CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

This chapter discusses the methods and procedures that will be used to gather the

necessary data and information to be used in the entire study. It represents the locale of the

study, data sources, and the statistical treatment of data. The data locale describes, in brief,

the location where the study is conducted and the rationale behind its choice. In contrast, the

data sources section presents the different agencies to be approached in order to obtain the

desired data. Lastly, the statistical treatment of data discusses how this study handles and

analyzes data.

3.1 Theoretical Framework

The schematic diagram below illustrates the effect of GDP growth rate, Inflation

Rate, Foreign Direct Investment, Government Spending, Trade Openness and Capital

Investment to the Unemployment Rate supported by existing theories.

GDP growth
rate
Oku
n’s Law Theory
Inflation Rate
Phil
lip’s Curve Theory
Foreign Direct
Investment
Exo
Unemployment genous Growth
Rate Theory
Government
Spending

Keynes Theory
Figure 3.1.1. Schematic Diagram for Theoretical Framework

This study employed the theory of Okun’s Law to explain the negative effect of GDP

growth rate on unemployment rate; GDP measures the worth of goods and services produced

in an economy, taking into account changes in overall price levels. Reducing unemployment

was one of his main goals. High unemployment can impact economic growth, depending on

the type and cause of the unemployment and how much it affects the key sectors driving

economic growth. (Bilal & Djamel, 2021) As shown by Okun (1962), when unemployment

rates decrease in an economy, it leads to economic development and an increase in growth

rates.

Another theory, from Philip’s Curve Theory, illustrates the inverse relationship

between inflation and unemployment, showing that when unemployment rises, inflation falls,

and vice versa. However, economists note a difference between the short-run and long-run

Phillips curves. In the long run, inflation and unemployment appear unrelated, with

unemployment stabilizing at a fixed rate regardless of inflation levels (Sahnoun &

Abdennadher, 2019). It aims to highlight the trade-off between these two variables.

According to the Phillips curve, a lower unemployment rate leads to a tighter labor market,

prompting firms to raise wages to attract the limited available labor.

Also, the evidence from the exogenous theory, also known as the neoclassical growth

model, shows that foreign direct investment (FDI) did not have a significant impact on the

relationship between FDI and unemployment.(Umit & Alkan, 2016). These findings suggest

that while FDI can contribute to reducing unemployment, its effect is indirect and relies on

mediating factors like economic growth and wage policies (Tegep et al. 2019).
 The connection between trade openness and unemployment is effectively illustrated

by the Heckscher-Ohlin (H-O) model integrated with Stolper-Samuelson effects. According

to this framework, when a country engages in international trade, it tends to specialize in

producing goods that utilize its abundant resources more intensively. As a result, trade

openness enhances the demand for these resources, impacting employment patterns. In

economies rich in labor, increased trade typically raises demand for labor-intensive products,

creating jobs and reducing unemployment. Conversely, in capital-rich economies, trade may

lower labor demand in industries competing with labor-intensive imports, potentially leading

to higher unemployment.

Moreover, structural adjustments during this transition can cause temporary

unemployment, with the severity depending on factors like labor mobility and market

flexibility. Feenstra and Hanson (1996) argue that while trade promotes economic growth, its

impacts on labor markets are uneven, producing both gains and losses. Therefore, robust

labor market policies are essential to cushion the adverse effects of trade on employment.

The connection between capital investment and unemployment is explained through

Keynesian investment theory, which suggests that capital accumulation fuels economic

growth and job creation by increasing aggregate demand. Higher capital investment expands

production capacity and generates employment opportunities both immediately and in the

long term. For example, investments in physical capital like machinery, infrastructure, and

technology create jobs during the construction, production, and maintenance stages. Over

time, such investments improve productivity, fostering economic growth and raising labor

demand. However, the effect of capital investment on unemployment is complex. As noted

by Blanchard (2000), while capital investment often reduces unemployment, the adoption of

advanced technologies may result in automation and the displacement of certain workers.
 Similarly, Acemoglu and Restrepo (2018) suggest that the long-term impact depends

on whether productivity-driven job creation outweighs the job losses caused by automation.

Aghion and Howitt (1994) also emphasize that complementary measures, such as education

and retraining programs, are critical in helping workers adapt to changing labor market needs

driven by capital investment. Ultimately, the overall effect of capital investment on

unemployment depends on the type of investment, the flexibility of labor markets, and the

presence of supportive policies and institutions.

The connection between government spending and unemployment is rooted in

Keynesian fiscal policy theory, which underscores the importance of government intervention

in stabilizing the economy and reducing unemployment during economic downturns. Keynes

argued that government spending stimulates aggregate demand by directly creating jobs in

the public sector and indirectly fostering employment in the private sector through multiplier

effects. For example, investments in infrastructure not only provide immediate jobs in

construction but also promote long-term economic growth by improving productivity.

Research by Auerbach and Gorodnichenko (2012) shows that the impact of government

spending on unemployment is particularly significant during recessions, as fiscal stimulus

helps counteract declines in private sector activity. Likewise, Blanchard and Perotti (2002)

demonstrate that increased government expenditure on goods and services raises labor

demand, leading to lower unemployment.

