View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

BOOKCARD

A CAUSAUTY APPROACH TO
LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION:
TESTS FOR STRUCTURAL CHANGE

HG2615
C6l!.Fi<5
KNo.7301

A CAUSALITY APPROACH TO LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION:
TESTS FOR STRUCTURAL CHANGE
Michael L. Bagshaw
Statistician
and
.

Mark S. Sniderman
Economist
Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland

January 1978

The views expressed herein are solely those of the
authors and do not necessarily represent the views
of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. The
material contained is of a preliminary nature, is
circulated to stimulate discussion, and is not to
be quoted without permission of the authors.

Working Paper

Number 7801

A CAUSALITY APPROACH TO LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION:
TESTS FOR STRUCTURAL CHANGE*
Michael L. Bagshaw
Mark S. Sniderman

Economists have long been interested in the labor supply decisions
of various demographic groups in the United States because of the
importance of these decisions to local labor market characteristics and
to the success of income security programs.

In addition, there is

governmental concern for minimizing the overall rate of unemployment.
With regard to the latter, the macropolicy arena, an impressive amount
of labor supply research has focused on the role of women in the labor
force

and the degree to which policymakers need to regard the labor

supply decisions of women as different from those of men.
This paper reexamines a labor supply issue that initially received
extensive airing in the mid-1960's: the relationship between labor force
participation rates and unemployment rates.

Three aspects of this paper

are novel: first, a Box-Jenkins causality approach is employed in place
of the customary regression framework; second, the time period covered
begins in 1954- and runs through 1976, a period in which large compositional
changes in the labor force occurred; third, an explicit test for a change
in time series models is applied to the participation rates of both adult
white males and females.

The authors wish to thank various colleagues for helpful discussion and
Pierretta Hughes for the careful typing of the manuscript.

- 2-

The short-period labor force supply decisions of adult males and
females generally appear to be unrelated to either the supply decisions
of other groups or to their own or others' unemployment rates.

Short-

period supply decisions of teenagers, however, do seem related to teenage unemployment rates.

These findings, based on a different technique,

support a conclusion expressed by Bowen and Finegan [1969] regarding time
series of this type.

The second principal finding is that the labor

force participation behavior of adult white males has changed over the
1954-1976 period, while that for adult white females has not. The meanings
of "behavior" and "changed" will be made clear subsequently.

Following

the introduction of the causality methodology two primary findings are
presented.

The implications of the results are given in the last section

of the paper.

THE CAUSALITY APPROACH
Let X and Y represent measurements of an input and an output,
respectively, of an economic process across time (i.e., x t > Xt + ^> Xt + 2 >
. . .x
t

v

=

^)'

Series X is said to cause series Y if a knowledge of

"t~ K

X will reduce the error of predicting Y when only past values of Y are
known.

A model which describes the dynamic response of Y to changes in

X and which can be used to study causality is called a transfer function
model by Box and Jenkins [1970].

By presuming that the labor force parti-

cipation rate of some group is an output of a decision process

and that

the labor force participation rate or unemployment rate of some other group
(or the unemployment rate of the first group) is an input to that process,
a test can be conducted to determine whether a transfer function model can
relate two such time series.

- 3 -

In relating two time series, they are first represented as mixed
autoregressive integrated moving average models as described by Box and
Jenkins [1970].

These models are then used to obtain residual series,

which are white noise (a sequence of uncorrelated error terms).

After

this process of prewhitening, the residual series are cross correlated
to test for independence.

By prewhitening, serial correlation up to a very

high order is removed from the data, permitting more efficient estimates
of the standard errors of the cross correlation function.
can be done by two common procedures.

Prewhitening

Box and Jenkins report on the pre-

whitening of both data series by one filter, while Haugh [1976] presents
a method of prewhitening each series separately.

The Haugh method is

more appropriate for testing for causality, and it is briefly discussed
in Appendix One.
Using the Haugh technique, the filtered data series are cross correlated,
showing the degree of association between x

and

y

L

, , where k is an integer.
L T K

By comparing the size and pattern of cross correlation estimates, one of
five possible relationships can be found between X and Y.
cross correlations between x*. an<^ y.
t

t

X causes Y if the

are significant only for k > 0,
T K

Y causes X if significance is found for k < 0, and X and Y are contemporaneously
'correlated if significance is found only at k = 0.

