FOREIGN TRADE UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS

--------***-------

ECONOMETRICS MID-TERM REPORT

FACTORS AFFECTING THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE

IN 2019

Instructor : Ph.D Dinh Thi Thanh Binh

Course : KTEE309(1.1/2021).3
Group : Group 10

No. Name Student ID Contribution

57 Nguyễn Anh Như 2012250053 20% (Excellent)
43 Trịnh Ngọc Linh 2014250205 20% (Excellent)
63 Nguyễn Hiền Thảo 1911150069 20% (Excellent)
61 Trần Minh Quân 1912250024 20% (Excellent)
71 Nguyễn Thị Quỳnh Trang 2012250073 20% (Excellent)

Hanoi, October 2021

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. TOPIC OF THE REPORT ....................................................................................... 3

II.1. THEORY OF FRAMEWORK ............................................................................ 5
1. Theory of unemployment rate ......................................................................................... 5
2. Factors affecting the unemployment rate .................................................................. 6
II.2. LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................... 10
III. DATA ..................................................................................................................... 15
1. Methodology in collecting data ............................................................................15
2. Methodology in processing data ...........................................................................15
3. Data overview and description .............................................................................16
IV. STATISTICS DESCRIPTION OF VARIABLES ............................................. 28
1. Methodology in researching .................................................................................17
2. Constructing econometrics model ........................................................................17
2.1. Specification of model .................................................................................17
2.2. Explanation of variables ..............................................................................18
2.3. Summarizing variables ................................................................................18
2.4. Correlation analysis .....................................................................................19
V. QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS .............................................................................. 28
1. Misspecification test ............................................................................................20
2. Multicollinearity ..................................................................................................21
3. Heteroskedasticity ...............................................................................................22
4. Testing normally..................................................................................................23
VI. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 25
VII. REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 26
VIII. APPENDIX ......................................................................................................... 28

2
 I. TOPIC OF THE REPORT

Unemployment, also referred to as joblessness, is the situation in which a person

does not have a job that provides money. The unemployment rate is the percent of the
labor force that is jobless. It generally rises or falls in the wake of changing economic
conditions, rather than anticipating them. When the economy is in poor shape and jobs
are scarce, the unemployment rate can be expected to rise. When the economy is
growing at a healthy rate and jobs are relatively plentiful, it can be expected to fall.
It is known that unemployment is undesirable, and it costs society more than just
financial. We can decide if a country’s economy is growing efficiently or not simply by
looking at its unemployment rate, so that keeping the unemployment rate at an
acceptable level is extremely important for the economic growth. Therefore,
governments always try to take action to reduce and control the unemployment rate. As
a result, the prediction for the unemployment rate is crucial.
For all mentioned reasons, we decided to conduct a research on “Factors
affecting the unemployment rate in 2019”. In this report, we will apply the knowledge
we have learned in Econometrics course to conduct a research to find out the impact of
the macroeconomic factors on the unemployment rate in global countries and regions in
2019. We aim to provide insight into unemployment issues and solutions as well as
predictions for this area.

This report contains the following contents:

I. Topic of the report

II. Theory of framework & Literature review

III. Data

IV. Statistics description of variables

V. Quantitative analysis

VI. Conclusion

VII. References

VIII. Appendix

3
 Due to the limit of data resources and time, there are certainly some deficiencies
in our report. We look forward to receiving the lecturer’s comments and evaluations to
understand more and improve our paper.

Moreover, we would like to express our sincere thanks to Ph.D Dinh Thi Thanh
Binh for dedicatedly instructing us throughout the course. We really appreciate all the
lessons you have passed on us and will try our best in this report as well as the final
exam.

4
 II.1. THEORY OF FRAMEWORK
1. Theory of unemployment rate
1.1. Definition
Unemployment according to the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-
operation and Development) is people of working age who are without work, are
available for work, and have taken specific steps to find work. The uniform application
of this definition results in estimates of unemployment rates that are more internationally
comparable than estimates based on national definitions of unemployment. This
indicator is measured in numbers of unemployed people as a percentage of the labor
force and it is seasonally adjusted. The labor force is defined as the total number of
unemployed people plus those in employment.
Unemployment is also used as an indicator of the health of the economy. The
most common indicator of unemployment is the unemployment rate, which is the
number of unemployed people divided by the number of people in the labor force.
Symbolically:
Unemployment rate=Unemployed peopleLabor force

1.2 The natural rate of unemployment

The natural rate of unemployment is the normal rate of unemployment that exists even
at the equilibrium of the labor market for objective reasons, around which the
unemployment rate fluctuates, and exists in the long run.
There are 4 categories of natural unemployment:
• Frictional unemployment: Results because it takes time for workers to
search for the jobs that best suit their tastes and skills.
• Structural unemployment occurs when a labor market is unable to provide
jobs for everyone who wants one because there is a mismatch between the
skills of the unemployed workers and the skills needed for the available
jobs.
• Seasonal unemployment occurs at seasonal jobs which require working in
certain moments of a year.
• Classical unemployment occurs when real wages for a job are set above
the market-clearing level, causing the number of job-seekers to exceed the
number of vacancies”.
5
 2. Factors affecting the unemployment rate
There is no single matching model that could explain unemployment. However, in
relation to the Walrasian model, full employment is said to happen in a homogenous
market expectedly. On the other way round, there should be no unemployment.
Therefore, this benchmark of neoclassical economics does not provide strong and
evidence-based information (Parker, 2010). Macroeconomic factors are significant to
affect the unemployment rate though.
2.1. Population
The Malthusian Theory describes population growth. An increase in birth rate will
increase population growth exponentially. According to Malthus (1798), prevention
checks and positive checks such as diseases and poor living and working environments
may lower the growth of population rate of a country. Thus, he expected that
uncontrolled population growth will cause higher unemployment. In short, a large
population increases the unemployment rate of an economy.
The quantity and quality of human resources are affected by the population's size,
structure, and quality. Countries with large populations, and vice versa, have large
human resources. On the other hand, the age structure of the population has a decisive
influence on the size and the structure of labor resources. Although the population is the
basis of the labor force, the relationship between them does not depend directly on each
other at the same time but on the fluctuation of the population growth during the period
of time. As a result of a rapid increase in population growth, the unemployment rate
tends to increase as a result of a direct correlation between these two factors.
2.2 FDI

In the relationship between investors and employees, FDI creates jobs and income for
employees. Foreign direct investors provide investment through production and
business activities in other countries. To exploit the comparative advantage of the host
country, they use the source of local human resources to improve competitiveness with
other competitors, increase investment efficiency. Therefore, FDI activities have created
many new jobs, attracting a large number of employees and workers to foreign direct
investment enterprises. Hence FDI and the unemployment rate are inversely related.