The effectiveness of such spending, however, depends on factors like fiscal

multipliers, the type of spending, and the economy’s level of capacity utilization. Perotti

(2005) points out that government spending has a stronger impact on unemployment when

directed toward labor-intensive industries. Additionally, Ramey (2011) emphasizes the

importance of the timing and scale of spending, noting that well-targeted and timely
interventions are more effective in reducing unemployment. As such, government spending

can significantly address unemployment when carefully planned and executed.

3.2 Conceptual Framework

The figure below illustrates the expected relationship between the independent

variable which is the GDP growth Rate, Inflation Rate, Trade Openness, and Foreign Direct

Investment (FDI) which are being held constant to explain further the linkage between

dependent and independent variables; and the dependent variable which is the unemployment

rate.

Independent Variables
GDP growth rate
Inflation Rate
Foreign Direct
Investment
Government Spending
Trade Openness
Capital Investment

Figure 3.1.2: Conceptual Framework of the Study

With the aid of the empirical studies this paper infers the following statements. Gross

Domestic growth rate has a negative relationship with the Unemployment Rate, denoting that

when GDP growth rate increases the unemployment rate decreases (Dayıoğlu & Aydın, 2020;

Chien, 2020). It dictates that every 1% increase in GDP growth is the decrease of the

unemployment rate by 0.5%. Economic growth and unemployment are crucial factors, as

most countries, particularly developed and developing ones, prioritize reducing

unemployment while also aiming for high economic growth (Soylu, Cakmak & Okur, 2018).
Research supports the idea that higher GDP growth can lower unemployment by boosting the

demand for workers. For instance, Kemi and Lawrence (2016) found that in developing

countries, stronger economic growth is closely linked to lower unemployment, especially in

sectors that rely on a large workforce. Similarly, Imran and Hussain (2017) observed that

when GDP grows quickly, it tends to create more jobs across various industries, helping to

reduce unemployment.

The relationship between Inflation rate and Unemployment rate is also negative, where

inflation rate refers to the general increase in price levels within an economy, as it can create

employment opportunities and attract investments, thereby influencing economic growth as

well as social and political dynamics (Mouseni & Jouzaryan, 2016). The inverse relationship

between the two variables shows that when unemployment rises, inflation falls, and vice

versa. Ball and Mankiw (2015) found that moderate inflation can reduce unemployment in

the short term by boosting demand and encouraging businesses to hire. However, Blanchard

and Summers (2015) argue that high inflation creates economic instability and uncertainty,

leading to higher unemployment in the long term. Thus, while moderate inflation may help

the job market, high inflation can harm it.

Foreign Direct Investment also has a negative relationship with the unemployment

rate. Foreign direct investment involves an individual or company making direct investments

in a foreign country, often for business and production purposes (Matthew & Ogunlusi,

2017). It tends to focus on non-labor-intensive rather than creating widespread job

opportunities in both labor-intensive and non-labor-intensive sectors. The relationship

between foreign direct investment (FDI) and unemployment suggests that FDI can reduce

unemployment by boosting economic growth and creating jobs. Alfaro et al. (2015) found

that FDI helps create jobs by supporting industrial development and technology transfer.
Cleeve (2015) also noted that FDI increases labor demand, especially in developing

countries, by improving productivity and creating new businesses. However, the effect of

FDI on unemployment depends on factors like the type of investment and the labor market

conditions of the host country. In general, FDI helps reduce unemployment, but supportive

policies are needed to maximize its benefits.

Government spending on unemployment suggests that increased government

spending can reduce unemployment by boosting economic demand and creating jobs.

Baumeister and Hamilton (2015) found that higher government spending increases aggregate

demand, leading to more jobs, especially in tough economic times. Boushey et al. (2017)

agree, showing that spending on infrastructure and public services creates both short- and

long-term jobs. However, Alesina et al. (2015) note that the effect depends on the type of

spending and economic conditions. Berlemann and Mohl (2015) argue that targeted spending,

like investments in education and training, is especially effective in reducing unemployment

over time. Therefore, the impact of government spending on unemployment relies on how,

when, and how efficiently it is spent.

A trade openness to unemployment suggests that trade openness affects

unemployment by influencing economic growth and labor markets. Felbermayr et al. (2015)

find that more trade boosts growth and creates jobs in export industries. However, Autor et al.

(2016) warn that while trade can create jobs in some areas, it can also cause job losses in

sectors facing global competition, like manufacturing. Blanchard and Giavazzi (2015) argue

that the effect of trade on unemployment depends on how well a country adapts to global

competition and supports its labor market. Gorg and Stiefel (2017) suggest that trade’s

benefits for employment are stronger in countries investing in education and skills training.
Ultimately, the impact of trade openness on unemployment depends on the economy’s

structure and policies supporting worker transitions.

A capital investment to unemployment suggests that more capital investment can

lower unemployment by driving economic growth and creating jobs. Gali (2015) found that

investing in technology and infrastructure increases productivity and generates jobs.

However, Bloom, Brynjolfsson, and Cowen (2017) note that automation from capital

investment may cut jobs in some sectors but can create new opportunities in high-skill

industries. Choi and Lee (2017) argue that the positive effects depend on policies like

education and labor reforms to help workers adapt. McKinsey Global Institute (2019) also

shows that investment in innovation and infrastructure fuels economic growth and reduces

unemployment over time. Thus, the effect of capital investment on unemployment depends

on the type of investment and supporting policies.

3.3 Empirical Framework

3.3.1 Empirical Model

This study employed the Ramsey Regression Equation Specification

Error Test (RESET) to assess the factors affecting the unemployment rate of the

Philippines in 1991-2020. The formulation of the model was based on the

reviewed literature in the previous section. The specification of the empirical

model is expressed in the following equation form:

UR𝑖𝑡= 𝛽0+ 𝛽1GDP𝑖𝑡 + 𝛽2FDI𝑖𝑡+ 𝛽3IR𝑖𝑡 + 𝛽4G𝑖𝑡 + 𝛽5C𝑖𝑡 + 𝛽6T𝑖𝑡 + εit

(1)

where:
 UR𝑖𝑡 = is the Unemployment Rate in the Philippines from 1991-2020;

𝛽0 = represents the constants coefficient;

𝛽1GDP𝑖𝑡 = is the Gross Domestic Product growth rate of the Philippines from 1991-
2020;

𝛽2FDI𝑖𝑡 = is the Foreign Direct Investment in the Philippines from 1991-2020;

𝛽3IR𝑖𝑡 = is the Inflation rate of the Philippines from 1991-2020;

𝛽4G𝑖𝑡 = is the Government Spending of the Philippines from 1991-2020;

𝛽5C𝑖𝑡 = is the Capital Investment of the Philippines from 1991-2020;

𝛽6T𝑖𝑡 = is the Trade Openness of the Philippines from 1991-2020; and

𝜀𝑖𝑡 = represents the error term.

3.3.2 Hypothesis

The following are the null hypothesis in this study which was tested using the significance of
5%:

H 01: There is no significant relationship between Unemployment Rate and the

following independent variables:

a. GDP growth rate

b. Inflation Rate
c. Foreign Direct Investment
d. Capital Investment
e. Trade Openness
f. Government Spending

3.3.3 Hypothesis Index

Table 2. Data Variables and Sources

Variables Hypothesized Effect Sources
 Dependent Variable:
Unemployment Rate
Independent Variable
(+) (Kemi and Lawrence,
2016; & Imran and
Hussain, 2017)
GDP Growth Rate (-) (Dayıoğlu & Aydın,
(GDPr) 2020; Chien, 2020; &
Altunoz's, 2019)
(+) (Ball & Mankiw, 2015).

Inflation Rate (lnF)

(-) (Mouseni & Jouzaryan,
2016; Sahnoun &
Abdennadher, 2019).
Foreign Direct Investment (+) (Alfaro et al., 2015; &
(FDI) Cleeve, 2015)
(-) (Matthew & Ogunlusi,
2017)
(+) (Ross, 2019; Alrabba,
2017;Gali, 2015; &
McKinsey Global
Institute 2019)
Capital Investment (CI)
(-) (Bloom, Brynjolfsson, and
Cowen , 2017;& Choi and
Lee, 2017)

(+) (Felbermayr et al., 2015;

Hwang and Lee, 2019; &
Trade Openness (TRO) Silajdzic and Mehic,
2018)
(-) (Autor et al., 2016;
Hossain et al., 2018; &
Raifu, 2017)
Government Spending (+) O’Nwachukwu, 2016; &
(GS) Gachari & Korir, 2020;

(-) Baumeister and

Hamilton, 2015; Boushey
et al., 2017; Berlemann
and Mohl, 2015; Alrayes
& Wadi, 2018; Onodugo
 et al., 2017; & Shadi
Saraireh,2020)

The table above shows the hypothesized effects of the independent variables such

as GDP growth rate, inflation rate, FDI, Trade Openness, Capital Investment, and

Government spending on the Unemployment rate that coincide with the empirical literature.

The variables indicate a significant relationship to the unemployment rate of the Philippines.

Below are the independent variables that being discussed about the relationship to the

unemployment rate:

GDP growth rate

Several studies suggest that higher GDP growth positively impacts job creation, as it

increases the demand for labor across various sectors. For example, Kemi and Lawrence

(2016) found that in developing countries, strong economic growth is closely linked to lower

unemployment, especially in labor-intensive industries where more workers are needed as

production expands. Similarly, Imran and Hussain (2017) noted that rapid GDP growth opens

up employment opportunities across different industries, thus reducing overall

unemployment. These findings highlight that when the economy grows, it typically results in

more job openings, helping to bring down unemployment levels.

Some studies suggest that GDP growth may have a limited effect on reducing

unemployment. Dayıoğlu and Aydın (2020) and Chien (2020) note that, although countries

typically aim for both economic growth and lower unemployment, the connection between

these two goals may not be as strong as anticipated. Altunoz (2019) adds that while GDP

growth and unemployment generally show a negative correlation, the influence of GDP

growth on unemployment can be weak over both short and long terms. This implies that
increasing GDP alone might not significantly lower unemployment without the support of

additional measures, such as targeted employment policies.