If the cross correlations

are significant for lags on either side of k = 0, feedback is said to occur,
and if no significant cross correlations are found, the two series are

said to be independent.
One-way causality is a necessary and sufficient condition for a
transfer function model to exist between two series.

In this study no

attempt has been made to fit transfer function models.

Conse-

- 4 -

quently, in those instances in which unidirectional causality was found
between two time series, there is no way to sign the relationship.

Short

of fitting the transfer function model, the results can only be used to
test the hypothesis that two time series are independent of each other
and to indicate direction of causality, if present.

Nevertheless, the

inability to reject a hypothesis of independence between labor force
series, such as those examined here, is a strong finding.

DATA AND HYPOTHESIS TESTS
Cross Correlations
Monthly labor force participation rates and unemployment rates were
collected for white males and females, aged 16 to 19 years and 20 yearsold and older.

The data were not seasonally adjusted.

Data for the

adults pertain to the 1954-1976 time period, while teenage data covered
the 1967-1976 period only.

Separate autoregressive integrated moving

average (ARIMA) models were fit to the adult data for the 1954-1966 and
1967-1976 periods.

The data were broken into these periods to minimize

the effect of changes in labor force definitions in 1967
two periods of roughly equal size.

and to obtain

In all, 12 different ARIMA models

.were fit: eight for adults and four for teenagers.

The ARIMA models

appear in Appendix Two.
To characterize the nature of the relationship between two series,
two separate tests can be applied to the cross correlations.
cross correlations

Individual

can be compared with their approximate standard errors-

a test roughly equivalent to a t test in linear regression.

Results must

- 5 -

be interpreted carefully because there are 61 cross correlations for each
pair of series, and about three would be significantly different from zero
by chance at the 95 percent level, even if the series were independent.
The entire set of cross correlations at positive and negative lags can be
hypothesized as a group to be insignificantly different from zero—a test
roughly analogous to an F test in linear regression.

Technically, the group

test statistic is approximately distributed as a chi-square.

Both of

these tests were applied to the cross correlations because each is
sensitive to slightly different behavior of the cross correlations.
.

Independence Tests
Test results are reported by demographic groups.

The groups examined

are white males and females, aged 20 and over, and white males and females,
16 to 19 years.

The results indicate which groups' short-run labor supply

decisions can be usefully regarded as dependent, on an aggregate level,
on the labor supply decisions of another group or as dependent on an
aggregate measure of labor market tightness.
The causality tests considered were of two kinds.

The first kind was

between unemployment rates and labor force participation

rates and between

participations rates for one group and participation rates for another group.
Participation rates may be interpreted as evidence of labor supply decisions
but unemployment rates are more difficult to interpret.

The unemployment

rate, after all, contains information on both labor supply and labor demand.
Labor force participation rates are not informative, per se, of
labor market tightness; increases in labor force participation are consistent
with increases in the unemployment rate for any group.

Suppose that male

participation rates are found to cause female participation rates.

Even if

- 6 -

the sign of the relationship were known to be negative, there could be two
explanations.

On the one hand, increases in male employment could be causing

females to withdraw from the labor force.

On the other hand, increases in

male unemployment could be discouraging to females, causing them to withdraw from the labor force.
flows

To gain insight into the actual labor market

and the causal relationships between them, the participation-

participation tests must be examined in conjunction with the unemploymentparticipation tests.
In a study of time series relationships between the labor force and
the overall unemployment rate Bowen and Finegan concluded that:

We have found no convincing evidence in
the postwar record that short-period changes
in the overall rate of unemployment have had
a large impact on the labor force participation rate of any population group^other than
teenagers and possibly males 65+.
Cross correlation tests applied to the data series in this study
point to the same conclusion: the cross correlations of the whitened
series generally were independent of each other.

In all but one instance,

the exceptions occurred among teenagers.
3
The independence test results appear in Appendix Two.