6
Foreign direct investments can be considered as reinvested earnings or other capital of
a company. This investment can also be known as “greenfield investment or brownfield”
(Gorg & Greenaway, 2004). Greenfield investment is basically the expansion of an
existing plant whereas brownfield investment is buying or renting an existing factory
that does not operate efficiently or fully utilizes. By performing these investments, new
production happens. An increase in FDI would then increase the GDP of an economy at
the same time decrease unemployment (Eldeeb, 2015).
2.3 Inflation rate
One of the best explanations to describe between inflation and the unemployment
rate is Phillips Curve. It demonstrates an inverse and negative relationship between the
unemployment rate and inflation of an economy in the short-run while having no effect
on unemployment in the long run as it assumes a natural unemployment rate in the long
term. An unemployment rate of an economy increases as inflation decreases or vice
versa. Sir A. W. Phillips created the Phillips Curve in 1958, plotting the data from 1861
to 1957 of UK wage inflation against unemployment in 95 years. A short-run trade-off
between unemployment and inflation appeared to suggest it. This was fairly
straightforward, the theory behind. Falling unemployment could lead to rising inflation
and only by allowing unemployment to rise could a fall in inflation be possible. It could
increase aggregate demand if the government wanted to reduce the unemployment rate,
but, although this could temporarily increase employment, it could also have inflationary
effects on labor and product markets. In fact, Phillips conjectured that the lower the
unemployment rate, the tighter the labor market, and therefore, to attract scarce labor,
the faster companies must raise salaries. At higher rates of unemployment, the pressure
abated. The Phillips Curve represented the average relationship between unemployment
and wage behavior over the business cycle, which showed the rate of wage inflation that
would result if a particular level of unemployment persisted for some time.

7
The Phillips curve shows the inverse relationship between inflation rate and

unemployment rate:

Short-run Phillips curve Long-run Phillips curve

2.4 Gross Domestic Product

According to Okun’s Law, it is said that because of ongoing increases in the size of the
labor force and a level of productivity, real GDP growth is required to hold the
unemployment rate steady. To reduce the unemployment rate, therefore, the economy
must grow at a pace above its potential. In other words, to achieve a one percentage
point decline in the unemployment rate in the course of a year, real GDP must grow
approximately two percentage points faster than the rate of growth of potential GDP
over that period. In general, the correlation between the GDP growth rate and the
unemployment rate is inversely related.

2.5 Gross Domestic Product Growth rate

Okun’s Law comes across in explaining the relationship between GDP growth and
unemployment rate. Theoretically, for every 1% increase in the unemployment rate, the
GDP of a particular country will about to decrease additionally 2% than its potential
GDP, holding other variables constant. This relationship is expected to be negatively
related to one another. There are few reasons for the higher changes in GDP as compared
8
to the unemployment rate. For instance, reduce in the multiplier effect as money supply
increases, decrease the amount stated in unemployment statistics as unemployed persons
most probably exit the labor force, shorter working hours, and low labor productivity as
employers need more workforce.
They found that for most regions and for the entire country, the inverse
relationship between unemployment and GDP growth holds. The quantitative values of
the coefficients of Okun, however, are quite different, a result which is partly explained
by regional disparities in productivity growth. These differences mean that conventional
aggregate demand or supply management policies should be combined with region-
specific policies when it comes to policy issues.

9
 II.2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Theories and empirical researches about the relationships between population,

population density, GDP, GDP growth, Inflation rate, FDI, and unemployment rate.

1. Population
Population growth is defined as the average annual percentage change in
population size, which counts all residents regardless of citizenship or legal status, in a
given time period. Arslan and Zaman (2014) argue that population growth is an
important factor in affecting unemployment. Population growth shows a positive impact
on the unemployment rate and it has contributed towards unemployment. According to
Asif (2013), he studies the macroeconomic factors of unemployment for three countries,
which are China, India, and Pakistan. The data are collected from 1980 to 2009. The
result shows that there is a significant impact of population on the unemployment rate
for those three countries. Mahmood, Akhtar, Amin, and Idrees (2011) examine the
determinants affecting the unemployment in the Peshawar Division of Pakistan in the
education sector. A sample of 442 residents of Peshawar Division, who have a
graduation degree (first degree) or qualified with any professional or technical job
regardless if they are employed or unemployed was collected. The result reveals that the
growth rate of the population has a positive relationship with the unemployment rate
among the educated segment. Loku and Deda’s (2013) research on the relationship
exists in relation to population growth and unemployment in the Kosovo economy and
an inverse relationship exists between them.

2. Population Density
Kassem (2019) examined the impact of unemployment, industrialization,
population density, the amount of remittances and social infrastructure on crime rate
among the districts of Punjab, Pakistan. The data of selected variables have been taken
from Pakistan Bureau of Statistics, the Multiple Indicator Cluster survey (MICS),
Punjab Development Statistics (2018). ADF unit test has been applied for checking the
stationarity of the selected variables and Johansen method has been used for
cointegration among the selected variables. The estimated results show that
unemployment and population density have a negative and significant relationship.
10
Muktari Yakubu (2020) used empirical research to examine the impact of population
density on unemployment in Nigeria. The study applied annual time series data from
1991 to 2017. The data on population density, unemployment, consumer price index,
exchange rate and foreign direct investment were tested for unit root using ADF, PP and
KPSS unit root tests. The results from the ADF and PP tests revealed that all the
variables were stationary at first difference except CPI that is stationary at level. The
main results disclosed that population density and exchange rate impacted negatively
with unemployment. Consumer price index, GDP per capita and foreign direct
investment impacted negatively thereby reducing the rate of unemployment in the long-
run.

