The authors analyze the degree of persistence of the unemployment rates of the ten Canadian provinces using quarterly data for the period 1976:1–2005:4. They apply a two-break minimum Lagrange Multiplier (LM) unit root statistic, which, unlike standard unit root statistics (without or with breaks), makes it possible to find the stationarity of the different unemployment rates, giving support to the theory of the natural rate. The authors use the methodology of Bai and Perron (1998, 2003) to estimate a linear model with multiple structural changes to estimate the different degrees of persistence over the different regimes. The results suggest that the degree of persistence decreases when multiple breaks are allowed. Issues regarding the Canadian labor market, the insurance benefits program, interprovincial transfers, and interprovincial mobility are discussed as potential explanations for the results.
AmslerC.LeeJ.1995. An LM test for a unit root in the presence of a structural change. Econometric Theory11:359–68.
2.
BaiJ.PerronP.1998. Estimating and testing linear models with multiple structural changes. Econometrica66:47–78.
3.
BaiJ.PerronP.2003. Computation and analysis of multiple structural change models. Journal of Applied Econometrics18:1–22.
4.
BianchiM.ZoegaG.1998. Unemployment persistence: Does the size of the shock matter?Journal of Applied Econometrics13:283–304.
5.
BlanchardO. J.SummersL. H.1986. Hysteresis and the European unemployment problem. NBER Macroeconomics Annual1: 15–78. NBER: Cambridge, MA.
6.
BlanchardO. J.SummersL. H.1987. Hysteresis in unemployment. European Economic Review31:288–95.
7.
CamareroM.Carrión-i-SilvestreJ. L.TamaritC.2006. Testing for hysteresis in unemployment in OECD countries. New evidence using stationarity panel tests with breaks. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics68:167–82.
8.
CamareroM.TamaritC.2004. Hysteresis vs. natural rate of unemployment: New evidence for OECD countries. Economics Letters84:413–7.
9.
ElliottG.RothenbergT.StockJ. H.1996. Efficient tests for an autoregressive unit root. Econometrica64:813–39.
10.
ElliottG.StockJ. H.2001. Confidence intervals for autoregressive coefficients near one. Journal of Econometrics103:155–81.
11.
FriedmanM. 1968. The role of monetary policy. American Economic Review58:1–7.
12.
GustavssonM.OsterholmP.2006. Hysteresis and non-linearities in unemployment rates. Applied Economics Letters13:545–8.
13.
HansenB. E. 1999. The grid bootstrap and the autoregressive model. The Review of Economics and Statistics81:594–607.
14.
HarrisD.LeybourneS.McCabeB.2005. Panel stationarity tests for purchasing power parity with cross-sectional dependence. Journal of Business and Economics Statistics23:395–409.
15.
ImK. L.LeeJ.TieslauM.2002. Panel LM unit root tests with level shifts. FL: Mimeo, Department of Economics, University of Central Florida.
16.
ImK. S.PesaranM.ShinY.2003. Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics115:53–74.
17.
JaegerA.ParkinsonM.1994. Some evidence on hysteresis in unemployment rates. European Economic Review38:329–42.
18.
JonesS. R. G. 1995. The persistence of unemployment: Hysteresis in Canadian labour market. Montreal: McGill Queen’s University Press.
19.
KapetaniosG.ShinY.SnellA.2003. Testing for a unit root in the nonlinear STAR framework. Journal of Econometrics112:359–79.
20.
KeilM.PantuoscoL.1998. Canadian and US unemployment rates: A comparison based on regional data. Canadian Public Policy24:38–55.
21.
LeeJ.StrazicichM. C.2003. Minimun LM unit root tests with two structural breaks. Review of Economics and Statistics85:1082–89.
22.
LevinA.LinC.-F.ChuC. J.2002. Unit root tests in panel data: Asymptotic and finite-sample properties. Journal of Econometrics108:1–24.
23.
LiuJ.WuS.ZidekJ. V.1997. On segmented multivariate regressions. Statistica Sinica7:497–525.
24.
LumsdaineR.PapellD.. 1997. Multiple trend breaks and the unit-root hypothesis. Review of Economics and Statistics79:212–8.
25.
MaddalaG. S.WuS.1999. A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test. Special Issue, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics61: 631–52.
26.
MikhailO.EberweinC. J.HandaJ.2005. Testing for persistence in aggregate and sectorial Canadian unemployment. Applied Economics Letters12:893–8.
27.
MikhailO.EberweinC. J.HandaJ.2006. Estimating persistence in Canadian unemployment: Evidence from a Bayesian ARFIMA. Applied Economics38:1809–19.
28.
MilbourneR. D.PurvisD. D.ScoonesW. D.1991. Unemployment insurance and unemployment dynamics. The Canadian Journal of Economics24:804–26.
29.
NgS. 2006. Testing cross-section correlation in panel data using spacings. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics24:12–23.
30.
NgS.PerronP.2001. Lag length selection and the construction of unit root tests with good size and power. Econometrica69:1519–54.
31.
PanigoD.FelizM.PerezP.2004. Macro and microeconomic persistence in regional unemployment. The case of Argentina. Working Paper, UNLP, CEIL-PIETTE-CONICET.
32.
PerronP. 1989. The great crash, the oil price shock and the unit root hypothesis. Econometrica57:1361–401.
33.
PerronP. 1997. Further evidence of breaking trend functions in macroeconomics variables. Journal of Econometrics80:355–85.
34.
PerronP.RodriguezG.2003. GLS detrending, efficient unit root tests and structural change. Journal of Econometrics115:1–27.
35.
PhelpsE. S. 1967. Phillips curves, expectations of inflation and optimal unemployment over time. Economica34:254–81.
36.
RodriguezG. 2007. Finite sample behavior of the level shift model using quasi-difference data. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation77:889–905.
StockJ. H. 1991. Confidence intervals for the largest autoregressive root in U.S. macroeconomic time series. Journal of Monetary Economics28:435–60.
39.
ZivotE.AndrewsD. W. K.1992. Further evidence of the great crash, the oil-price shock and the unit-root hypothesis. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics10:251–70.