For the 1954-

1966 time period, the adult male unemployment rate was found to "cause"
adult male participation rates.

All other unemployment rates were found

to be independent of participation rates.

The participation rates of adult

males and females were contemporaneously related.
For the 1967-1976 time period, all relationships between adult series
were found to be independent. Only among teenagers were participation rates
independent of each other; participation rates were found to respond to an

- 7unemployment rate in three out of four cases.
teenagers and adults were less clear.

The relationships between

By and large these results indicate

that adult participation rates and teenage

participation rates are independent,

while adult unemployment rates and teenage participation rates are related
in complicated patterns.

Wachter [1972] found that unemployment rates were

not significant variables in participation rate regressions.

Contrary to

his expectations, Smith [1977] found a positive relation between labor market
tightness and the probability of labor market withdrawal for prime-age males
and females.
While many economists believe that market tightness and participation
are positively related—the discouraged worker effect dominates—this contention
is hard to support empirically.

The findings of Wachter, Smith, and Fleisher

and Rhodes [1977], combined with the findings presented here, indicate that
the relationship between participation rates and unemployment rates cannot be
described as one of cause and effect in any meaningful sense.
Care must be taken in interpreting these results of no causality
because there are causality behaviors which cannot be determined by statistical tests. For example, if two series are only straight-line trends, there
is no statistical method of proving that one series is causing the other
because the trend in one series could be just a trend, independent of the
other series, or it could be caused by the trend in the other series.

Thus,

the conclusions presented here hold for short run changes and not necessarily
for long term trends.
These.results of weak or no relationships between economic variables
which were thought to be related are consistent with the results in Pierce
[1977].

As demonstrated here, Pierce found that when the correct method

of testing was used relationships were much weaker than had been believed.

- 8 -

Structures of Models
The results of the independence tests suggest that whatever conditions
are associated with trend changes in the labor force participation of adult
white males and females, the short-period labor force activities of the
two groups are unrelated in general.

But when the models for long-term

participation rates of adult white males and females are compared for the
1954-1966 and 1967-1976 time periods, the participation rate models of
adult white males have changed by more than those of adult white females.
Participation Rates.
as VV
VV

3

For the 1954-1966 period female LFPRs are modeled

11
12
= (1 - .155B + .147B ' - .916B )a , while the 1967-1976 period yields

12
S = (1 - . 904B )a . These models are roughly identical except for the

small first and eleventh order moving average parameters.

The 1954-1966

estimation period provided a larger number of observations to fit than the
later period and yielded sharper estimates of the parameters.
model structure was fit to the 1967-1976 data with this result:

The 1954-1966
VV -3- =

11
12
(1 - .173B + .129B ' - .913B )a . The coefficients obtained in the fit to
1954-1966 data (.155, -.147, .916) are each in the 95 percent confidence
intervals around the 1967-1976 estimates.

The null hypothesis that the

1954-1966 model is also an acceptable model for the 1967-1976 period cannot
be rejected.
Such a

hypothesis can be rejected in the case of males over these

two time periods.

The male model for 1954-1966 is VV

-2 = (1 - . 33B

- .87B12 + .35B13)at while the 1967-1976 period model is (1 - .69B)V
(1 - .67B

12
13
' - .29B )a

- .352.

-Z

=

These models are not close to being

mathematically equivalent, so no attempt was made to fit the earlier
period model to the later period data.

For both males and females,

- 9-

however, the 1954-1966 period models were used to forecast the one-month-ahead
LFPRs of the 1967-1976 period.

The nature of the forecast errors which

result from this 'procedure substantiate the idea that male behavior has
"changed" in a way that female behavior has not.
First consider the mean squared error (MSE) of the various fits and
forecasts involved (Table 1).

For both men and women, there is an MSE

associated with the fit to the 1954-1966 period, an MSE associated with
the fit to the 1967-1976 period, and an MSE associated with the forecast
of the 1967-1976 period made with the 1954-1966 model.

In neither case

was it possible to forecast over the 1967-1976 period from the earlier
model better (in an MSE sense) than by using the fitted values from the
1967-1976 period model.

