This question is currently structured in a way that does not appear to have an answer.

The issue is how we can decompose changes in unemployment into frictional, structural, cyclical, and seasonal. A verbal definition of “structural” is given without any reference, nor are the definitions of the other components Given. As a result, there is no way of even guessing what the alleged partition scheme is.

However, we can step back and attempt to answer this question based on conventional definitions.

“Seasonal” is very easy to deal with: the raw data is non-adjusted, and then statistical agencies do a statistical adjustment. We can work with the seasonally adjusted data, and throw out the notion of seasonality.

We are then facing “structural” and “frictional” unemployment. I assume that researchers have proposed methodologies, which are likely to be controversial. In any event, we estimate those, and remove them from the total. Since “cyclical” is the only remaining category, “cyclical” gets all the remaining unemployment.

I am not expert in labour market economics, but have read recent literature. I have seen no recent use of the concept of “structural unemployment.” My opinion is that it is not meaningful. However, I will attempt to discuss the definitions that I seem to recall seeing.

Frictional unemployment is more straightforward: workers cannot instantly be matched to new jobs, so a certain percentage of the workforce will always be in transit between jobs. Studies exist that attempt to estimate this, but I believe the consensus is that this is a small and steady percentage. It will not move much in a crisis.

Structural unemployment is highly problematic. It is supposed to be a steady state value. One typical way to estimate “structural” variables is to pass them through a smoothing filter. Under this definition, the smoothed series is “structural”, and the residual is “cyclical.” Under this definition, the construction ensures that almost any spike is “cyclical.” However, I have never seen anyone proposing a decomposition like this in at least a decade.

Until the methodology for estimation of “structural” and “frictional” changes in response to the pandemic, any rapid movement in seasonally-adjusted employment is “cyclical” by definition.

The issue is how we can decompose changes in unemployment into frictional, structural, cyclical, and seasonal.

The question has been updated to include the source for the definition of “structural” unemployment. However, I do not have access to that text. There is nothing in the definition that allows us to calculate “structural unemployment” (nor the other components).

Nevertheless, we can step back and attempt to answer this question based on conventional definitions.

“Seasonal” is very easy to deal with: the raw data is non-adjusted, and then statistical agencies do a statistical adjustment. We can work with the seasonally adjusted data, and throw out the notion of seasonality.

We are then facing “structural” and “frictional” unemployment. I assume that researchers have proposed methodologies, which are likely to be controversial. In any event, we estimate those, and remove them from the total. Since “cyclical” is the only remaining category, “cyclical” gets all the remaining unemployment.

I am not expert in labour market economics, but have read recent literature. I have seen no recent use of the concept of “structural unemployment.” My opinion is that it is not meaningful. However, I will attempt to discuss the definitions that I seem to recall seeing.

Frictional unemployment is more straightforward: workers cannot instantly be matched to new jobs, so a certain percentage of the workforce will always be in transit between jobs. Studies exist that attempt to estimate this, but I believe the consensus is that this is a small and steady percentage. It will not move much in a crisis.

Structural unemployment is highly problematic. It is supposed to be a steady state value. One typical way to estimate “structural” variables is to pass them through a smoothing filter. Under this definition, the smoothed series is “structural”, and the residual is “cyclical.” Under this definition, the construction ensures that almost any spike is “cyclical.” However, I have never seen anyone proposing a decomposition like this in at least a decade.

Until the methodology for estimation of “structural” and “frictional” changes in response to the pandemic, any rapid movement in seasonally-adjusted employment is “cyclical” by definition.

This question is currently structured in a way that does not appear to have an answer.

The issue is how we can decompose changes in unemployment into frictional, structural, cyclical, and seasonal. A verbal definition of “structural” is given without any reference, nor are the definitions of the other components Given. As a result, there is no way of even guessing what the alleged partition scheme is.

However, we can step back and attempt to answer this question based on conventional definitions.

“Seasonal” is very easy to deal with: the raw data is non-adjusted, and then statistical agencies do a statistical adjustment. We can work with the seasonally adjusted data, and throw out the notion of seasonality.

We are then facing “structural” and “frictional” unemployment. I assume that researchers have proposed methodologies, which are likely to be controversial. In any event, we estimate those, and remove them from the total. Since “cyclical” is the only remaining category, “cyclical” gets all the remaining unemployment.

Until the methodology for estimation of “structural” and “frictional” changes in response to the pandemic, any rapid movement in seasonally-adjusted employment is “cyclical” by definition.

This question is currently structured in a way that does not appear to have an answer.

The issue is how we can decompose changes in unemployment into frictional, structural, cyclical, and seasonal. A verbal definition of “structural” is given without any reference, nor are the definitions of the other components Given. As a result, there is no way of even guessing what the alleged partition scheme is.

However, we can step back and attempt to answer this question based on conventional definitions.

“Seasonal” is very easy to deal with: the raw data is non-adjusted, and then statistical agencies do a statistical adjustment. We can work with the seasonally adjusted data, and throw out the notion of seasonality.

We are then facing “structural” and “frictional” unemployment. I assume that researchers have proposed methodologies, which are likely to be controversial. In any event, we estimate those, and remove them from the total. Since “cyclical” is the only remaining category, “cyclical” gets all the remaining unemployment.

I am not expert in labour market economics, but have read recent literature. I have seen no recent use of the concept of “structural unemployment.” My opinion is that it is not meaningful. However, I will attempt to discuss the definitions that I seem to recall seeing.

Frictional unemployment is more straightforward: workers cannot instantly be matched to new jobs, so a certain percentage of the workforce will always be in transit between jobs. Studies exist that attempt to estimate this, but I believe the consensus is that this is a small and steady percentage. It will not move much in a crisis.

Structural unemployment is highly problematic. It is supposed to be a steady state value. One typical way to estimate “structural” variables is to pass them through a smoothing filter. Under this definition, the smoothed series is “structural”, and the residual is “cyclical.” Under this definition, the construction ensures that almost any spike is “cyclical.” However, I have never seen anyone proposing a decomposition like this in at least a decade.

Until the methodology for estimation of “structural” and “frictional” changes in response to the pandemic, any rapid movement in seasonally-adjusted employment is “cyclical” by definition.