Advertisement

On the estimation of Okun’s coefficient in some countries in Latin America: a comparison between OLS and GME estimators

  • Luca ZaninEmail author
Short note
  • 7 Downloads

Abstract

We explore Okun’s coefficient in several Latin American countries for the period from 1995 to 2017 and compare the results obtained using ordinary least squares (OLS) and generalised maximum entropy (GME) estimators. There are several advantages in considering the GME estimator over traditional regression approaches. First, it can estimate the parameters of an equation without imposing constraints on the probability distribution of the errors. Second, empirical and simulation studies available in the literature showed that GME worked well for ill-posed problems (e.g. when a model estimate is performed using a small sample of data). Among the main findings, we confirm the inverted relationship between changes in the unemployment rate and real gross domestic product growth in the explored countries except for Perù. Okun’s coefficient and the associated confidence intervals obtained by applying GME were very close to those obtained from OLS. Therefore, we did not observe a gain when using the GME estimator rather than the classic OLS approach.

Keywords

Generalised maximum entropy Gross domestic product Latin America countries Ordinary least squares Okun’s coefficient Unemployment rate 

JEL Classification

C50 E24 N16 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank two reviewers for their constructive suggestions that helped to improve the presentation and quality of the article. I dedicate this article to my daughter Gloria, who was born in 2018. The opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the institution of affiliation.

Funding

This research has not received funding.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Anaya JAG (1999) Labor market flexibility in 13 Latin American Countries and the United States. The World Bank, Washington DCCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker A, Velasco-Guachalla VX (2018) Is the informal sector politically different? (Null) answers from Latin America. World Dev 102:170–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carolyn T, Cachanosky N (2016) Argentina’s post-2001 economy and the 2014 default. Q Rev Econ Finance 60:70–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Caticha A, Golan A (2014) An entropic framework for modeling economies. Physica A Stat Mech Appl 408:149–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chong A, Galdo H, Saavedra J (2008) Informality and productivity in the labor market in Perù. J Econ Policy Reform 11:229–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Corral P, Kuehn D, Jabir E (2017) Generalized maximum entropy estimation of linear models. Stat J 17:240–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cuaresma JC (2003) Okun’s law revisited. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 65:439–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dionisio A, Reis HA, Coelho L (2008) Utility function estimation: the entropy approach. Physica A Stat Mech Appl 387:3862–3867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Evans A (2018) Okun coefficients and participation coefficients by age and gender. IZA J Labor Econ 7:5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fernandez-Vazquez (2014) Estimating the effect of technological factors from samples affected by collinearity: a data-weighted entropy approach. Empir Econ 47:717–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ferreira P, Dionisio A (2013) An application of generalised maximum entropy utility. Int J Appl Decis Sci 6:228–244Google Scholar
  12. Ferreira P, Dionisio A, Pires CP (2010) Adopt the Euro? The GME approach. J Econ Interact Coord 5:231–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frain JC (2007) Small sample power of tests of normality when the alternative is an alpha-stable distribution, Trinity Economics Papers tep0207. Trinity College Dublin, Department of EconomicsGoogle Scholar
  14. Galindro A, Santos M, Santos C, Marta-Costa A, Joao Matias, Cerveira A (2018) Wine productivity per farm size: a maximum entropy application. Wine Econ Policy 7:77–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ghasemi A, Zahediasl S (2012) Normality tests for statistical analysis: a guide for non-statisticians. Int J Endocrinol Metab 10:486–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Golan A (2018) Foundations of info-metrics. Modelling, inference, and imperfect information. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Golan A, Judge G, Miller D (1996a) Maximum entropy econometrics: robust estimation with limited data. Wiley, West SussexGoogle Scholar
  18. Golan A, karp L, Perloff J (1996b) A maximum entropy approach to estimation and inference in dynamic models or counting fish in the sea using maximum entropy. J Econ Dyn Control 20:559–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Golan A, karp L, Perloff J (2000) Estimating Coke and Pepsi’s price and advertising strategies. J Bus Econ Stat 18:398–409Google Scholar
  20. Golan A, Perloff J, Shen E (2001) Estimating a demand system with non-negativity constraints Mexican meat demand. Rev Econ Stat 83:541–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goldfeld SM, Quandt RE (1965) Some test for homoskedasticity. J Am Stat Assoc 60:539–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grant AL (2018) The great Recession and Okun’s law. Econ Model 69:291–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Greene WH (2012) Econometric analysis, 7th edn. New York University, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Grosh M, Bussolo M, Freije S (2014). Understanding the poverty impact of the global financial crisis in Latin America and the Caribbean, World Bank PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  25. Guisinger AY, Hernandez-Murillo R, Owyang MT, Sinclair MT (2018) A state-level analysis of Okun’s law. Reg Sci Urban Econ 68:239–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Holmes M, Silverstone B (2006) Okun’s law, asymmetries and jobless recoveries in the United States: a Markov-switching approach. Econ Lett 92:293–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Horvath J, Zhong J (2019) Unemployment dynamics in emerging countries: monetary policy and external shocks. Econ Model 76:31–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Huang HC, Lin SC (2008) Smooth-time-varying Okun’s coefficients. Econ Model 25:363–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Isla-Camargo A, Cortez WW (2011) Revisiting Okun’s law for Mexico: an analysis of the permanent and transitory component of unemployment output. Working Paper, MPRA N, p 30026Google Scholar
  30. Johnston J (1996) Econometric methods, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill Higher Education, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  31. Knotek SE (2007) How useful is Okun’s law? Econ Rev 4:73–103Google Scholar
  32. Kreiss J-P, Lahiri SN (2012) Bootstrap methods for time series. In: Rao TS, Rao SS, Rao CR (eds) Handbook of statistics: time series analysis: methods and applications, Vol 30,  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-53858-1.00001-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lee J (2000) The robustness of Okun’s law: evidence from OECD countries. J Macroecon 22:331–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mittelhammer R, Scott Cardell N, Marsh TL (2013) The data-constrained generalized maximum entropy estimator of the GLM: asymptotic theory and inference. Entropy 15:1756–1775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Moosa IA (1997) A cross-country comparison of Okun’s coefficient. J Comp Econ 24:335–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nugent S, Schmid JP (2013). Okun and Jamaica at 50: how does unemployment react to growth? Working Paper N. IDP-PB-208, Inter-American Development BankGoogle Scholar
  37. Okun A M (1962) Potential GNP: its measurement and significance, Proceedings of the Business and Economics Statistics, American Statistical Association, Washington, DC, pp 98–104Google Scholar
  38. Pires C, Dionisio A, Coelho L (2013) Estimating Utility functions using GME. J Appl Stat 40:221–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Posner PW (2017) Labour market flexibility, employment and inequality: lessons from Chile. N Polit Econ 22:237–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shannon CE (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Tech J 27:379–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Trapletti A, Hornik K (2018) tseries: Time Series Analysis and Computational Finance. R package version 0.10-46Google Scholar
  42. Zanin L (2014) On Okun’s law in OECD countries: an analysis by age cohorts. Econ Lett 125:243–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zanin L (2018) The pyramid of Okun’s coefficient for Italy. Empirica 45:17–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zanin L, Marra G (2012) Rolling regression versus time-varying coefficient modelling: an empirical investigation of the Okun’s law in some Euro area countries. Bull Econ Res 64(1):91–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zeileis A, Hothorn T (2002) Diagnostic checking in regression relationships. R N 2(3):7–10Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.PrometeiaBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations