CHICAGO JOURNALS Cyclical Unemployment: Sectoral Shifts or Aggregate Disturbances? Author(s): Katharine G. Abraham and Lawrence F. Katz Source: Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 94, No. 3, Part 1 (Tun., 1986), pp. 507-522 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.orK/stable/1833046 Accessed: 18-03-2015 11:01 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Political Economy. STOR http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 147.251.185.127 on Wed, 18 Mar 2015 11:01:44 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Cyclical Unemployment: Sectoral Shifts or Aggregate Disturbances? Katharine G. Abraham Brookings Institution and Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lawrence F. Katz University of California, Berkeley, and National Bureau of Economic Research Recent work by David Lilien has argued that the positive correlation between the dispersion of employment growth rates across sectors ( T2 (service employment is growing at a more rapid trend rate than manufacturing employment), and 71 < 72 (service employment is less cyclically responsive than manufacturing employment). A measure of the dispersion in the rate of growth of employment across sectors at any point in time is defined as o-, E\t /A 1 _ 17 A 1_ 77 \2 [ E'2t v (A In Eu - A In EtY + —P- (A In E2t - A In Ety (3) This is approximately equal to VWi - r2) + 1/S(7i - 72)(A In Yt - A In Yf)\ if we assume that the two sectors start out equal in size. How will o> move over the business cycle? In this example, 71 — 72 is negative, so that the second term in our approximate expression for ut is positive when the actual rate of GNP growth falls short of the trend rate of GNP growth (during a downturn) and negative when the actual rate of GNP growth exceeds the trend rate of GNP growth (during an upturn). The value of a, is thus high during downturns and low during upturns, at least under reasonable assumptions about the shape of the business cycle.3 5 If - "y2)(A In Y, — A In Yf)\ exceeded \Fi - T2\ at any point during the upturn, a would decrease to zero, increase a bit, fall back to zero, then finally increase again as the economy moved from trough to peak. There would have to be larger differences between the cyclical responsiveness of the two sectors and/or larger fluctuations of GNP around trend over shorter time periods than seems reasonable for this to happen. Even if this flip-flopping does occur, cr will still be lower during upturns than during downturns as long as upturns are not markedly steeper than downturns. This content downloaded from 147.251.185.127 on Wed, 18 Mar 2015 11:01:44 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 512 JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY If Ut bears an Okun's law relationship to the percentage deviation of GNP from trend, we can write Ut = + p2^_i + (33DMR, + p4DMR(_, (7) + p5DMR_2 + 06NHWL_! + fat + wt, where NHWIf represents the normalized help wanted index, the 0's are parameters, w is the equation error, and the other variables are defined above. Positive a coefficients in the help wanted index equation would support the structural change interpretation; negative This content downloaded from 147.251.185.127 on Wed, 18 Mar 2015 11:01:44 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions CYCLICAL UNEMPLOYMENT 517 TABLE 1 U.S. Unemployment and Normalized Help Wanted Index Equations Estimated with Annual Data Mean [Standard Deviation] Dependent Variable U,* (1) Dependent Variable NHWI,* (2) .025 56.0 -8.7 [-013] (9.2) (2.0) .025 21.8 -2.9 [.013] (11.3) (2.3) DMR, -.002 -19.8 4.1 [.016] (8.0) (1.7) DMR(_i -.002 -22.9 5.4 [.015] (8.2) (1.8) DMR,^ -.001 -7.7 .5 [.015] (10.3) (2.3) U,-i 5.1 .352 [1.4] (.144) NHWL._, 1.3 .292 [.3] (.164) Time trend 16.5 .078 .007 [9.4] (.018) (.003) Constant 1.000 .157 1.085 [.000] (.602) (.231) R2 .869 .838 S.E.E. .566 .012 D-W 2.231 1.604 Note.—Both models were estimated with annual data for the sample period 1949-80 using OLS. U is the civilian unemployment rate; NHWI is the Conference Board help wanted index divided by total nonagricultural payroll employment; a is the dispersion in annual employment growth rates across 11 major sectors; and DMR is the unanticipated growth in the money supply. The U, a, and DMR series are those used in Lilien (19826); the NHWI series was constructed using data from the Citibank database. Standard errors are reported in parentheses. * The dependent variable U, has mean [standard deviation] 5.3 [1.4]; NHWI,, 1.3 [-3]. coefficients would suggest that o- is actually serving as an aggregate demand proxy. Column 2 of table 1 presents an OLS estimate of equation (7) that matches the unemployment model in column 1. In this help wanted index equation, the current value of a, takes on a large and statistically significant negative coefficient; the coefficient on the once-lagged value of o-( is also negative though not significant. The fact that the