3. GDP growth
The GDP growth rate shows how fast the economy is growing from one year to
another. It is one of the most important indicators used to measure any improvement or
decrement of a country’s economic condition by looking at one-quarter of the country's
financial yield (GDP) to the last. Some of the researchers believe that the relationship
between growth and unemployment comes from Okun’s Law which explains an
opposite relationship of output level on the unemployment rate. Okun’s Law is a famous
idea in macroeconomics theory and it was proposed by Arthur Okun in 1962. This theory
describes a relationship between the movement of the unemployment rate and the
change of real gross domestic product (GDP). Okun quantified this relation into a
statistical relation that indicates the extent to which the percentage of unemployment is
inversely related to the real increase in the economy’s output (GDP) by using US GNP
data. Rigas, Theodosiou, Rigas, and Blanas (2011) study whether the Okun’s Law is
still applicable in today’s economic environment by using the data with regard to the
unemployment and the real GDP over the period from 1960 to 2007 of three countries
which are Greece, France, and Spain. Based on their findings, it showed that an inverse
relationship towards unemployment and GDP by using the model of first differences but
the form of this relationship in the case of Greece is quite different from France and
Spain due to the disparity in their productivity growth rates in these countries.

11
4. Inflation
Haug and King (2014) took 1952 to 2010 years into observation to conclude that
increase in unemployment will always lead to higher inflation about three years later
which means there is a positive correlation of inflation towards the unemployment rate.
There is a positive value in the significant correlation. Monetary and fiscal policy will
not affect the long-term relationship of unemployment and inflation due to its stable
relationship.
Alisa (2015) discusses the inflation-unemployment relationship by using the
Phillips curve study. Policymakers focus on the Phillips curve because it provides
critical foresight for them. There is no perfect macroeconomy in which price stability,
zero unemployment, and growth stability exist in the short-run situations. Government
has to choose either monetary policy or fiscal policy to solve a certain economic problem
which will lead to either high unemployment or high inflation. It is impossible to remove
the phenomena. Alisa concluded that to balance the market it still needs to have a certain
extent of inflation and unemployment. Based on the statistics in this paper, Russian
circumstances are not suitable by applying the Phillips curve.
On the other hand, Karanassou, Sala, and Snower (2007) examine that monetary
policy will bring a permanent effect on the long-term tradeoff between unemployment
and inflation. This author assesses the tradeoff by evaluating the influences of output,
growth in money, a deficit of budget, and trade on inflation and unemployment during
the roaring nineties in the US. The result showed that growth in money will lead to high
inflation which basically lowered unemployment. In addition, growth in productivity,
reduction in the budget deficit will lower inflation and influence unemployment slightly.
The study of Furuoka and Munir (2014) supports the theory of the Phillips curve.
The result of this study provides proof that unemployment is negatively correlated with
inflation in Malaysia. Phillips curve showed a tradeoff relationship between
unemployment and inflation. It relies on demand and supply in labor. When there is a
higher demand in labor than supply, the wages will increase which will lead to an
increase in inflation and lower unemployment.

5. FDI

12
 Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) is known as an action to conduct an investment
by a company or individual from the home country to another country. A study was
carried out by Matthew and Johnson (2014) and Shaari, Hussain, and Ab. Halim (2012)
investigated a negative relationship between FDI and Unemployment. It shows that if
there is an increment in FDI, the rate of unemployment will decrease by that. Stamatiou
and Dritsakis (2014) examine the impacts of FDI on unemployment in Greece. Based
on their findings, there is a negative relationship between FDI towards the
unemployment rate significantly. This study also argues the positive impacts of FDI on
the unemployment rate by other researchers. Some researchers claim that the labor
market involves only the skilled workforce. Mayom (2015) analyses research in Sub-
Saharan Africa. The result of the employment ratio achieved based on the expected
results which are the positive and significant relationship of inflows of FDI and
employment rate. An increase in FDI will generally lead to a higher employment rate.
Pinn et al. (2011) investigate the intense competition that may increase the
unemployment rate through disinvestment and shutting down of domestic firms. This
can be explained by the foreign investment project in Malaysia which takes FDI as the
form of capital-intensive. Besides, acquiring existing businesses of a country may
increase the unemployment rate as the demand for labor is lower. Balcerzak and Zurek
(2011) examine the finding by using the VAR analysis to conduct the testing. According
to the results conducted, FDI inflows have a negative relationship toward
unemployment. However, the reduction level may occur in the short term. After a certain
period of time, the unemployment level will return back to the original level. There is a
significant effect of FDI on the unemployment rate in India. Job opportunities created
by FDI generally for unemployed youth who are skilled and trained will eventually lead
to a decline in the unemployment rate (Kannaiah & Selvam, 2014). According to
Kurtovic, Siljikovic, and Milanovic (2015), results show a negative relationship bound
around FDI and unemployment whereby increment in FDI causes the unemployment
rate to decrease in most countries of the Western Balkans.

6. Conclusion
In short, empirical frameworks from past researchers have been known to differ
from theoretical frameworks. It is always inconsistent with what the researchers
13
obtained. There are researchers who found a significant relationship between inflation,
GDP growth, population, and foreign direct investment in relation to the unemployment
rate, vice versa. Some of the studies have proven the causality relationship as well.
Different kinds of tests have been used in past studies.

14
 III. DATA

1. Methodology in collecting data

With literature reviews provided above, we are confident to conclude that there
are at least 4 factors including Population, Inflation, GDP and FDI inflows accounting
for the changes in unemployment rates in different countries, regions and groups.
Therefore, we collect data of these 4 elements to further examine the effect and create a
significant model. All data provided in this report are extracted from World Bank. Data
of World Bank is collected by WB staff from a variaty of trustworthy and reliable
sources.
- Unemployment rate: unemployed persons are those individuals without work,
seeking work in a recent past period, and currently available for work. It is the
labour force or the economically active portion of the population that serves as
the base for this indicator, not the total population. Data is retrieved from the
International Labour Organization.
- Populalation density: is midyear population divided by land area in square
kilometers. Population estimates are prepared by World Bank staff from a variety
of sources usually based on national population censuses. Land area data is taken
from Food and Agriculture Organization.
- GDP growth rate: Total GDP is measured at purchaser's prices. Growth rates of
GDP and its components are calculated using the least squares method and
constant price data in the local currency.
- Inflation: as measured by the consumer price index reflects the annual percentage
change in the cost to the average consumer of acquiring a basket of goods and
services yearly. The data is retrieve from the International Monetary Fund,
International Financial Statistics and data files.
- FDI inflows: Data on equity flows are based on balance of payments data
reported by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Foreign direct investment
(FDI) data are supplemented by the World Bank staff estimates using data from
the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and
official national sources.

2. Methodology in processing data

15
 Using STATA in order to process data cursorily then calculate the correlation
matrix among variables.

3. Data overview and description

The dataset was collected from the official website of World Bank, including 228
observations from 228 countries and economies in the world in 2019

Factors Description Unit Source

Unemployment rate % labor force percentage WB

Populalation people per sqr km of land area people/km² WB

density

GDP growth rate GDP growth, % annual percentage WB

Inflation Inflation in consumer price, % percentage WB

annual

FDI FDI net inflows million $USD WB

16
 IV. STATISTICS DESCRIPTION OF VARIABLES

1. Methodology in researching

We use the Ordinary least squares (OLS) to construct and estimate parameters of this
multi-variable linear regression model.
For hypothesis testing, we use the following methods:
• Critical value, p-value and confidence interval for testing significance of
independent variables.
• Wald test for testing multiple linear restrictions
• Variance Inflation Factor (VIF), White test and Jacque-Bera Normality Test for
testing problems of the model.

2. Constructing econometrics model

2.1. Specification of model

We can confidently infer, based on the literature studies presented above, that we
will use four independent variables, including population, inflation, GDP, and FDI
inflows, to generate the model of changes in unemployment rates in different nations,
regions, and groups.
Sample regression model:
unemployrate= 0+1popdensity+2GDPgrowth+3inflation+4FDI+u
including:
unemployrate: dependent variable

popdensity, GDPgrowth, inflation, FDI: independent variables

0: the estimator of the intercept term of the regression model

1: the estimator of the regression coefficient of popdensity

2: the estimator of the regression coefficient of GDPgrowth

3: the estimator of the regression coefficient of inflation

4: the estimator of the regression coefficient of FDI

u: the residual (the estimator of the disturbance of the regression model)

17
 2.2. Explanation of variables

Variables Meaning Prediction about Unit

correlation with
dependent variable

unemployrate the percentage of the %

unemployed in response to the
total labor force

popdensity The number of individuals living negative people/km²

within that specific location
which are countries and
economies

GDPgrowth The annual average rate of negative %

change of the gross domestic
product (GDP) at market prices
based on constant local currency

inflation the rise in the prices of most positive %

goods and services of daily or
common use, causing a
reduction in the value of money

FDI Investments made by foreign negative million

entities $USD

2.3. Summarizing variables

Using “sum’’ command allows us to have the following table:

18
 We can see that the standard deviations of all the variables are notably high. The
particular reason for this circumstance is the fact that data is collected from many
countries and economies, from top developed countries to least developed economies.

2.4. Correlation analysis

From this result, we can point out the following correlations among variables:
- Population density, GDP growth rate and FDI inflow have a negative impact on
the unemployment rates.
- Only inflation in consumer’s price has positively affected the unemployment rate.
This conclusion is in consistency with our prediction.

19
 V. QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS

(Testing problems of the model)

1. Misspecification test

Regression Specification Error Test which proposed by Ramsey (1969) which

assist in the testing of omitted variable which some of the important variable are not
including in the model. Besides, the specification error of incorrect functional form and
correlation between X and error term also able to be tested by using Ramsey’s RESET
Test (Sapra, 2005).
According to Alema and Odongo (2016), specification error is an omnibus term
which covers any departure from the assumptions of the maintained model. We use
Ramey’s reset test to detect the specification error.
- Hypothesis:

H0: The model is correctly specified.

H1: The model is incorrectly specified.

- Significance Level: α = 5% or 0.05

- Decision Rule: Reject H0 if p-value is less than α. Otherwise, do not reject H0.

Conducting Ramsay’s RESET test for omission of influential variables on STATA:

ovtest

Ramsey RESET test using powers of the fitted values of Unemployrate

Ho: model has no omitted variables

F(3, 195) = 0.64

Prob > F = 0.5929

20
 Based on the result above, the p-value is greater than the 5% significance level.
This implies that the null hypothesis of the model is correctly specified and is accepted
at 5% significance level.

2. Multicollinearity
Multicollinearity generally occurs when there are high degree of linear
associations between two or more explanatory variables. This may result in the less
precise estimators, providing little information about true parameters and small changes
to the input data can lead to large changes in the model, even resulting in changes of
sign of parameter estimates.
This may result in the less precise estimators, providing little information about
true parameters and small changes to the input data and lead to large changes in the
model, even resulting in changes of sign of parameter estimates.
Using Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) to test for multicollinearity by running vif
function in STATA:
vif

Variable | VIF 1/VIF

-------------+----------------------

Inflation | 1.05 0.953663

GDPgrowth | 1.05 0.953732

Popdensity | 1.01 0.989941

FDI | 1.01 0.993062

-------------+----------------------

Mean VIF | 1.03

According to this result, VIF of 4 independent values are smaller than 10,
multicollinearity does not occur between one and other independent variables.

21
 Conclusion: According to the test result, the model does not face
multicollinearity phenomenon.

3. Heteroskedasticity
While studying classic linear regression model, one of the basic assumption
(assumption 6) is that the variance of each Ui in the condition that the given value of X
is unchanged, which means: var(ui|Xi) = 2∀i
However, in fact, because of the nature of health-economics relationship, the
method of gathering and processing data, the hypothesis is violated causing
heteroskedasticity, OLS will not give the estimator with smallest variance. Therefore,
the testing is no longer reliable.
One way to detect heteroskedasticity is using the White test to explore
relationship between squared residuals and all of the dependent variables.
Conducting White test for detecting Heteroskedasticity in STATA:
White's test for Ho: homoskedasticity

against Ha: unrestricted heteroskedasticity

chi2(14) = 10.17

Prob > chi2 = 0.7496

Cameron & Trivedi's decomposition of IM-test

---------------------------------------------------

Source | chi2 df p

---------------------+-----------------------------

Heteroskedasticity | 10.17 14 0.7496

Skewness | 14.43 4 0.0060

Kurtosis | 4.81 1 0.0283

--------------------+------------------------------

22
 Total | 29.41 19 0.0597

---------------------------------------------------

The table above shows the result of the white test for heteroskedasticity, with the
null hypothesis of homoskedasticity, if the probability value of the test of
heteroskedasticity is greater than 5%, it is the proof of the absence of problem of
heteroskedasticity in the model and this is desirable. Since the probability values for
heteroskedasticity show a probability value greater than 5%, we now accept the null
hypothesis of homoskedasticity.

4. Testing normally
According to Mantalos (2010), testing for normality should be at least as
important a step, or perhaps more, than the assumption for normality. The most widely
method, at least in econometrics, that has been suggested and used for testing whether
the distribution underlying a sample is normal is Jacque-Bera Normality Test.
- Hypothesis:
H0: Error term is normally distributed.

H1: Error term is not normally distributed.

- Significance Level: α = 5% or 0.05

- Decision Rule: Reject H0 if p-value is less than α. Otherwise, do not reject H0.

Conducting Jacque-Bera Normality Test in STATA:

sktest u

Skewness/Kurtosis tests for Normality

Variable | Obs Pr(Skewness) Pr(Kurtosis) adj chi2(2) Prob>chi2

---------+--------------------------------------------------------------

u| 203 0.0000 0.0000 56.80 0.0000

23
 The results above show that p-value (0.0000) is smaller than 5% level of
significance. This implied that the null hypothesis of error term is normally distributed
is rejected at 5% significance level.
Generally, a normality distribution test should have a mean zero, yet we found
our error term is not normally distributed based on our empirical testing. Based on
Omoniyi and Olawale (2015), it is acceptable that the error term is not normally
distributed if homoscedasticity exists.

Hypothesis postulated

24
 VI. CONCLUSION

The study of the impact of macroeconomic factors on the unemployment rate in

2019 has shown that there is strong connection between the unemployment rate and
marcoeconomic indicatitors.
According to research findings, our group would like to propose some
recommedation to improve the situation in countries that has hig unemployment rate.
Firstly, as forecasting the rate is crucial, and short-term forecasting is better, there should
be a continuous examination to predict the future values of the unemployment rate.
Besides, further investigations on both simple and complex econometric models are
essential, thus, the long-run unemployment rates could be predicted as well. Secondly,
since most under-developed countries are agricultural ones, the governments should try
designing and implementing a national strategy that focuses on gradual retraining of
the workforce in this field, improving efficiency of the farms as well as structure of
employment in rural areas. Furthermore, they can reconsider the role of economic
sectors and restructure them accordingly to country’s condition, which may lead to
improved employment. Thirdly, gender discrimination must be eliminated so that
opportunities for female labor, especially for managerial positions will be increased and
may enhance the chance of making the companies better. Last but not least, boosting
employment through the tax benefits is addressing both people recruiting and seeking
for jobs.
One more time, we would like to express our deep gratitude and appreciation to
Ph.D Dinh Thi Thanh Binh for your devoted guidance and suggestions that help us finish
this report. We hope to see our venerable lecturer again in later courses. Thank you!

25
 VII. REFERENCES

1. Ajimotokin, S., Haskins, A., & Wade, Z. (2015). The Effects of Unemployment on
Crime Rates in the US.
2. Ali, A. (2011). Disaggregated import demand functions of Pakistan; An empirical
Analysis. MPhil Thesis, NCBA&E, Lahore, Pakistan, 1-70.
3. Ali, A. (2015). The impact of macroeconomic instability on sociAbdulla, A. K.
(2012). The relationship between economic growth and unemployment in Iraq. Iraqi
Journal for Economic Sciences, 32, 193-203.
4. Alisa, M. (2015). The relationship between inflation and unemployment: A theoretical
discussion about the Philips curve. Journal of International Business and
Economics,3(2), 89-97.
5. Al Amarat, M. H. (2016). The impact of direct foreign investment on unemployment
in Jordan. Modern Economy, 7(6), 737-741.
6. Alema, R., & Odongo, T. (2016). Exchange rate volatility and exports of Uganda’s
traditional crops. American Journal of Economics, 6(1), 41-49.
7. Al-Zeaud, H. A. (2014). The trade-off between unemployment and inflation
evidence from causality test for Jordan. International Journal of Humanities and Social
Science, 4(4), 103-111.
8. Bartolucci, F., Choudhry, M. T., Marelli, E., & Signorelli, M. (2015, April).
Financial crises and unemployment in developed and developing countries. Paper
presented at the 16th Conference on Economic and Social Development, Moscow.
9. Bayar, Y. (2014). Effects of economic growth, export and foreign direct
investment inflows on unemployment in Turkey. Investment Management and Finance
Innovations, 11(2), 20-27
10. Haug, A. A., & King, I. (2014). In the long run, US unemployment follows
inflation like a faithful dog. Journal of Macroeconomics, 41, 42-52.
11. Kannaiah, D., & Selvam, V. (2014). Impact of FDI in retailing: An empirical
analysis on perception of unemployed youth on employment opportunities in India.
International Journal of Economics and Finance, 6(11), 9-20.
12. Karanassou, M., Sala, H., & Snower, D. J. (2007). The evolution of inflation and
unemployment: Explaining the roaring nineties.

26
13. Karanassou, M., & Sala, H. (2010). The US inflation–unemployment trade-off
revisited: New evidence for policy-making. Journal of Policy Modeling, 32(6), 758-
777.
14. Kassem, M., (2019) Unemployment Rate, Population Density and Crime Rate in
Punjab (Pakistan): An Empirical Analysis, 4(11), 8-19
15. Kreishan, F. M. (2011). Economic growth and Uunemployment: An empirical
analysis. Journal of Social Sciences, 7(2), 228-231.
16. Loku, A., & Deda, G. (2013). Unemployment in relation of growth population.
International Journal of Research in Social Sciences, 2(2), 31-38.
17. Matthew, O. H., & Johnson, A. A. (2014). Impact of foreign direct investment
on employment generation in Nigeria: A statistical investigation. IOSR Journal of
Business and Management, 16(3), 44-56.
18. Muliana, C. (2013). Parent aid: Benefits and subsidies for parents in Singapore.
https://singaporemotherhood.com/articles/2013/04/parent-aidbenefits-and-
subsidies-for-parents-in-singapore/
19. Narayan, P. K. (2005). The saving and investment nexus for China: Evidence
from cointegration tests. Applied Economics, 37(17), 1979-1990.
20. Pinn, S. L. S., Ching, K. S., Kogid, M., Mulok, D., Mansur, K., & Loganathan,
N. (2011). Empirical analysis of employment and foreign direct investment in Malaysia:
An ARDL bounds testing approach to cointegration. Advances in Management &
Applied Economics, 11(3), 77-91.
21. Shaari, M. S., Hussain, N. E., & Ab. Halim, M. S. (2012). The impact of foreign
direct investment on the unemployment rate and economic growth in Malaysia. Journal
of Applied Sciences Research, 8(9), 4900-4906.
22. Sorolla Amat, V. (2000). Growth, unemployment and the wage setting process.
23. Stamatiou, P., & Dritsakis, N. (2014). The impact of foreign direct investment on
the unemployment rate and economic growth in Greece: A time series analysis.
International Work-Conference on Time Series Analysis, 1, 97-108

