RESEARCH PAPER
The Dynamics of Unemployment in Poland from 1992 to 2017
 
More details
Hide details
1
University of Agriculture in Kraków, Institute of Economic and Social Sciences, Department of Economics and Economic Policy
Publication date: 2019-03-21
Submission date: 2018-04-25
Acceptance date: 2019-01-16
 
Gospodarka Narodowa 2019;297(1):135–149
KEYWORDS
JEL CLASSIFICATION CODES
C22
J64
 
ABSTRACT
Two alternative approaches can be found in the literature on the dynamics of unemployment. The first approach is based on the theory of a natural rate of unemployment. Under this theory, the economy can depart from the natural rate of unemployment in the short term due to nominal shocks, but in the long term the economy is expected to achieve an equilibrium indicated by the natural rate of unemployment. The second approach to the dynamics of unemployment is the so-called hysteresis of unemployment theory. According to this theory, all shocks to unemployment will have a permanent effect on the natural rate of unemployment. In a statistical sense, these two theories boil down to testing the unit root. If the unemployment rate is a non-stationary series with a unit root, then the hysteresis-in-unemployment hypothesis has to be accepted. On the other hand, if the unemployment rate is a stationary series then the hysteresis hypothesis is rejected in favour of the natural rate theory. In the study, the rate of unemployment in Poland is analysed in the period from 1992 (Q2) to 2017 (Q4). Threshold autoregressive model applied to the data indicates that the unemployment rate in Poland is a nonlinear process and, therefore, supports the hysteresis of unemployment theory.
 
REFERENCES (31)
1.
Akdoğan K. [2017], Unemployment hysteresis and structural change in Europe, Empirical Economics, vol. 53 (4): 1415–1440.
 
2.
Arendt Ł. [2005], Próba oszacowania NAIRU dla Polski, Gospodarka Narodowa, vol. 5–6: 1–23.
 
3.
Arendt Ł. [2006], Czy w Polsce występuje efekt histerezy bezrobocia?, Gospodarka Narodowa, vol. 11–12: 25–46.
 
4.
Bartosik K. [2012], Popytowe i podażowe uwarunkowania polskiego bezrobocia, Gospodarka Narodowa, vol. 11–12: 25–57.
 
5.
Bartosik K., Mycielski J. [2016], Dynamika płac a długotrwałe bezrobocie w polskiej gospodarce, Bank i Kredyt, vol. 47 (5): 435–462.
 
6.
Bean Ch. R. [1997], The role of demand management policies in reducing unemployment, Proceedings – Economic Policy Symposium – Jackson Hole, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, January: 99–167.
 
7.
Blanchard O., Summers L. H. [1986], Hysteresis and the European unemployment problem, NBER Macroeconomics Annual, MIT Press.
 
8.
Caner M., Hansen B. E. [2001], Threshold autoregression with a unit root, Econometrica, vol. 69 (6): 1555–1596.
 
9.
Central Statistical Office [2018a], Aktywność ekonomiczna ludności Polski (III kwartał 2017), Labour Force Survey in Poland (3 rd quarter 2017), Warszawa.
 
10.
Central Statistical Office [2018b], Kwartalna informacja o rynku pracy w czwartym kwartale 2017 roku (dane wstępne).
 
11.
Friedman M. [1968], The role of monetary policy, American Economic Review 58 (1), pp. 1–17.
 
12.
Grabowska-Lusińska I., Okólski M. [2008], Migracja z Polski po 1 maja 2004 r.: jej intensywność i kierunki geograficzne oraz alokacja migrantów na rynkach pracy krajów Unii Europejskiej, CMR Working Paper, no. 33/91.
 
13.
Hamermesh D. S., Pfann G. A. [1996], Adjustment costs in factor demand, Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 34 (3): 1264–1292.
 
14.
Hansen B. E. [1996], Inference when a nuisance parameter is not identified under the null hypothesis, Econometrica, vol. 64 (2): 413–430.
 
15.
Hansen B. E. [1997], Inference in TAR models, Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics and Econometrics, vol. 2 (1): 1–14.
 
16.
Hansen B. E. [2011], Threshold autoregression in economics, Statistics and Its Interface, no. 4: 123–127.
 
17.
Hansen B. E., Seo B. [2002], Testing for two-regime threshold cointegration in vector error-correction models, Journal of Econometrics, vol. 110 (2): 293–318.
 
18.
Kelm R. [2009], Szacunek NAIRU/NAWRU dla Polski na podstawie krzywej Phillipsa, 1996:1–2006:2, in: Kwiatkowska W. (ed.), Bezrobocie równowagi w gospodarce polskiej. Szacunki, tendencje i determinant, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, Łódź.
 
19.
Kwiatkowski E. [2002], Strukturalne determinanty naturalnej stopy bezrobocia, Bank i Kredyt, vol. 33 (11–12): 149–155.
 
20.
Lee Ch-Ch., Chang Ch-P. [2008], Unemployment hysteresis in OECD countries: centurial time series evidence with structural breaks, Economic Modelling, vol. 25 (2): 312–325.
 
21.
León-Ledesma M. A., McAdam P. [2004], Unemployment, hysteresis and transition, Scottish Journal of Political Economy, vol. 51 (3), pp. 377–401.
 
22.
Leszkiewicz-Kędzior K., Welfe W. [2013], Szacunek naturalnej stopy bezrobocia dla Polski, Acta Universitatis Lodzensis, vol. 281: 93–107.
 
23.
Meng M., Strazicich M. C., Lee J. [2017], Hysteresis in unemployment, Empirical Economics, vol. 53 (4): 1399–1414.
 
24.
Mielich-Iwanek K. [2009], Polski rynek pracy w świetle teorii histerezy, Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu, vol. 76: 122–132.
 
25.
Phelps E. S. [1967], Phillips curves, expectations of inflation and optimal unemployment over time, Economica, vol. 34 (135): 254–281.
 
26.
Phelps E. S. [1968], Money-wage dynamics and labour-market equilibrium, Journal of Political Economy, vol. 76 (4): 678–711.
 
27.
Roszkowska S. [2013], Ceny, płace i sytuacja na rynku pracy w Polsce – analizy oparte na modelu wektorowej korekty błędem, Materiały i Studia NBP, no. 290.
 
28.
Socha M., Sztanderska U. [2000], Strukturalne podstawy bezrobocia w Polsce, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa.
 
29.
Tong H. [2015], Threshold models in time series analysis – some reflections, Journal of Econometrics, vol. 189 (2): 485–491.
 
30.
Wojtyna A. [1994], Czy Polsce grozi efekt histerezy? Gospodarka Narodowa, no. 9: 1–10.
 
31.
Yilanci V. [2008], Are unemployment rates nonstationary or nonlinear? Evidence from 19 OECD countries, Economics Bulletin, vol. 3 (47): 1–5.
 
eISSN:2300-5238
ISSN:0867-0005