1998). Natural-rate theory and OECD unemployment.
The Economic Journal, 108(448), 782-801.
Sephton, P. S. (2009). Persistence in US state unemployment rates. Southern
Economic Journal, 76(2), 458-466.
Smyth, R. (2003). Unemployment hysteresis in Australian states and territories:
evidence from panel data unit root tests. Australian Economic Review, 36(2),