27
 VIII. APPENDIX
(Data set)
Afghanistan 10,98 58,27 3,91 19291,10 2,30 23,40
Africa Eastern 6,47 44,58 1,67 977809,24 3,92 14632,69
and Southern
Africa Western 5,93 49,41 3,15 792078,92 1,76 16745,23
and Central
Albania 11,47 104,17 2,17 15286,61 1,41 1201,02
Algeria 11,81 18,08 0,80 171157,80 1,95 1381,27
Angola 6,93 25,53 -0,62 89417,19 17,08 -4098,48
Antigua and 220,72 3,35 1661,96 1,43 139,47
Barbuda
Arab World 10,21 32,71 1,52 2811182,23 1,09 33628,20
Armenia 18,81 103,89 7,60 13672,80 1,44 254,08
Australia 5,16 3,30 2,16 1396567,01 1,61 39897,44
Austria 4,49 107,61 1,42 445075,39 1,53 -8100,28
Azerbaijan 4,84 121,28 2,48 48174,24 2,61 1503,92
Bahamas, The 10,11 38,91 1,22 13578,80 2,49 264,60
Bahrain 1,56 2104,06 1,99 38474,52 1,01 941,76
Bangladesh 4,22 1252,56 8,15 302563,40 5,59 1908,05
Barbados 10,10 667,49 -0,10 5209,00 4,10 215,37
Belarus 4,71 46,40 1,40 64409,65 5,60 1273,30
Belgium 5,36 379,42 1,78 533254,52 1,44 -28965,67
Belize 6,46 17,11 1,76 1982,52 93,91
Benin 2,32 104,66 6,87 14391,69 -0,71 218,21
Bermuda 1183,57 0,46 7484,11 4,39
Bhutan 2,27 20,01 5,46 2530,55 2,73 13,01
Bolivia 3,46 10,63 2,22 40895,32 1,84 -216,64
Bosnia and 15,69 64,47 2,83 20202,48 0,56 390,21
Herzegovina
Botswana 17,21 4,06 3,03 18362,35 2,77 260,93
Brazil 11,93 25,25 1,41 1877810,51 3,73 69174,41
Brunei 6,92 82,22 3,87 13469,42 -0,39 373,26
Darussalam
Bulgaria 4,23 64,26 3,69 68558,82 3,10 2075,75
Burkina Faso 4,62 74,27 5,70 15990,80 -3,23 162,97
Burundi 1,42 449,01 1,84 3012,31 -0,69 1,04
Cabo Verde 12,07 136,46 5,67 1981,85 1,11 107,81
Cambodia 0,13 93,40 7,05 27089,39 3663,03
Cameroon 3,32 54,74 3,72 39007,35 2,45 1024,78
Canada 5,66 4,19 1,86 1741576,39 1,95 45087,72
Caribbean small 8,03 18,28 0,67 76644,40 1,43 3729,88
states
Cayman Islands 270,62 3,82 5935,77 984,92
Central African 4,04 7,62 3,00 2220,31 2,69 25,60
Republic
Central Europe 3,78 92,56 3,84 1668520,37 2,66 137545,43
and the Baltics
Chad 1,91 12,66 3,25 11314,95 -0,97 566,64

28
Chile 7,29 25,49 0,94 279385,49 2,56 12586,61
China 4,60 148,30 5,95 14279937,4 2,90 187169,82
7
Colombia 9,96 45,37 3,28 323429,89 3,53 14313,59
Comoros 7,70 457,22 1,99 1165,84 3,68
Congo, Dem. 4,13 38,28 4,38 50400,75 1350,99
Rep.
Congo, Rep. 9,60 15,76 0,23 12693,56 2,21 3366,09
Costa Rica 11,49 98,86 2,17 63951,11 2,10 2505,08
Cote d'Ivoire 3,17 80,87 6,23 58539,42 -1,11 848,88
Croatia 6,62 71,84 2,86 60752,59 0,77 1170,05
Curacao 354,60 -3,40 3101,79 2,62 67,78
Cyprus 7,07 129,72 3,08 24949,07 0,25 25930,37
Czech Republic 2,01 138,24 2,31 250686,48 2,85 10752,12
Denmark 5,02 145,36 2,85 350104,33 0,76 -7499,27
Djibouti 10,97 42,00 7,77 3324,63 3,32 175,00
Dominica 95,74 3,46 574,61 1,50 32,55
Dominican 6,36 222,29 5,05 88941,30 1,81 2829,20
Republic
Early- 5,60 98,76 2,16 11782968,9 2,77 221088,23
demographic 3
dividend
East Asia & 3,86 95,53 3,61 26916892,9 1,63 546986,17
Pacific 9
East Asia & 3,94 130,70 5,69 17156128,6 2,62 260300,76
Pacific 2
(excluding high
income)
East Asia & 3,96 130,07 5,69 17123379,3 2,62 260297,00
Pacific (IDA & 7
IBRD countries)
Ecuador 3,81 69,95 0,01 108108,01 0,27 961,61
Egypt, Arab 9,73 100,85 5,56 303080,87 9,15 9010,10
Rep.
El Salvador 3,96 311,46 2,64 26896,66 0,08 696,29
Equatorial 7,95 48,34 -5,98 11417,28 1,24 452,29
Guinea
Estonia 4,45 30,52 5,00 31471,10 2,28 2962,63
Eswatini 22,24 66,75 2,24 4471,60 2,60 127,97
Ethiopia 2,04 99,25 8,36 95912,59 15,84 2516,23
Euro area 7,55 127,60 1,29 13363549,8 1,45 176130,46
5
Europe & 6,69 33,55 1,59 22828201,1 1,76 432274,80
Central Asia 3
Europe & 7,13 18,51 2,20 3491568,51 2,89 76796,38
Central Asia
(excluding high
income)
Europe & 6,80 20,04 2,53 4148183,19 2,64 92365,43
Central Asia
(IDA & IBRD
countries)
European Union 6,70 111,81 1,56 15633997,9 1,63 313169,83
6
Fiji 4,11 48,71 -0,45 5496,25 1,77 322,28

