Unemployment in an Interdependent World



Country 1, ∆ Unemployment

Country 2, ∆ Unemployment

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

90

70

50

30

10

30

45

90 ʌ---ɔ

60                70

0.18

0.16

0.14

0.12

0.1

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

50

30

10

15

τ, (%)

30

45

s =L√Lw

τ, (%)

s =LZLw

60

Figure 3: Change in unemployment [on the vertical axis] as a function of centrality and
size of the “bad” country 1 for a given change of b
1 from 0.4 to 0.8.

countries 2 and 3.

Result 2b [Relative size and spill-overs]

The higher the relative size of country 1 the stronger is the increase in unemployment
rates in all countries due to a rise of country 1’s unemployment benefits.

Figure 3 shows that, at the benchmark value of τ = 30%, moving s1 from 0.1 to 0.9
increases the gradient of unemployment with respect to b
1 from about 12 percentage points
to 16 in country 1 and from virtually zero to about 0.14 percentage points in countries
2 and 3. The logic for this result is similar to the one about centrality. When s
1 is very
large, demand of firms in all countries depends mostly on country 1’s income. Hence,
variations in b
1 have strong implications not only for country 1 but for the entire world.
If s
1 is very small, the variation in b1 has implications only for a very small fraction of
global demand and therefore has little effect on unemployment rates world-wide.

Firm heterogeneity and the existence of fixed costs for foreign production have im-
portant implications for the quantitative impact of institutional changes in the directly
affected country 1 and in its trading partners. The reason is that a shortfall of income
in country 1 has first-order effects on firms of all productivities in country 1. However,
in countries 2 and 3, only firms with high productivity levels directly depend on country
1’s level of income as less inefficient firms do not engage in international trade and are
therefore sheltered from variation in country 1’s labor market institutions. This explains
why the quantitative impact of ∆b
1 is much stronger in country 1 than in the rest of the
world.

23



More intriguing information

1. Human Rights Violations by the Executive: Complicity of the Judiciary in Cameroon?
2. Long-Term Capital Movements
3. The name is absent
4. The Shepherd Sinfonia
5. Developmental Robots - A New Paradigm
6. Transgression et Contestation Dans Ie conte diderotien. Pierre Hartmann Strasbourg
7. Structural Breakpoints in Volatility in International Markets
8. The name is absent
9. Meat Slaughter and Processing Plants’ Traceability Levels Evidence From Iowa
10. Dementia Care Mapping and Patient-Centred Care in Australian residential homes: An economic evaluation of the CARE Study, CHERE Working Paper 2008/4
11. DIVERSITY OF RURAL PLACES - TEXAS
12. Retirement and the Poverty of the Elderly in Portugal
13. Word searches: on the use of verbal and non-verbal resources during classroom talk
14. Making International Human Rights Protection More Effective: A Rational-Choice Approach to the Effectiveness of Ius Standi Provisions
15. The name is absent
16. The name is absent
17. The name is absent
18. Bridging Micro- and Macro-Analyses of the EU Sugar Program: Methods and Insights
19. Protocol for Past BP: a randomised controlled trial of different blood pressure targets for people with a history of stroke of transient ischaemic attack (TIA) in primary care
20. The name is absent