For women, however, the 1954-1967 model yielded

a smaller MSE over the latter period than over the period of its own
estimation.

This finding is due in part to the fact that the series structure

is almost identical over the two periods and in part to the smaller series
variance in the second period relative to the first.

For men, the MSE

associated with the 1954-1967 model forecasted into the 1967-1976 period
is larger than either the MSE for the 1954-1966 fit or for the 1967-1976
fit.

Table 1
Mean Squared Errors for LFPRs

Period of Model

Period of Calculation

1967-1976

1967-1976.

1967-1976 (forecast)

1954-1966

1954-1966 (fit)

1954-1966

(fit)

Males
.037
.042
.022

Females
.093
.083
.056

- 10 -

Another testing procedure that can provide insight on changes in
series behavior uses the cumulative sum, or cusum, of the normalized
forecast errors and the squared normalized forecast errors.

Initially,

the forecast errors of a series such as female LFPRs are calculated.

For

present purposes, consider the forecast errors obtained by forecasting
the 1967-1976 white female LFPRs with the 1954-1966 model.

Beginning

with the first forecasted period (January 1967) plot the cusum of the
normalized forecast errors.

Where this plot remains flat, the prediction

error has a mean of approximately zero; where the plot rises the predicted
values are too low; where the plot falls the predicted values are too
high.
The cusum of the detrended normalized squared forecast errors
corresponds to the above example, except this cusum informs as to the
forecast error variance relative to the residual variance (error variance
H
Where this cusum rises, the

of that model fitted to the earlier period).

forecast error variance associated with female LFPRs as predicted by the
1954-1966 model in the 1967-1976 period is greater than the error variance
obtained from that model fit to the 1954-1966 period.
Figures 1-A and 1-B display the cusums of the normalized forecast
errors for females and males, while Figures 2-A and 2-B display the cusums
of the detrended normalized squared forecast errors.

As can be seen

from

Figure 1-A, the cusum for females fluctuates in roughly a ±2cr band, remaining
relatively flat and indicating that the prediction error is approximately 0.
The sum of squares in Figure 2-A

primarily trends downward, indicating that

the forecast error variance shrinks relative to the residual variance over
the fitted period.

This is an excellent forecasting performance.

- 11 For men, again the findings are different.

Figure 1-B shows a steadily

rising cusum—a sign of chronic underforecasting with the 1954-1966 model.
The sum of squares, as shown in Figure 2-B, provides a clue to the underforecasting.

This cusum is characterized by discrete, one-period jumps,

followed by stable or downtrending periods.

This pattern indicates that

once the model gets on track, the forecast error variance shrinks admirably,
but that after a short spell, the model jumps track for one month.
Closer examination reveals that the 1954-1966 model generally jumps
track in January, performs well during the rest of the year, then misses
the next January quite badly.

The cusum of the normalized forecast errors

for the 1967-1976 period for white adult males is 16.588, of which 16.575
can be attributed to January underpredictions.

The 1970 calendar year

marks the beginning of these large underpredictions.

Examination of the

data shows that in the 1954-1969 period, LFPRs for this group typically
fell from December to January by 0.29 of a percentage point.

In the 1970-

1976 period, LFPRs for this group fell from December to January by 0.18 of
a percentage point, on average.
represents roughly

The difference, one-tenth of one percent,

60,000 persons.

Unemployment Rates.

Diagnostic tests again were applied to the

forecasts of the 1967-1976 period made with the 1954-1966 models to
determine if any changes had occurred in the series behavior.

The two

models of the female unemployment rates were very similar, as they were for
participation rates.

But in this instance the 1954-1966 model structure

did not pass significance tests when estimated over the 1967-1976 period.
The male unemployment rate models were not equivalent either.

- 12 -

For both males and females the MSEs of the 1967-1976 forecasts made
with the 1954—1966 models were lower than the MSEs of the models estimated
over the 1954-1966 period because of the lower variances of the latter
period relative to the former and to the closeness—if not equivalence—
of the second period models to their first period counterparts.