29
Finland 6,70 18,17 1,27 268966,07 1,02 15768,22
Fragile and 6,21 45,56 2,49 1915099,19 2,30 20328,80
conflict
affected
situations
France 8,44 122,82 1,51 2715518,27 1,11 51038,71
Gabon 19,64 8,43 3,94 16874,45 2,46 1553,14
Gambia, The 8,94 231,99 6,06 1826,07 7,12 32,27
Georgia 11,57 65,09 4,98 17477,26 4,85 1341,12
Germany 3,14 237,83 0,56 3861123,56 1,45 67619,00
Ghana 4,12 133,68 6,51 67234,29 7,18 3879,83
Greece 17,31 83,18 1,86 205326,72 0,25 4999,64
Guatemala 2,36 154,95 3,87 77020,02 3,70 1169,33
Guinea 4,14 51,97 5,65 13513,81 9,47 44,40
Guinea-Bissau 2,79 68,31 4,50 1439,64 0,25 71,66
Guyana 13,91 3,98 5,35 5173,76 2,09 1695,18
Haiti 13,48 408,67 -1,68 14332,16 18,70 75,00
High income 4,80 34,65 1,59 54846285,4 1,53 1156703,4
5 1
Honduras 5,57 87,10 2,65 25089,98 4,37 955,10
Hong Kong SAR, 2,96 7149,90 -1,68 363016,37 2,86 58299,36
China
Hungary 3,42 107,07 4,64 163503,65 3,34 92164,56
IBRD only 5,75 67,77 3,66 31357177,7 2,60 571268,87
7
Iceland 3,51 3,58 2,57 24836,71 3,01 -600,03
IDA & IBRD 5,51 67,53 3,66 33680957,2 2,68 617402,35
total 7
IDA blend 5,44 128,08 2,31 987263,63 1,77 14004,84
IDA only 4,33 53,83 4,91 1350252,50 2,78 32128,65
IDA total 4,67 66,86 3,66 2332822,03 2,71 46133,48
India 5,27 459,58 4,04 2870504,10 3,72 50610,65
Indonesia 3,62 144,14 5,02 1119091,26 3,03 24993,55
Iran, Islamic 11,14 50,91 -6,78 258245,50 39,91 1508,00
Rep.
Iraq 12,76 90,55 4,45 222434,14 -0,20 -3075,60
Ireland 4,95 71,63 5,57 398590,21 0,94 -46633,23
Israel 3,80 418,39 3,45 394652,21 0,84 19047,10
Italy 9,95 200,61 0,29 2004913,36 0,61 31185,21
Jamaica 7,72 272,23 0,89 15830,77 3,91 665,42
Japan 2,40 346,41 0,27 5064872,88 0,48 39932,87
Jordan 16,85 113,78 1,96 44502,90 0,76 825,49
Kazakhstan 4,80 6,86 4,50 181667,19 5,25 3320,65
Kenya 2,60 92,37 5,37 95503,09 5,24 1332,44
Korea, Rep. 3,75 530,24 2,04 1646739,22 0,38 9634,30
Kosovo 4,94 7953,16 2,68 285,08
Kuwait 2,41 236,09 0,43 136196,76 1,09 515,62
Kyrgyz Republic 6,72 33,66 4,60 8871,02 1,13 278,86
Lao PDR 0,62 31,06 5,46 18245,93 3,32 755,52

30
Late- 5,22 51,58 4,37 22961683,3 2,16 397138,81
demographic 3
dividend
Latin America & 7,99 32,26 0,95 5786726,55 2,31 221996,98
Caribbean
Latin America & 8,04 32,37 0,95 4841640,25 2,10 147218,20
Caribbean
(excluding high
income)
Latin America & 8,09 31,67 0,96 5535010,38 2,09 162460,46
the Caribbean
(IDA & IBRD
countries)
Latvia 6,31 30,82 2,03 34055,46 2,81 1059,25
Least developed 4,34 50,72 4,34 1131451,68 3,09 18477,93
countries: UN
classification
Lebanon 6,04 670,16 -6,70 51991,63 3,01 2223,27
Lesotho 23,86 70,00 -0,38 2366,21 5,19 117,67
Liberia 2,89 51,26 -2,28 3070,52 86,68
Lithuania 6,26 44,61 4,34 54639,94 2,33 1573,98
Low & middle 5,49 68,36 3,66 32252234,2 2,76 586462,55
income 3
Low income 4,61 43,33 4,11 531834,69 2,83 11947,40
Lower middle 5,07 128,34 3,32 7729875,23 3,32 151219,78
income
Luxembourg 5,60 255,14 2,30 71104,92 1,74 -11420,83
Macao SAR, 1,70 19466,4 -2,63 55153,71 6484,46
China 4
Madagascar 1,67 46,35 4,40 14191,91 5,61 474,31
Malawi 5,56 197,59 5,72 10862,61 9,37 98,42
Malaysia 3,31 97,24 4,30 364681,37 0,66 9101,05
Maldives 5,82 1769,86 6,99 5642,18 0,22 961,15
Mali 7,24 16,11 4,77 17281,82 -1,66 493,82
Malta 3,40 1575,19 5,54 15215,71 1,64 4256,17
Marshall 326,62 6,53 239,46 4,18
Islands
Mauritania 10,13 4,39 5,93 7600,65 2,30 -883,56
Mauritius 6,36 623,50 3,01 14046,34 0,41 472,30
Mexico 3,48 65,63 -0,05 1268870,53 3,64 29375,49
Middle East & 9,60 40,69 0,49 3430720,94 1,05 58046,99
North Africa
Middle East & 11,21 45,07 -0,38 1366023,64 2,48 14329,18
North Africa
(excluding high
income)
Middle East & 11,06 44,56 -0,40 1348515,29 3,01 14207,55
North Africa
(IDA & IBRD
countries)
Middle income 5,58 73,09 3,66 31709624,2 2,73 574515,15
6
Moldova 5,10 92,72 3,58 11968,70 4,84 501,61
Mongolia 5,31 2,07 5,16 13996,72 7,30 2443,34
Montenegro 15,12 46,25 4,06 5542,67 0,36 418,21