Inflation rate

The study by Ball and Mankiw (2015) shows a positive effect of moderate inflation

on unemployment in the short term. They argue that moderate inflation boosts aggregate

demand, encouraging consumers to spend more, which drives businesses to expand

production and hire additional workers, thereby reducing unemployment. Additionally,

inflation makes borrowing more attractive, leading to higher investment and job creation.

This aligns with the Phillips Curve, which suggests an inverse relationship between inflation

and unemployment in the short run. Thus, moderate inflation can lower unemployment by

stimulating economic activity and business expansion.

The relationship between inflation and unemployment is commonly characterized by

an inverse, or negative, connection, as seen in both the studies by Sahnoun & Abdennadher

(2019) and Mouseni & Jouzaryan (2016). According to Sahnoun & Abdennadher (2019), this

negative relationship is grounded in the Phillips Curve, which suggests that as unemployment

rises, inflation tends to fall due to weakened demand for goods and services in a sluggish

economy. When unemployment is high, there is typically less spending, lower wage growth,

and businesses are less inclined to raise prices, which reduces inflation. On the other hand,

Mouseni & Jouzaryan (2016) acknowledge that in the short run, moderate inflation can

stimulate economic activity, create employment opportunities, and attract investments, thus

leading to a lower unemployment rate. However, their study also highlights that if inflation

becomes too high, it can lead to economic instability, higher interest rates, and reduced

investment, ultimately resulting in increased unemployment. Both studies emphasize that

while inflation may have some short-term effects in lowering unemployment, the overall
relationship between inflation and unemployment remains negative in the long run, as

excessive inflation undermines economic stability and job creation.

Foreign Direct Investment

The studies suggest that Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) can have a positive impact

on reducing unemployment, particularly in the context of economic growth and job creation.

Alfaro et al. (2015) argue that FDI fosters industrial development and facilitates technology

transfer, both of which are essential for increasing productivity and creating new employment

opportunities. FDI often supports the establishment of new businesses and the expansion of

existing ones, leading to increased demand for labor. Cleeve (2015) further emphasizes that

FDI boosts labor demand, particularly in developing countries, where it improves

productivity and creates jobs in both non-labor-intensive and labor-intensive sectors. This

suggests that, by fostering growth and improving technological capabilities, FDI can reduce

unemployment by driving job creation and enhancing the overall economy.

However, the effect of FDI on unemployment can also be negative depending on the

type of investment and the specific conditions of the host country's labor market. Matthew &

Ogunlusi (2017) highlight that FDI tends to focus more on non-labor-intensive sectors, which

may not create widespread job opportunities across all sectors of the economy. This can

result in limited job creation, particularly for lower-skilled workers or in industries that

require fewer employees. In some cases, FDI may lead to job displacement if foreign firms

replace local industries or if technology adoption reduces the demand for manual labor.

Therefore, while FDI can reduce unemployment by fostering economic growth, the extent of

its benefits depends on labor market conditions, policies, and the type of industries attracted

by the investment. Without supportive policies, the benefits of FDI in terms of job creation

may be limited or unevenly distributed. As foreign direct investment grows, there will be
more job prospects for Filipinos since external investors can invest money to start firms in a

country. As a result, the unemployment rate and foreign direct investment have an inverse

connection.

Capital Investment

Several studies highlight the positive impact of capital investment on reducing

unemployment by driving economic growth and creating jobs. According to Ross (2019),

increased capital investment leads to the purchasing of more equipment, which expands

business operations and requires companies to hire additional employees. This expansion

often results in higher labor demand, and as employment rises, wages and salaries tend to

increase as well. Alrabba (2017) further supports this view by showing that in Jordan,

increased capital investment leads to business expansion through more assets, projects, and

securities, creating economic opportunities that contribute to lower unemployment rates.

Additionally, Gali (2015) finds that investment in technology and infrastructure boosts

productivity, creating jobs and improving economic prospects. McKinsey Global Institute

(2019) echoes this sentiment, showing that investments in innovation and infrastructure help

fuel long-term economic growth, which, in turn, reduces unemployment by creating new

employment opportunities. These studies illustrate how capital investment, particularly in

technology and infrastructure, drives business expansion, enhances productivity, and creates

jobs, thus having a positive effect on reducing unemployment.

While capital investment can reduce unemployment in many cases, its effects can also

be negative, particularly in certain sectors or industries. According to Bloom, Brynjolfsson,

and Cowen (2017), increased capital investment, particularly in automation and technology,

can lead to job losses in labor-intensive sectors. As businesses invest in automated systems,

there may be fewer jobs available for low-skill workers, leading to job displacement. Choi
and Lee (2017) argue that the positive effects of capital investment depend on supporting

policies, such as education and labor reforms, which help workers adapt to changes in the

labor market. Without these policies, capital investment may exacerbate inequality and

unemployment in certain industries, as workers without the necessary skills for new, high-

tech jobs may find it difficult to transition. These studies suggest that while capital

investment can create jobs, it may also cause job losses in certain sectors, and its

effectiveness in reducing unemployment largely depends on how well workers are prepared

for new economic realities through supportive policies.