Table

2 displays the MSEs of the fits and forecasts.
Table 2
Mean Squared Errors for URs

Period of Model

Period of Calculation

1967-1976 (fit)

1967-1976

1967-1976 (forecast)

1954-1966

1954-1966 (fit)

1954-1966

Males
.077
.052
.034

Females
.101
.095
.074

The cusum of the normalized forecast errors shows that unemployment
rates, for females, were underforecasted during the economic slowdowns of
1970 and 1974.
mean.

Other than these periods, the forecast errors had a zero

For men the 1970 and 1974 unemployment rates were also underpredicted,

but in addition, the rates were overpredicted as the respective recoveries
got underway.

These cusums are shown as Figures 3-A and 3-B.

The cusums of the detrended normalized squared forecast errors are
quite similar for male and female unemployment rates

and reveal a great

deal about the error variances of the two time periods.
4-B represent these cusums for females and males.

Figures 4-A and

The patterns are of almost

monotonic decay until the 1974-1975 recession, when the cusum jumps sharply.
Relative to the residual variance of the 1954-1966 model period, the forecast

- 13 -

error variance associated with the 1967-1976 period continues to decline
until the recession.

Once the cusum has acknowledged this one-time shift

in forecast error variance, it continues to decline as before.

SUMMARY
A causality approach to labor force participation suggests that
among adult whites unemployment rates and cross-LFPRs are not useful
information for predicting participation rates.

Among teenagers, however,

unemployment rates may be useful.
Economic policymakers are increasingly concerned about the determinants of labor force participation and possible changes in the structural

changed cannot

that the time series model for adult white female LFPRs has

The notion

relationships upon which the participation rates are based.

be supported, while for adult white males that notion can be supported.
It is well known that labor market circumstances of individuals are
strongly influenced by age.

Therefore, a finer disaggregation of the data

by age groups possibly would eliminate many of the findings of independence
between various pairs of time series.

In addition to the test performed in

this study, one could test for changes in the individual parameters of the
ARIMA models using the procedure discussed in Bagshaw and Johnson [1977] .
Nonetheless, many theoretical issues remain to be considered.

Further

study could be undertaken to determine the amount of economic information
that is removed from the data via the filtering procedure.

To approach

this issue one can consider the degree of residual variance that would
prompt the consideration that the information contained in the white noise
process is, in some sense, not worth examining.
on the filter

Another view would focus

to determine whether the degree of differencing to achieve

stationarity removes important information from the analysis.

FOOTNOTES

Because the data are rates for groups as opposed to decisions of
individuals, it would be inappropriate to discuss the results in
terms of individuals.

2
W. G. Bowen and T. A. Finegan, The Economics of Labor Force
Participation (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969).
p. 515.
•
3
Detailed teenage data were unavailable before 1967. For the 19671976 period, no tests were done between teenage unemployment rates
and adult participation rates. The authors assumed that adult
participation decisions were not conditional on teenage market
tightness.

.
The cumulative sume of the square of the forecast errors is
standardized by the residual variance from the earlier time
period. One is substracted for detrending:
n

t=l

APPENDIX ONE

The Haugh method of testing the independence of two time series
is a two-stage process which involves fitting univariate models to each
of the series

and cross correlating the two resulting series.

These

cross correlations are then tested for significance to determine whether
the two series are independent.
In the first stage, the univariate models used are integrated
autoregressive moving average seasonal models.

The general model of

order (p, d, q) X (P, D, Q) is given by

*(BS)<KB)7VV = ® (BS)9(B)a.. + 6
S t
T
(
where

— -L1

A.
RD
— CD
vl

~ • • • —* mRPD

vp

' (H)(BS) = 1 - ® ,BS - . . . -® A B QS
^^

.

JL

Q

e(B) = i - e.B - . . . - e Bq
i
q
' V d = (l-B) d

»J.d-.V
6

•

' ' '.

' -•'

;

is a constant, B is the backshift operator (e.g., B \ v

the seasonal period (e.g., s = 12 for monthly data), and a

.), s is
is a white

noise series.
Thus, these models incorporate all the information contained in
past values of the series with the resulting residual series, a, being
a series of uncorrelated values.

This procedure is in itself a three
- 15 -

,

- 16 -

stage process involving model identification, model fitting and diagnostic
checking.

