|Title:||Okun’s Law in Selected European Countries (2005-2017): An Age and Gender Analysis|
Vol. 11, No 2, 2018
Published date: 06-2018 (print) / 06-2018 (online)
Economics & Sociology
ISSN: 2071-789X, eISSN: 2306-3459
University of Cantabria
University of Cantabria
In this paper the robustness of the Okun’s relationship is tested using data from a group of selected European countries during the period 2005-2017, considering different age cohorts and gender. Four macro-areas based on geographic location are also cons
|Keywords:||Okun’s Law, economic growth, unemployment, GDP, European countries|
|JEL classification:||E24, E60, F50|
In this paper the robustness of the Okun’s relationship is tested using data from a group of selected European countries during the period 2005-2017, considering different age cohorts and gender. Four macro-areas based on geographic location are also considered: Continental Europe, Nordic countries, Southern Europe, and Anglo-Saxon countries. Two traditional models are applied, the first difference and the ‘gap’ one. The relevant data for the latter model is constructed from the Hodrick-Prescott filter. The empirical results indicate that an inverse relationship between unemployment and output holds for the whole sample and subsamples. Besides, it can be highlighted that these countries show smaller output loss associated with higher unemployment. Additionally, our findings suggest that the oldest population tends to be less exposed to the business cycles. Meanwhile, slight differences along countries and macro-areas are found. Therefore, as disparities in productivity growth are showed, different policies are required for each area. Actually, policymakers should design various ways to increase employment opportunities for diverse groups in society (specific coordinated policies for each necessity): those on specific age cohorts, those working in particular economic activities or those living in specific countries or macro-regions.
1. Albanesi, S., & Sahin, A. (2013). The gender unemployment gap. FRB of New York Staff Report 613.
2. Attfield, C. L., & Silverstone, B. (1997). Okun’s coefficient: a comment. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 79(2), 326-329.
3. Ball, L. M., Leigh, D., & Loungani, P. (2013). Okun's law: fit at fifty? (No. w18668). National Bureau of Economic Research.
4. Bande, R., & Martín-Román, Á. L. (2017). Regional differences in the Okun’s Relationship: New Evidence for Spain (1980-2015). Working Paper 79833. MPRA.
5. Barbieri, P., & Cutuli, G. (2015). Employment protection legislation, labor market dualism, and inequality in Europe. European Sociological Review, 32(4), 501-516.
6. Bredemeier, C., & Winkler, R. (2017). The employment dynamics of different population groups over the business cycle. Applied Economics, 49(26), 2545-2562.
7. Boďa, M., & Považanová, M. (2015). Gender Asymmetry in Okun’s Law in the Four PIGS Countries. Procedia Economics and Finance, 30, 111-123.
8. Cuaresma, J. C. (2003). Okun's law revisited. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 65(4), 439-451.
9. De Jong, R. M., & Sakarya, N. (2016). The econometrics of the Hodrick-Prescott filter. Review of Economics and Statistics, 98(2), 310-317.
10. Economou, A., & Psarianos, I. N. (2016). Revisiting Okun’s Law in European Union countries. Journal of Economic Studies, 43(2), 275-287.
11. Eurostat (2016). http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database.
12. Hamia, M. A. A. (2016). Jobless growth: empirical evidence from the Middle East and North Africa region. Journal for Labour Market Research, 49(3), 239-251.
13. Huang, H. C., & Yeh, C. C. (2013). Okun’s law in panels of countries and states. Applied Economics, 45(2), 191-199.
14. Hutengs, O., & Stadtmann, G. (2013). Age effects in Okun’s law within the Eurozone. Applied Economics Letters, 20(9), 821-825.
15. Imbens, G. W., & Lynch, L. M. (2006). Re-employment probabilities over the business cycle. Portuguese Economic Journal, 5(2), 111-134.
16. Kargi, B. (2016). Okun’s Law and Long-Term Co-Integration Analysis for OECD Countries (1987-2012). Emerging Markets Journal, 6(1), 39-46.
17. Khalifa, S. (2013). Cyclical job upgrading, wage inequality, and unemployment dynamics. International Economic Journal, 27(4), 549-585.
18. Lee, J. (2000). The robustness of Okun’s law: Evidence from OECD countries. Journal of Macroeconomics, 22(2), 331-356.
19. Malley, J., & Molana, H. (2008). Output, unemployment and Okun’s law: Some evidence from the G7. Economics Letters, 101(2), 113-115.
20. Melguizo, C. (2017). An analysis of Okun’s law for the Spanish provinces. Review of Regional Research, 37(1), 59-90.
21. Micallef, B. (2016). Empirical estimates of Okun’s Law in Malta. Applied Economics and Finance, 4(1), 138-148.
22. Moazzami, B., & Dadgostar, B. (2011). Okun’s Law Revisited: Evidence From OECD Countries. International Business & Economics Research Journal (IBER), 8(8), 21-24.
23. Moosa, I. A. (1997). A cross-country comparison of Okun’s coefficient. Journal of comparative economics, 24(3), 335-356.
24. Mundlak, Y. (1978). On the pooling of time series and cross-section data. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 69-85.
25. OECD Statistics (2017). http://stats.oecd.org/
26. Okun, A. Potential GnP: Its measurement and significance. Proceedings, Business, and Economic Statistics Section (American Statistical Association, 1962), pp. 98-104.
27. Okun, A. M. (1970). The political economy of prosperity. Brookings Inst Pr.
28. Ollivaud, P., & Turner, D. (2015). The effect of the global financial crisis on OECD potential output. OECD Journal: Economic Studies, 2014(1), 41-60.
29. Palombi, S., Perman, R., & Tavéra, C. (2017). Commuting effects in Okun’s Law among British areas: Evidence from spatial panel econometrics. Papers in Regional Science, 96(1), 191-209.
30. Perman, R., Stephan, G., & Tavéra, C. (2015). Okun’s Law – a Meta‐analysis. The Manchester School, 83(1), 101-126.
31. Rahman, M., & Mustafa, M. (2017). Okun’s law: evidence of 13 selected developed countries. Journal of Economics and Finance, 41(2), 297-310.
32. Rubery, J., & Piasna, A. (2016). Labour market segmentation and the EU reform agenda: developing alternatives to the mainstream. Working Paper 10. ETUI.
33. Rudawska, I. (2010). Active aging and its impact on the labor market. Economics and Sociology, 3(1), 9-24.
34. Şahin, A., Tansel, A., & Berument, M. H. (2015). Output–Employment Relationship across Sectors: A Long‐Versus Short‐Run Perspective. Bulletin of Economic Research, 67(3), 265-288.
35. Silvapulle, P., Moosa, I. A., & Silvapulle, M. J. (2004). Asymmetry in Okun’s law. Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue Canadienne'économique, 37(2), 353-374.
36. Villaverde, J., & Maza, A. (2009). The robustness of Okun’s law in Spain, 1980-2004: Regional evidence. Journal of Policy Modelling, 31(2), 289-297.
37. Weber, C. E. (1995). Cyclical output, cyclical unemployment, and Okun’s coefficient: A new approach. Journal of applied econometrics, 10(4), 433-445.
38. Welsch, H., & Kühling, J. (2016). Macroeconomic performance and institutional change: Evidence from subjective well-being data. Journal of Applied Economics, 19(2), 193-217.
39. Zanin, L. (2014). On Okun’s law in OECD countries: an analysis by age cohorts. Economics Letters, 125(2), 243-248.
40. Zanin, L., & Marra, G. (2012). Rolling regression versus time‐varying coefficient modeling: an empirical investigation of the Okun’s law in some Euro area countries. Bulletin of Economic Research, 64(1), 91-108.
41. Zanin, L. (2016). The pyramid of Okun’s coefficient for Italy. Empirical, 1-12.