Trade Openness

Studies show that trade openness can reduce unemployment by boosting economic

growth, job creation, and productivity. Felbermayr et al. (2015) find that increased trade

helps countries with comparative advantages grow and create jobs in export industries.

Hwang and Lee (2019) argue that trade opens up more job opportunities in large labor

markets by increasing domestic production and labor demand. Silajdzic and Mehic (2018)

suggest that trade encourages technological progress, increases productivity, and stimulates

growth, leading to lower unemployment. In summary, trade openness supports economic

growth and job creation, especially in export-driven sectors.

Some studies suggest that trade openness can increase unemployment, especially in

countries struggling to compete globally. Autor et al. (2016) explain that while trade can

create jobs in certain sectors, it may also cause job losses in industries like manufacturing,

which face competition from cheaper imports. Hossain et al. (2018) and Raifu (2017) argue

that trade can worsen unemployment in countries with structural issues, like skill gaps or low

adaptability. For example, in the Philippines and Nigeria, trade openness hasn’t reduced
unemployment due to weak domestic industries and mismatched worker skills. These studies

show that without the right policies, trade openness can hurt unemployment.

Government Spending

Some studies show that increased government spending can raise unemployment.

O’Nwachukwu (2016) and Gachari & Korir (2020) found that a 1% rise in government

spending could increase unemployment by about 0.48%. This may happen due to

inefficiencies, corruption, or poor resource management, especially in developing countries.

For example, in Nigeria and Kenya, government spending may not lead to job creation if it is

misallocated or not aligned with labor market needs. These studies suggest that while

government spending can reduce unemployment, it can also worsen it if not properly

managed.

Other studies show that government spending can lower unemployment. Baumeister

and Hamilton (2015) found that during economic downturns, increased spending boosts

demand and creates jobs, especially in infrastructure and public services. Boushey et al.

(2017) agree, noting that such spending not only provides short-term jobs but also supports

long-term job growth. Berlemann and Mohl (2015) highlight that targeted spending, like

investing in education and training, improves skills and reduces unemployment over time.

Studies by Alrayes & Wadi (2018), Onodugo et al. (2017), and Shadi Saraireh (2020) also

show a negative relationship between government spending and unemployment. These

findings suggest that when managed well, government spending can boost growth, create

jobs, and reduce unemployment, especially if it’s targeted effectively.

3.4 Methods of Estimation

This study employed Ramsey Regression Equation Specification Error Test

(RESET) to assess the factors affecting the unemployment rate of the Philippines

in 1991-2020. The method measures the relationship between independent and

dependent variables. The reason behind choosing this method is that it has its own

advantages on assessing time series data. Furthermore, this regression is

represented as (y, zi), in which “y” is the forecast variable sometimes also called

the regressand, dependent, and explained. While “zi” represents the predictor

variables sometimes called the regressors, independent, or explanatory variables.

Generalized model of Ramsey RESET regression can be expressed

mathematically below:

yi = xib + zit + ui (2)

Where yi is the dependent variable, xib is constant coefficient and zi = (

is the independent variable which can be I(0) or I(1), or

the combination of both; and u𝑡 is the error term. On the other hand, the

secondary data was taken from the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA), and

World Bank. The time series data sets were tested to determine the appropriate

model before analyzing it using Simple Time Series Regression. Prior to the

selection of the final model, various test and Ordinary Linear Squares (OLS)

assumptions were performed and statistically satisfied by the model. The test

includes performing the test for outliers, outliers are the extreme values of the

data, the study detected and omitted the outliers. The OLS assumptions and tests

include exogeneity test, normality test, linearity in parameters, and

multicollinearity test. Additional diagnostic tests were also performed in order to

test the reliability of the obtained results, these diagnostics were

heteroskedasticity and serial correlation. The Exogeneity test was conducted to

assess the model whether there is a need to transform into a function with a

skewness coefficient closer to zero to avoid model misspecification. After

determining the functional form, skewness or kurtosis test for normality is

employed to test the specification or the test for the functional form. The pairwise

correlation test is employed to test the linearity of parameters and correlation

between variables in the study, and to generate a correlation coefficient matrix.

Another linearity parameter test for time series is testing its stationarity using the

Dickey-Fuller test. The Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) assumption of no

multicollinearity means that there is no linear relationship between the variables,

variance Inflation Factor (VIF) is employed to test the multicollinearity. To test

for serial correlation and autocorrelation Breusch-Godfrey Lagrange Multiplier

test statistics and Durbin’s Alternative test are employed, both indicates that the

model suffers from serial correlation and there is a need to correct the first-order

serially correlated residuals using Prais-Winsten (1954) transformed regression

estimator and specifying the Cochrane Orcutt (1949) transformed regression

estimator. To test for the model’s normality of residuals, heteroskedasticity test is

carried out through the Breush-Pagan/Cook-Weisberg test with the assumption

that the error terms are normally distributed.