31
Morocco 9,01 81,72 2,48 119700,33 0,30 1720,83
Mozambique 3,19 38,61 2,29 15291,45 2,78 2180,77
Myanmar 0,50 82,79 1,69 79844,29 8,83 1735,59
Namibia 19,75 3,03 -0,61 12565,77 3,72 -176,48
Nepal 2,85 199,57 6,66 34186,18 5,57 185,55
Netherlands 3,38 515,14 1,68 907050,86 2,63 35689,14
New Zealand 4,07 18,91 1,63 209127,45 1,62 2943,29
Nicaragua 5,14 54,39 -3,67 12611,22 5,38 503,00
Niger 0,46 18,40 5,90 12911,69 -2,49 717,15
Nigeria 8,53 220,65 2,21 448120,43 11,40 2305,10
North America 3,89 20,21 2,13 23182285,2 1,88 396723,11
0
North Macedonia 17,26 82,61 3,17 12547,09 0,77 549,50
Norway 3,69 14,65 0,85 405510,00 2,17 17056,00
OECD members 5,39 38,43 1,58 53791284,5 1,74 904598,48
7
Oman 1,84 16,07 -0,83 76331,52 0,13 3419,77
Other small 9,17 15,43 1,93 433454,62 1,64 35994,76
states
Pacific island 2,68 38,81 0,78 10637,42 418,52
small states
Pakistan 3,98 280,93 0,99 278221,91 10,58 2234,00
Palau 39,13 -4,25 268,35 22,00
Panama 4,74 57,25 3,04 66787,90 -0,36 5891,33
Papua New 2,37 19,38 5,86 24829,11 3,64 333,97
Guinea
Paraguay 6,60 17,73 -0,40 37906,94 2,76 596,24
Peru 3,03 25,40 2,20 228470,92 2,14 8891,91
Philippines 2,24 362,60 6,12 376823,28 2,48 8671,37
Poland 3,28 124,00 4,54 595862,09 2,23 14399,00
Portugal 6,46 112,29 2,49 239510,77 0,34 10332,17
Post- 4,96 35,49 1,53 50795259,5 1,62 1044580,9
demographic 2 1
dividend
Pre-demographic 5,80 46,61 2,98 1399441,25 2,38 13482,26
dividend
Qatar 0,12 246,48 0,77 175837,55 -0,67 -2812,64
Romania 3,91 84,20 4,13 249696,85 3,83 7365,44
Russian 4,60 8,82 2,03 1687448,53 4,47 31974,77
Federation
Rwanda 0,99 511,83 9,46 10355,97 3,35 384,46
Samoa 8,22 69,64 3,58 852,25 0,98 1,02
Sao Tome and 13,05 224,01 2,21 427,43 24,19
Principe
Saudi Arabia 6,13 15,94 0,33 792966,84 -2,09 4562,57
Senegal 6,47 84,64 4,40 23306,21 1,76 983,34
Serbia 10,40 79,41 4,25 51475,02 1,85 4268,71
Seychelles 212,23 1,55 1581,38 1,81 253,88
Sierra Leone 4,36 108,25 5,60 4121,73 14,80 342,45
Singapore 3,10 8044,53 1,35 374386,31 0,57 120439,47
Slovak Republic 5,75 113,44 2,51 105119,16 2,66 2312,69

32
Slovenia 4,45 103,71 3,18 54174,23 1,63 1709,96
Small states 8,64 16,49 1,74 520736,45 1,50 40143,16
Solomon Islands 0,60 23,93 1,20 1570,22 1,63 32,79
Somalia 12,79 24,62 2,90 4942,32 447,00
South Africa 28,47 48,27 0,15 351431,65 4,12 5116,10
South Asia 5,04 384,80 4,02 3596915,00 3,63 56694,00
South Asia (IDA 5,04 384,80 4,02 3596915,00 3,63 56694,00
& IBRD)
Spain 14,10 94,34 1,95 1393490,52 0,70 14813,33
Sri Lanka 4,27 352,43 2,26 83975,58 3,53 758,19
St. Lucia 15,59 299,66 1,73 2122,45 0,54 30,64
St. Vincent and 18,62 283,57 0,49 824,72 0,91 113,07
the Grenadines
Sub-Saharan 6,28 46,41 2,31 1770043,31 2,77 31377,91
Africa
Sub-Saharan 6,28 46,40 2,31 1768461,06 2,78 31124,03
Africa
(excluding high
income)
Sub-Saharan 6,28 46,41 2,31 1770043,31 2,77 31377,91
Africa (IDA &
IBRD countries)
Sudan 16,76 23,15 -1,33 32250,45 50,99 825,35
Suriname 6,94 3,73 1,10 4221,37 72,40
Sweden 6,83 25,24 1,37 531283,30 1,78 16611,72
Switzerland 4,39 217,01 1,08 731474,37 0,36 37313,31
Tajikistan 6,66 67,16 7,40 8300,78 212,81
Thailand 0,72 136,28 2,27 544263,97 0,71 4816,64
Timor-Leste 4,42 86,96 18,72 2017,92 0,96 74,58
Togo 3,60 148,60 5,46 7220,40 0,69 345,70
Tonga 3,01 145,13 0,73 512,35 1,74
Trinidad and 3,46 271,92 -1,25 23208,33 1,00 183,97
Tobago
Tunisia 15,13 75,27 1,04 39195,72 6,72 810,17
Turkey 13,67 108,40 0,92 761428,18 15,18 9266,00
Turkmenistan 3,74 12,64 6,30 45231,43 2165,86
Turks and 40,20 5,32 1197,42 26,96
Caicos Islands
Tuvalu 388,50 9,76 47,27 0,30
Uganda 1,72 220,77 6,80 35170,04 2,87 1266,03
Ukraine 8,19 76,61 3,22 153929,50 7,89 5833,00
United Arab 2,28 137,57 1,68 421142,27 -1,93 13787,47
Emirates
United Kingdom 3,74 276,26 1,37 2830813,51 1,74 2236,68
United States 3,67 35,89 2,16 21433224,7 1,81 351631,00
0
Upper middle 6,07 46,68 3,77 23979749,0 2,12 423295,37
income 3
Uruguay 9,35 19,78 0,35 61231,15 7,88 1305,95
Uzbekistan 5,65 76,22 5,80 57726,54 2316,48
Vanuatu 1,69 24,60 3,26 930,34 2,76 34,77
Vietnam 2,04 311,10 7,02 261921,24 2,80 16120,00

33
West Bank and 25,34 778,29 1,36 17133,50 1,58 121,63
Gaza
World 5,37 59,05 2,34 87607773,8 2,19 1744099,9
8 6
Zambia 11,91 24,03 1,44 23308,69 9,15 547,97

34