, Volume 34, Issue 5, pp 397–410 | Cite as

Does population density matter in the process of matching heterogeneous job seekers and vacancies?

  • Sanna-Mari Hynninen
  • Jukka Lahtonen
Original Paper


This paper studies the matching of job seekers and vacant jobs using data on local labour markets. We estimate differences in the ability of the local markets to form new matches and trace whether these differences can be explained by the differing population densities across markets or by the heterogeneity of job seekers measured by the distribution of their education level. We find that high-density areas are more efficient in forming matches than other areas despite frictions caused by the wider heterogeneity of job seekers in those areas than elsewhere.


Matching function Local labour markets Population density Technical efficiency Education Heterogeneity 

JEL codes

J64 C23 



This study was funded by the Academy of Finland (project number 7210269) and Yrjö Jahnsson Foundation. We are grateful to anonymous referees, Jaakko Pehkonen, Aki Kangasharju, Pekka Ilmakunnas, and ERSA 2005 Congress participants for useful comments and suggestions.


  1. Anderson PM, Burgess SM (2000) Empirical matching functions: estimation and interpretation using disaggregate data. Rev Econ Stat 82:93–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bleakley H, Fuhrer JC (1997) Shifts in the beveridge curve, job matching and labour market dynamics. New Engl Econ Rev 0(9):3–19Google Scholar
  3. Broersma L, Van Ours J (1998) Job searchers, job matches and the elasticity of matching. Labour Econ 6:77–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Budd A, Levine P, Smith P (1988) Unemployment, vacancies, and the long-term unemployment. Econ J 98:1071–1091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burgess SM (1993) A model of competition between unemployed and employed job searchers: an application to the unemployment outflow rate in Britain. Econ J 103:1190–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burgess SM, Turon H (2003) Unemployment equilibrium and on-the-job search. IZA Discussion Paper No. 753Google Scholar
  7. Coles MG, Smith E (1996) Cross-section estimation of the matching function: evidence from England and Wales. Economica 63:589–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fahr R, Sunde U (2001) Disaggregate matching functions. IZA Discussion Paper No. 335Google Scholar
  9. Greene W (2005a) Fixed and random effects in stochastic frontier models. J Productivity Anal 23:7–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Greene W (2005b) Reconsidering heterogeneity in panel data estimators of the stochastic frontier model. J Econ 126:269–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hämäläinen H (2003) Työvoiman rekrytointi toimipaikoissa vuonna (2002) [in Finnish]. Ministry of Labour, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  12. Ibourk A, Maillard B, Perelman S, Sneessens HR (2004) Aggregate matching efficiency: a stochastic production frontier, France 1990–1994. Empirica 31:1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kano S, Ohta M (2005) Estimating a matching function and regional matching efficiencies. Jpn World Econ 17:25–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kim Y, Schmidt P (2000) A review and empirical comparison of bayesian and classical approaches to inference on efficiency levels in stochastic frontier models with panel data. J Productivity Anal 14:91–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kumbhakar S, Lovell CA (2000) Stochastic frontier analysis. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  16. Laird NM, Ware JH (1982) Random-effects models for longitudinal data. Biometrics 38:963–974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Layard R, Bean C (1989) Why does unemployment persist? Scand J Econ 91:371–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mumford K, Smith PN (1999) The hiring function reconsidered: on closing the circle. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 61:343–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. van Ours J (1995) An empirical note on employed and unemployed job search. Econ Lett 49:447–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Petrongolo B, Pissarides C (2001) Looking into the black box: a survey of the matching function. J Econ Lit 39:390–431Google Scholar
  21. Pissarides C (1992) Loss of skill during unemployment and the persistence of employment shocks. Q J Econ 107:1371–1391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pissarides C (1994) Search unemployment with on-the-job search. Rev Econ Stud 61:457–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pissarides CA (2000) Equilibrium unemployment theory. MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  24. Räisänen H (2004) Työvoiman hankinta julkisessa työnvälityksessä [in Finnish]. Government Institute for Economic Research Reports No. 107Google Scholar
  25. Verbege G, Molenberghs G (2001) Linear mixed models for longitudinal data. Springer series in statistics. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Wahba J, Zenou Y (2003) Density, social networks and job search methods: theory and application to Egypt. CEPR Discussion Paper 3967, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Wall HJ, Zoega G (2002) The British beveridge curve: a tale of ten regions. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 64:261–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Business and EconomicsUniversity of JyväskyläJyvaskylaFinland

Personalised recommendations