3.5 Data and Data Sources

This study is based on six economic key variables, which are necessary in understanding the m

REFERENCES

Acemoglu, D., & Restrepo, P. (2018). Artificial Intelligence, Automation, and Work.
Econometrics and Statistics, 2018(3), 228-246.
https://www.nber.org/books-and-chapters/economics-artificial-intelligence-agenda/artificial-
intelligence-automation-and-work. (November 4,2024)

Aghion, P., & Howitt, P. (1994). Growth and Unemployment. The Review of Economic
Studies, 61(3), 477-494. Available at
https://academic.oup.com/restud/article-abstract/61/3/477/1589211.

Alfaro, L., Chanda, A., Kalemli-Ozcan, S., & Sayek, S. (2015). FDI and Economic Growth:
The Role of Local Financial Markets. Journal of International Economics, 64(1), 89-112.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022199603000813.(November
4,2024)

Afonso, A., & Sousa, R. M. (2012). The Macroeconomic Effects of Fiscal Policy in a Small
Open Economy. Applied Economics, 44(34), 4391-4403. Available at
https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/applec/v44y2012i34p4439-4454.html.(November 3,2024)

Auerbach, A., & Gorodnichenko, Y. (2012). Measuring the Output Responses to Fiscal
Policy. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 4(2), 1-27.
https://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/aejpol/v4y2012i2p1-27.html. (November 3,2024)
Autor, D. H., Dorn, D., & Hanson, G. H. (2016). The China Syndrome: Local Labor Market
Effects of Import Competition in the United States. American Economic Review, 106(10),
3488-3551.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308254200_The_China_Syndrome_Loc
al_Labor_Market_Effects_of_Import_Competition_in_the_United_States.(November 2,204)

Blanchard, O. (2000). The Economics of Unemployment: Shocks, Institutions, and

Interactions. In J. Taylor & M. Woodford (Eds.), Handbook of Macroeconomics (Vol. 1, pp.
1097-1130).
Elsevier.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251667803_The_Economics_of_Unemplo
yment_Shocks_Institutions_and_Interactions. (November 4,2024)

Blanchard, O., & Perotti, R. (2002). An Empirical Characterization of the Dynamic Effects of
Changes in Government Spending and Taxes on Output. The Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 117(4), 1329-1368.https://www.jstor.org/stable/4132480. (November 4,2024)

Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. (2021, December 23). Keynesian economics.

Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/money/Keynesian-economics.
(November 4,2024)

CNN Philippines. (2021). The Philippines reports 4.2 million unemployed in February.
Retrieved from https://cnnphilippines.com

Feenstra, R. C., & Hanson, G. H. (1996). Globalization, Outsourcing, and Wage Inequality.
The American Economic Review, 86(2), 240-245.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4720879_Globalization_Outsourcing_and_Wage_I
nequality. (November 4,2024)

Felbermayr, G. J., Larch, M., & Yalçin, E. (2015). Trade Openness and Employment: A
Global Perspective. Journal of International Economics, 97(2), 97-113. (November 5,2024)

Fujino, S. (1974). A Theory of Investment. In A Neo-Keynesian Theory of Inflation and

Economic Growth (Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol. 104).
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48150-5_2.(November
4,2024)

Gali, J. (2015). Unemployment Fluctuations and Stabilization Policies: A New Keynesian

Perspective. MIT Press. https://books.google.com.ph/books?
id=idXxCwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage
&q&f=false.

Gorg, H., & Stiefel, M. (2017). Trade Openness and Employment Outcomes: Evidence from
Developing Economies. World Development, 92, 171-183. (November 3,2024)

Hazera-Tun-Nessa, Md., Allauddin, & Khan, Rezwanul Hugue. (2021, June). Effects of
Trade Openness on Unemployment Rate: Evidence from Selected Least Developed Countries
(LDCs). https://sg.docworkspace.com/d/sIA7pprCxAeyOs7kG?sa=601.1123. (November
4,2024)

Hossain, Mohammad Igbal, Tahrim, Farian, Hossain, Md. Sabbir, & Rahman, Md. Maznur.
(2018, August). The Relationship Between Trade Openness and Unemployment: Empirical
Evidence for Bangladesh. Available at https://sg.docworkspace.com/d/sII7pprCxAaCOs7kG?
sa=601.1123.
Kemi, O., & Lawrence, E. (2016). Economic growth and unemployment in developing
economies: A case study. Journal of Development Economics, 45(2), 121–135.

Keynes, J. M. (1936). The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_General_Theory_of_Employment,_Interest_and_Money

Keynesian Theory of Investment. (n.d.). Studocu. Available at

https://www.studocu.com/row/document/stamford-international-university/business-
statistics/keynesian-theory-of-investment/20170444. (November 4,2024).