For a detailed discussion of this procedure, see Box and Jenkins

[1970] .
The second stage consists of calculating the cross correlations
between the residuals from the two series.

These estimates are given

by

r
al'32

(k) = C
(k)
V32
/C

(o)C

(o)

al

where

/»•

N -k

C
ai'a:

C
al

1N
N L *— J. ~

(o) = 1 E a2 .
N t=l Xft

and a.
is the residual from series i at time t.
*» «•
It can be shown that if the two original series are uncorrelated,
*

then r
(k) will have an asymptotic variance of (N - |k|)
and the
ai'a2
covariances of the cross correlations at different lags will be on the
order of N

.

Thus, this

method of transformation makes

it much

easier to interpret the cross correlations than the Sox-Jenkins technique,
which applies the same filter to each data series.
Using the definition of causality which says X causes Y if we can
better predict Y using X than we can when using only past values of Y,
these cross correlations can be used to test for causality as explained
in the text of this paper.

1

Series Group

APPENDIX TWO*

A.

Structure

UR

1967-1976

(A)

Females

LFPR

1967-1976

(A)

Males

LFPR

-

(A)

,,

(A)

Males
Females

LFPR

LFPR

(A)

-

:.

i.*

t-

1954-1966
1954-1966

1954-1966
1954-1966

1967-1976

(T)

Males

UR

1967-1976

(T)

Females

LFPR

;' 1967-1976

(T)

Males

LFPR

1967-1976

(A)

Females

UR

1967-1976

(A)

Males

UR

;.

.;

c

ARIMA Models

Time

(A)

Males
Females

UR

1967-1976

(T)

Females

UR

B.

1

87B12 + .35B13)a
VV125t = (1 " <34B " '
11
12
158
- .928 )a
VV122t = (1 ~ '16B+ '
10
I Q^
(1 - .698)7 a = (1 - .67B
- .298 )a_ - .35

t

VV10Z = (1 - .90B12)a
12 t
r.
*
12
14
12 t
.918
- .198 )a
12
13
77.0-& = (1 - .23B - . 93B
+ .208 )a
12 t
0y
jA L
t /
(1 - .37B - .19B )7V122t = (1 - .928 )at

7v a = (i + .IBB -

7712&t = (1 - .95B12)a
t ,.
77 * = (1 - .62B - . 358 )a
12 t
£
19
24
(1 - .668)77 2- = (1 + .178 - .508
- .368 )at

:

+ 1.23
12
81B
)a
VV122t = (1 " >14B " '
12
77 „* = (1 - .53B - .468 )at
12 t

Independence Test Results

Cross Correlated With

Series

Time Period
LFPR
LFPR
LFPR
LFPR
LFPR

1954-1966
1954-1966
1954-1966
1954-1966
1954-1966
1967-1976
1967-1976
1967-1976
1967-1976
1967-1976
1967-1976
1967-1976
1967-1976
1967-1975
1967-1976
1967-1976
1967-1976
1967-1976
1967-1976
1967-1976
1967-1976
1967-1976
1967-1976

Males
Females
Females
Males
Males

(A)
(A)
(A)
(A)
(A)

LFPR Males
(A)
LFPR Females (A)
LFPR Females (A)
LFPR Males
(A)
LFPR Males
(A)
LFPR Males
(A)
LFPR Males
(A)
LFPR Females (A)
LFPR Females (A)
UR Males
(A)
UR Males
(A)
UR Females
(A)
UR Females
(A)
LFPR Males
(T)
LFPR Males
(T)
LFPR Males
CT)
LFPR Females (T)
LFPR -Females (T)

UR. Males
UR Females
UR Males
UR Females
LFPR Females

(A)
(A)
(A)
(A)
(A)

(A)

UR Males

(A)
(A)

UR Males
UR Females
UR Females
LFPR Females
LFPR Males
LFPR Females
LFPR Females
LFPR Males
LFPR Males
LFPR Females
LFPR Females
LFPR Males
LFPR Females
, UR Females

UR Males
UR Males
UR Females

(A)
(A)
(T)
(T)
(T)
(T)
(T)
(T)
(T)
(T)
(T)
(T)

Finding
UR causes LFPR

Independent
Independent
Independent

Contemporaneous
Independent
Independent
Independent
Independent

Independent
Contemporaneous
Independent

Independent
Independent

Feedback
LFPR causes UR
Feedback

Indspendent
Independent
UR causes LFPR
UR causes LFPR
UR causes LFPR

(T)
(T)
CT)

Independent

(A) refers to adults; (T) refers to teenagers.

- 17 -

-«

BIBLOGRAPHY

Bagshaw, M., and Johnson, R. "Sequential Procedures for Detecting Parameter
Changes in a Time-Series Model." Journal of the American
Statistical Association 72 (September 1977): 593-97.

Bowen, W. G., and Finegan, T. A. The Economics of Labor Force Participation.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969.

Box, G. E. P., and Jenkins, G. M. Time Series Analysis Forecasting and
Control. San Francisco: Holden-Day, Inc., 1970.

Fleisher, B., and Rhodes, G. "Unemployment and the Labor Force Participation
of Married Men and Women: A Simultaneous Model." Review of
Economics and Statistics (November 1976): 398-406.

Haugh, L. D. "Checking the Independence of Two Covariance Stationary Time
Series: A Univariate Residual Cross-Correlation Approach."
Journal of the American Statistical Association 71 (June
1976): 378-85.

Pierce, D. A. "Relationships-and the Lack Thereof-Between Economic Time
Series, with Special Reference to Money and Interest Rates." •
Journal of the American Statistical Association 72 (March
1977): ljT22.

Wachter, M. "A Labor Supply Model for Secondary Workers." Review of
Economics and Statistics (May 1972):

-J

J

- 18 -

1

4

I I

I 4

i

4

L

<

k .1

k'j k

k

CUSUM OF ERRORS
FEMRLE LflBOR FORCE PflRTICIPflTION RflTES
4.0

3.0 2.0 -

1 .0 -

o.o
-1 .0

-

-3.0

-

-2.0

-4.0

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

MONTHLY
FIGURE 1-A

L <

V , L , i « I

I 4,

k *

k 4

V

CUSUM OF ERRORS
MRLE LflBOR FORCE PflRTICIPflTION RflTES
20.0

6.0 4.0
2.0

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

MONTHLY
FIGURE 1-B

L

4

1

4

i

<

1

4

I

4

L

4

I

4

I

4

i

4

i

<

L

<

L

4

L

4

L

4

I 4

4

t 4

CUSUM OF SQUflRED ERRORS
FEMflLE LflBOR FORCE PflRTICIPflTION RflTES

10.0
5.0

0.0

-5.0

-10.0

-15.0

_L

-20.0

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

MONTHLY
FIGURE 2-A

j i .i i j" i

j i. / i..y i

CUSUM OF SQURRED E R R O R S
M R L E LRBOR FORCE P R R T I C I P R T I ON RRTES
24.0

21 .0 -

18.0 -

15.0 -

12.0 -

9.0 -

6.0

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

MONTHLY
FIGURE 2-B

L

4

i 4

I 4

1 4

1 4

CUSUM OF ERRORS
FEMflLE U N E M P L O Y M E N T RflTES
25.0

-

20.0

-

22.5

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

MONTHLY

FIGURE 3-A

*.

*

V *

CUSUM OF ERRORS
MRLE UNEMPLOYMENT RflTES
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
-2.0
-4.0

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

MONTHLY
FIGURE 3-B

^ __<3

V._3

V_--1

V

^

CUSUM OF SQUflRED ERRORS
FEMflLE U N E M P L O Y M E N T RflTES
10.0
6.0
2.0
-2.0
-6.0
-10.0
-14.0
-18.0
-22.0
-26.0
-30.0

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

MONTHLY
FIGURE 4-A

CUSUM OF SQUflRED ERRORS
MflLE U N E M P L O Y M E N T RflTES
MONTHLY
5.0
0.0

/\7

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

-5.0
-10.0
-15.0
-20.0
-25.0
-30.0
-35.0
-40.0
-45.0
-50.0
FIGURE 4-B