Influence de la distance technologique sur le co efficient de la Loi d'Okun

• Autorzy: Jean-Phillipp Boussemart , Walter Briec , Roger Perman , Christophe Tavera

Warianty tytułu

Heterogeneity of the Okun's Law Coefficients across Developed Countries : Empirical Evidence on Nonlinear Influence of the Technological Gap

• Języki publikacji: FR

Abstrakty

Nous utilisons deux techniques de modélisation complémentaires pour analyser l ' influence de la distance technologique des pays sur la force de la relation entre les fluctuations de court terme de l ' activité et celles du taux de chômage dans la Loi d ' Okun. Il apparait que le coefficient d ' Okun est positivement corrélé avec la distance technologique des pays. Plus la distance technologique d ' un pays par rapport à la frontière mondiale est grande, plus l ' impact des variations de court terme du PIB sur les mouvements conjoncturels du taux de chômage est important. La décomposition de cet impact pour chaque pays de l ' échantillon montre que l ' effet de l ' écart technologique sur corrélation entre les mouvements du PIB réel et de ceux du taux de chômage varie entre les différents pays. Cet effet est par exemple proche de 20% pour le Danemark et la Norvège mais plutôt de l ' ordre de 40% pour la Grèce.(abstrakt oryginalny)

EN

The magnitude of short run variations in unemployment induced by output shocks is influenced, interalia, by a variety of supply-side characteristics of the economy in question. This paper argues that one important element of those characteristics is a country ' s 'distance ' from the technological frontier. Using both, a panel interaction model and a panel threshold model, we show that the value of the coefficient linking short run variations in unemployment to output changes (often known as the Okun ' s Law Coefficient) is influenced by the technological distance of a country to the world efficiency frontier. Specifically, the larger the distance to the frontier, the larger the impact of real GDP movements on unemployment rate variations. Moreover, the magnitude of this impact is both considerable and exhibits wide variation between countries; decomposition of the total derivatives of unemployment with respect to GDP shows that the technology-induced share of this derivative is around 20% for Norway and Denmark countries (close to the frontier) and around 40% for Greece (which has the largest technological gap). Traditional growth enhancing demand side policies should thus go in hand with adequate supply side policies in order to stabilise or reduce the unemployment rate in technologically advanced countries.(original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Unemployment; Unemployment rate; Okun’s Law; Technological gap; Threshold analysis

PL

Bezrobocie; Stopa bezrobocia; Prawo Okuna; Luka technologiczna; Analiza progowa

• Czasopismo: Revue Internationale des Economistes de Langue Française : revue de l'Association Internationale de Economistes de Langue Française avec la collaboration Université des Sciences Economiques et de Gestion
• Rocznik: 2020
• Tom: 5
• Numer: nr 1
• Strony: 78--99

Twórcy

autor

Jean-Phillipp Boussemart

• Université De Lille

autor

Walter Briec

• Université De Perpignan

autor

Roger Perman

• University of Strathclyde

autor

Christophe Tavera

• Université de Rennes, France

Bibliografia

• Acemoglu, D., Aghion, P., & Zilibotti, F. (2006). Distance to frontier, selection, and economic growth. Journal of the European Economic Association, 4(1), 37-74.
• Adanu, K. (2005). A cross-province comparison of Okun's coefficient for Canada. Applied Economics, 37(5), 561-570.
• Ball, L., Leigh, D., & Loungani, P. (2012, 8-9 novembre). Okun's Law: Fit at 50?. 13th Jacques Polak Annual Research Conference.
• Ball L., Leigh, D., & Loungani, P. (2013, janvier). Okun's Law: Fit at 50?. (IMF Working Paper, IMF Research Department).
• Crespo-Cuaresma, J. (2003). Revisiting Okun's Law: A piecewise-linear approach. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 65, 439-451.
• Duernecker, G. (2008). Technology adoption, turbulence and the dynamics of unemployment. (Working Paper European University Institute No. 2008/10).
• Fare, R., Grosskopf, S., & Lovell, C. A. K. (1985). The measurement of efficiency production. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
• Fare, R., Grosskopf, S., Norris, M., & Zhang, Z. (1994). Productivity growth, technical progress, and efficiency change in industrialized countries. American Economic Review, 84(1), 66-83.
• Freeman, D. (2001). Panel tests of Okun's Law for ten industrial countries. Economic Inquiry, 39(4), 511-523.
• Greene, W. H. (2012). Econometric analysis (7th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
• Guisinger, A. Y., Hernandez-Murillo, R., Owyang, M. T., & Sinclair, T. M. (2015). A state-level analysis of Okun's Law. (Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis, Working Paper 2015-029P, 40).
• Hansen, B. E. (1999). Threshold effects in non-dynamic panels: estimation, testing, and inference. Journal of Econometrics, 93, 334-368.
• Harris, R., & Silverstone, B. (2001). Testing for asymmetry in Okun's Law: A cross-country comparison. Economics Bulletin, 5, 1-13.
• Herwartz, H., & Niebuhr, A. (2011). Growth, unemployment and labour market institutions: Evidence from a cross-section of EU regions. Applied Economics, 43, 4663-4676.
• Hodrick, R. J., & Prescott, E. C. (1997). Postwar U.S. business cycles: An empirical investigation. Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, 29, 1-16.
• Hoon, H. T., Ho, K. W. (2007). Distance to frontier and the big swings of the unemployment rate. What room is left for monetary policy?. (Kiel Working Paper No. 1347).
• Huang, H. C., & Lin, S. C. (2008). Smooth-time-varying Okun's coefficient. Economic Modelling, 25, 363-375.
• IMF. (2010). Unemployment dynamics during recessions and recoveries: Okun's Law and beyond. In World Economic Outlook: Rebalancing growth (chapitre 3). Washington: IMF.
• Jorgenson, D. W., & Stiroh, K. J. (2000). Raising the speed limit: US economic Growth in the information age. (OECD Economic Department Working Papers, No. 261, 78).
• Kaufman, R. T. (1988). An international comparison of Okun's Laws. Journal of Comparative Economics, 12(2), 82-203.
• Knotek, E. (2007). How useful is Okun's Law?. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Economic Review, 73-103.
• Lee, J. (2000). The robustness of Okun's law: Evidence from OECD countries. Journal of Macroeconomics, 22(2), 331-356.
• Malley, J., & Molana, H. (2008). Output, unemployment and Okun's Law: Some evidence from the G7. Economic Letters, 101, 113-115.
• Moosa, I. A. (1997). A cross-country comparison of Okun's coefficient. Journal of Comparative Economics, 24, 335-356.
• Okun, A. M. (1962). Potential GNP: Its measurement and significance. In Proceedings of the Business and Economics Statistics Section (98-104). Washington, DC: American Statistical Association.
• Oliner, S. D., & Sichel, D. E. (2000). The resurgence of growth in the late 1990s: Is information technology the story?. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 1-48.
• Owyang, M. T., Sekhposyan, T., & Vermann, K. (2013, October 1). Output and unemployment. How do they relate today?. The Regional Economist, 5-9.
• Silvapulle, P., Moosa, I. A., & Silvapulle, M. J. (2004). Asymmetry in Okun's Law. Canadian Journal of Economics, 37, 353-374.
• Tavera, C., & Perman, R. (2005). A cross country analysis of the Okun's Law coefficient convergence in Europe. Applied Economics, 37, 2501-2513.
• Van Ark, B. V., Inklaar, R., & McGuckin, R. (2002). Changing gear: Productivity, ICT and services. Groningen Growth and Development Center, Research Memorandum GD-60, 1-79.
• Vandenbussche, J., Aghion, P., & Meghir, C. (2006). Growth, distance to frontier and composition of human capital. Journal of Economic Growth, 11(2), 97-127.
• 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.
• Viren, M. (2001). The Okun curve is non-linear. Economics Letters, 70, 253-257.
• Weber, C. E. (1995). Cyclical output, cyclical unemployment, and Okun's coefficient: A new approach. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 10, 433-445.