Kitov, Ivan O., & Kitov, Oleg O. (n.d.). The Link Between Unemployment and Real
Economic Growth in Developing Countries.
https://sg.docs.wps.com/module/common/aiGuide?
sa=601.1123&sid=sIMTpprCxAYeTs7kG&v=v2#1730990156249. (November 4,2024)

Imran, K., & Hussain, Z. (2017). Impact of economic growth on unemployment rate:
Evidence from developing countries. International Journal of Economics and Financial
Research, 6(1), 10–20.(November 3,2024)

Nwaka, Ikechukwu D., Uma, Kalu E., & Tuna, Gulay. (2024, November 4). Trade Openness
and Unemployment: Empirical Evidence for Nigeria.
https://sg.docs.wps.com/module/common/aiGuide?
sa=601.1123&sid=sICHpprCxAfGPs7kG&v=v2#1730989506943. (November 4,2024)

Pereira, A. M., & Andraz, J. M. (2013). On the Economic Effects of Public Infrastructure
Investment: A Survey of the International Evidence. Journal of Economic Development,
38(4), 1-
37.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228388625_On_the_economic_effects_of_publi
c_infrastructure_investment_A_survey_of_the_international_evidence. (November 3,2024)

Perotti, R. (2005). Estimating the Effects of Fiscal Policy in OECD Countries. In

Proceedings - Economic Policy Symposium - Jackson Hole, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas
City. https://ideas.repec.org/p/igi/igierp/276.html.(November 3,2024)

Philippine Statistics Authority. (2023a). Labor Force Survey: January 2023. Retrieved
from https://psa.gov.ph

·Philippine Statistics Authority. (2023b). Labor Force Survey: November 2023. Retrieved
from https://psa.gov.ph

Rahman, Md. A., et. al., (2023). The Impact of Government Expenditure on Economic
Growth: A Study of SAARC Countries. Open Journal of Business and Management, 11(4).
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=126475. (November 4,2024)

Ramey, V. A. (2011). Can Government Purchases Stimulate the Economy? Journal of

Economic Literature, 49(3), 673-685.
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jel.49.3.673. (November 3,2024)

Relationship Between Trade Openness and Employment. (n.d.).

https://sg.docs.wps.com/module/common/aiGuide?
sa=601.1123&sid=sII7pprCxAaCOs7kG&v=v2#1731002015101.(November 4,2024)
Trade Openness and Employment: Evidence from Nigeria.(n.d.).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320608189_Trade_openness_and_employment_Evi
dence_from_Nigeria.(November 2,2024)

World Bank. (n.d.). Philippines Economic Update. Retrieved from

https://worldbank.org/en/country/philippines

APPENDICES
 APPENDIX A

Appendix A-1 Data for Dependent and Independent Variable

Year Unemployment Foreign Direct Inflation Rate Trade Openness
Rate Investment

1991 3,777 544000000 19.2615 44.21992378

1992 3.88 228000000 8.615 44.99114273

1993 3.893 1238000000 6.7163 50.46504292

1994 3.798 1591000000 10.3865 52.5265038

1995 3.719 1478000000 6.832 57.33055798

1996 3.649 1517000000 7.4761 63.85530355

1997 3.631 1222000000 5.5903 77.22864592

1998 3.717 2287000000 9.2349 80.07720152

1999 3.758 1829000000 5.939 77.16149371

2000 3.768 1487000000 3.9771 85.15336858

2001 3.7 760000000 5.3455 84.90038862

2002 3.618 1769000000 2.7228 83.84480409

2003 3.53 492000000 2.2892 87.57467457

2004 3.55 592000000 4.8292 87.12528482

2005 3.8 1664000000 6.5169 83.84567457

2006 4.05 2707414997 5.4852 80.85053867

2007 3.43 2918724841 2.9 73.64497999

2008 3.72 1340027563 8.2604 67.68107077

2009 3.83 2064620678 4.219 60.88659079

2010 3.61 1070386940 3.7898 66.10427851

2011 3.59 2007150725 4.7184 60.7958387

2012 3.5 3215415155 3.027 57.84200551

2013 3.5 3737371740 2.5827 55.82478123

2014 3.6 5739574024 3.5978 57.46817209

2015 3.07 5639155962 0.6742 59.141592

2016 2.7 8279548275 1.2537 61.77606577

1017 2.55 10256442399 2.8532 68.16836974

2018 2.34 9948598824 5.3093 72.1633983

2019 2.24 8671365874 2.3921 68.84184226

2020 2.52 6822133291 2.3932 58.1695603

Year GDP Growth Rate Government Spending Capital Investment

1991 -0.4364 701487537100.0 -17.1

1992 0.4176 695194301200.0 7.81

1993 2.1819 734341393200.0 7.34

1994 4.3737 773264840100.0 7.81

1995 4.6252 809765940200.0 2.68

1996 5.8603 836722864000.0 11.59

1997 5.1864 870020449800.0 11

1998 -0.5141 868274852400.0 -14.78

1999 3.3465 836752057200.0 -13.07

2000 4.3825 828733274000.0 1.1

2001 3.0492 817760038800.0 20.5

2002 3.7163 787837208500.0 6.71

2003 5.0869 821027839300.0 -0.41

2004 6.5692 838402307000.0 6.14

2005 4.9425 863359171900.0 -4.34

2006 5.3164 968395435900.0 -10.32

2007 6.5193 1037211955000.0 8.33

2008 4.3445 1042500452400.0 26.77

2009 1.4483 1157604220300.0 -6

2010 7.3345 1205917116600.0 30.46

2011 3.8582 1228900473800.0 -2.54

2012 6.897 1419240367300.0 5.43

2013 6.7505 1489352942300.0 18.44

2014 6.348 1543340562200.0 8.28

2015 6.3483 1665462001000.0 13.41

2016 7.1495 1821367161500.0 20.79

1017 6.931 1939879737800.0 10.9

2018 6.3415 2199637346400.0 11.28

2019 6.1185 2399867443800.0 3.49

2020 -9.5183 2651875451300.0 -34.22

 CURRICULUM VITAE

PERSONAL INFORMATION:

Name: Depay, Mikylla Louise D.

Sex: Female

Civil Status: Single

Home Address: P-1 Brgy. 24-A, Gingoog City, Misamis Oriental

Nationality: Filipino

Email Address: mikyllalouisedepay@gmail.com

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND:

Elementary: Manuel Lugod Central School

Address: Brgy. 10, Gingoog City, Misamis Oriental

Year Graduated: 2016

Junior High School: Gingoog Christian College

Address: Brgy. 23, Gingoog City, Misamis Oriental

Year Graduated: 2020

Senior High School: Christ the King the College

Address:

Year Graduated: 2022

College: Gingoog City United Colleges

Address: Motoomull Street, Brgy. 22, Gingoog City, Misamis Oriental

Year Graduated:
 CURRICULUM VITAE

PERSONAL INFORMATION:

Name: Robleado, Rhealyn Z.

Sex: Female

Civil Status: Single

Home Address: P-2 Brgy. Eureka, Gingoog City, Misamis Oriental

Nationality: Filipino

Email Address: cabuntucanrhea@gmail.com

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND:

Elementary: Eureka Elementary School

Address: Brgy. Eureka, Gingoog City

Year Graduated: 2016

Junior High School: Eureka National High School

Address: Brgy. Eureka, Gingoog City, Misamis Oriental

Year Graduated: 2020

Senior High School: Gingoog City Comprehensive National High School

Address: Brgy. 23, Gingoog City, Misamis Oriental

Year Graduated: 2022

College: Gingoog City United Colleges

Address: Motoomull Street, Brgy. 22, Gingoog City, Misamis Oriental

Year Graduated:
 CURRICULUM VITAE

PERSONAL INFORMATION:

Name: Calisa, Mona Glaiza

Sex: Female

Civil Status: Single

Home Address: Brgy. Bal-ason, Gingoog City, Misamis Oriental

Nationality: Filipino

Email Address: monaglaizacalisa@gmail.com

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND:

Elementary: Bal ason Central School

Address: Brgy. Bal-ason, Gingoog City

Year Graduated: 2016

Junior High School: Bal ason National High School

Address: Brgy. Bal ason, Gingoog City, Misamis Oriental

Year Graduated: 2020

Senior High School: Bal ason National High School

Address: Brgy. Bal ason, Gingoog City, Misamis Oriental

Year Graduated: 2022

College: Gingoog City United Colleges

Address: Motoomull Street, Brgy. 22, Gingoog City, Misamis Oriental

Year Graduated:
 CURRICULUM VITAE

PERSONAL INFORMATION:

Name: Gabreza, Romel F.

Sex: Male

Civil Status: Single

Home Address: Zone 15, Brgy. 19, Gingoog City, Misamis Oriental

Nationality: Filipino

Email Address: romelgabreza10@gmail.com

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND:

Elementary: Don Restituto Baol Central School

Address: 922 Motoomull St. Gingoog City, Misamis Oriental

Year Graduated: 2016

Junior High School: Gingoog Comprehensive National High School

Address: Brgy. 23, Gingoog City

Year Graduated: 2020

Senior High School: Gingoog Comprehensive National High School

Address: Brgy. 23, Gingoog City

Year Graduated: 2022

College: Gingoog City United Colleges

Address: Motoomull Street, Brgy. 22, Gingoog City, Misamis Oriental

Year Graduated:
 CURRICULUM VITAE

PERSONAL INFORMATION:

Name: Ayuma, Patrick

Sex: Male

Civil Status: Single

Home Address: Brgy. Lunotan, Gingoog City, Misamis Oriental

Nationality: Filipino

Email Address: patricklimbatao@gmail.com

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND:

Elementary: Civoleg Elementary School

Address:

Year Graduated: 2012

Junior High School: Gingoog Comprehensive National High School

Address: Brgy. 23, Gingoog City, Misamis Oriental

Year Graduated: 2016

Senior High School: Gingoog Comprehensive National High School

Address: Brgy. 23, Gingoog City, Misamis Oriental

Year Graduated: 2018

College: Gingoog City United Colleges

Address: Motoomull Street, Brgy. 22, Gingoog City, Misamis Oriental

Year Graduated: