Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Frictional unemployment

Frictional unemployment is the short-term joblessness that arises when workers voluntarily leave positions to seek better opportunities, transition between roles, enter the labor force, or match with suitable vacancies amid imperfect information and search frictions in a dynamic economy. This type of unemployment reflects the inherent time lags in labor market matching, where workers and employers require periods to evaluate options, negotiate terms, and relocate, rather than signaling economic distress or deficiencies in aggregate demand. As a natural feature of efficient markets, frictional unemployment enables improved allocations of human capital, higher productivity through voluntary mobility, and adaptability to changing preferences or technologies, though prolonged search durations can impose costs like forgone output and skill erosion if exacerbated by policy distortions. Empirical analyses, including studies of job vacancy durations and turnover rates, indicate that reductions in search frictions—such as through digital recruitment tools—can lower frictional unemployment by accelerating matches, with evidence showing vacancy durations shortened by up to 9% and unsuccessful searches reduced by 13% following internet expansions. It forms a key component of the natural unemployment rate, typically estimated at 2-3% in stable economies, distinct from structural mismatches or cyclical downturns, and is not amenable to macroeconomic stabilization policies but rather to enhancements in information flows and mobility. The Beveridge curve, which plots job vacancies against unemployment rates, empirically captures frictional elements by depicting the outward shifts during periods of heightened mismatches, as observed in U.S. data from 2004 to 2010 where rising vacancies amid stable or falling unemployment highlighted search inefficiencies rather than deficient demand. While direct measurement remains challenging due to overlaps with other unemployment types, frictional rates are inferred from labor turnover surveys, quit rates, and job-to-job transition data, underscoring its role in healthy economies where voluntary separations exceed involuntary ones. Critics from institutional perspectives argue that rigidities like employment protections can inflate frictional spells by deterring quits and prolonging searches, yet cross-country evidence links flexible markets to lower overall natural unemployment without disproportionate frictional rises.

Definition and Characteristics

Core Definition

Frictional unemployment is the temporary joblessness experienced by workers actively searching for new positions, transitioning between jobs, or entering the labor market for the first time, such as recent graduates. This form of unemployment stems from inherent frictions in the labor market, including imperfect information about job openings, geographic mismatches, and the time required for employers and potential employees to match skills and preferences. It is typically voluntary, as individuals often quit existing roles to pursue better opportunities, and occurs independently of broader economic cycles. In economic theory, frictional unemployment is considered a structural feature of dynamic labor markets, contributing to the alongside structural factors but distinct from cyclical downturns. It reflects ongoing worker mobility, which enables reallocation of labor toward more efficient uses, though prolonged search durations can elevate its measured level. Empirical analyses, such as those from the , associate it with job-to-job transitions and new entrants, estimating its persistence even at .

Key Characteristics

Frictional unemployment is characterized by its voluntary nature, arising when workers actively choose to leave existing positions to seek improved opportunities, such as higher wages, better working conditions, or career advancement, rather than being involuntarily displaced. This distinguishes it from involuntary forms like cyclical unemployment, as individuals weigh personal benefits against short-term income loss during the transition. A defining feature is its temporary and short-term duration, typically lasting weeks to a few months, as it reflects the time required for job matching amid labor market frictions like imperfect or constraints. In full-employment economies, frictional unemployment accounts for the baseline "churn" of workers transitioning between roles or entering the workforce, such as recent graduates or relocating employees. It persists due to heterogeneity between workers and jobs, where mismatches in skills, preferences, or locations necessitate search time, even in expanding economies with ample vacancies. This process facilitates efficient by enabling better job-worker pairings, often signaling labor market vitality through voluntary quits and hires. Empirical estimates from the U.S. indicate that frictional components contribute to the natural rate of unemployment, estimated around 4-5% in balanced conditions, underscoring its role as a non-pathological . Unlike , frictional episodes do not stem from systemic skill gaps but from transient search behaviors, and they are amplified by factors like demographic shifts—e.g., higher rates among young workers entering the . Overall, it embodies the of a functioning , where job mobility drives gains without implying aggregate slack.

Distinction from Other Unemployment Types

Frictional unemployment arises from the temporary delays in matching workers with suitable jobs due to search processes, , or entry into the labor market, and it is typically short-term and considered a natural component of labor market dynamics. This contrasts with cyclical unemployment, which results from fluctuations in during economic recessions, leading to involuntary job losses as firms reduce output and hiring; frictional unemployment remains present regardless of the phase, contributing to the natural rate even at . Unlike structural unemployment, which stems from persistent mismatches between workers' skills, locations, or qualifications and the requirements of available positions—often exacerbated by technological shifts, industry declines, or geographic disparities—frictional unemployment involves no such fundamental imbalances but rather informational asymmetries and voluntary transitions between compatible roles. Structural cases typically endure longer, necessitating retraining, relocation, or policy interventions, whereas frictional spells average weeks to months and reflect efficient market churning. Classical unemployment, or real-wage unemployment, occurs when labor market rigidities such as binding minimum wages, strong unions, or regulations push wages above the equilibrium clearing level, creating an excess supply of labor that employers cannot absorb. In distinction, frictional unemployment presupposes relatively flexible wages and focuses on search frictions rather than price distortions; it is not alleviated by wage reductions but by improved matching mechanisms like job information dissemination.
Unemployment TypePrimary CauseNatureTypical DurationKey Economic Trigger
FrictionalJob search and transitionsMostly voluntaryShort-term (weeks to months)Labor market entry/exit, informational frictions
CyclicalInsufficient InvoluntaryVariable, tied to cycleRecessions and expansions
StructuralSkills or location mismatchesInvoluntaryLong-term, sectoral shifts
ClassicalWages above market InvoluntaryPersistent until adjustmentRegulations, unions, minimum wages

Causes of Frictional Unemployment

Individual Decision-Making Factors

Workers voluntarily quit jobs to pursue better-paying positions, improved working conditions, or career advancement opportunities, accepting short-term unemployment during the job search to achieve higher expected lifetime . This decision reflects a cost-benefit where the anticipated gains from a superior match—such as increased wages or —outweigh the immediate costs of forgone earnings and search efforts. from labor market data shows that quit rates, a key indicator of such voluntary separations, rise in expanding economies, contributing to frictional unemployment as workers reallocate to more productive roles. New entrants to the labor force, including recent high school or graduates, often experience frictional unemployment as they invest time searching for entry-level positions that align with their qualifications and aspirations rather than accepting suboptimal immediate offers. Similarly, re-entrants—such as parents returning after childcare responsibilities—engage in deliberate searches, prolonging transitional unemployment to secure preferable terms. These choices underscore individuals' preference for quality matches over rapid re-employment, fostering long-term gains despite temporary joblessness. Personal circumstances drive additional voluntary exits, including relocations for family obligations, health considerations, or lifestyle preferences, which necessitate job searches in new locales or sectors. For instance, workers may resign to accompany a spouse to a different city, rationally enduring frictional spells to access localized labor markets with potentially superior prospects. Such decisions highlight the role of non-wage factors in individual utility maximization, where subjective valuations of work-life balance or personal fulfillment prompt separations even absent immediate economic distress.

Labor Market Friction Factors

Labor market frictions encompass the structural impediments that delay the matching of available workers with suitable job vacancies, thereby generating frictional unemployment as workers transition between roles. In canonical search-and-matching models, such as the Diamond-Mortensen-Pissarides (DMP) , these frictions manifest through a matching function that aggregates unemployed workers (U) and vacancies (V) into hires (M(U,V)), characterized by constant but diminishing marginal for each input, preventing instantaneous equilibration. Empirical calibrations of the DMP model using U.S. aggregate data on vacancies and unemployment confirm that matching elasticities—typically ranging from 0.3 to 0.7 with respect to unemployment—align with observed dynamics, where outward shifts indicate heightened frictions during recessions. Search costs represent a primary , encompassing the time, financial outlays (e.g., transportation, application fees), and effort expended by job seekers. Unemployed U.S. workers allocate an average of 41 minutes per weekday to job search activities, a figure that correlates inversely with reemployment probabilities and extends average spells. These costs exhibit heterogeneity; for instance, non-local searches incur higher and expenses, empirically accounting for prolonged durations in mismatched regional markets, with estimates showing that search intensity declines over unemployment spells due to and reservation wage adjustments. During the period, median unemployment duration rose from 9.7 weeks in 2020 to 16.5 weeks in 2021, partly attributable to amplified search costs from and remote hiring uncertainties. Information asymmetries further exacerbate frictions, as neither workers nor firms possess complete of counterparties' characteristics, leading to suboptimal pairings and persistent vacancies alongside . In the DMP model, undirected search—where agents randomly contact opportunities—yields rates of 4-6% in steady-state calibrations for developed economies, supported by evidence from vacancy- ratios that fail to clear markets instantly. Empirical studies using from job boards and recruiter surveys reveal that imperfect information on worker skills or firm needs results in matching inefficiencies, with job-finding rates dropping by 20-30% for long-term unemployed due to signaling failures. Geographic and institutional barriers constitute additional frictions, impeding labor mobility across regions or sectors. Moving costs, including housing relocation and family disruptions, reduce interstate worker flows by 10-20% in U.S. data, with frictions explaining up to 55% of variations in local labor market tightness. Wage delays, modeled as post-match negotiations in DMP extensions, prolong transitions, as evidenced by negative dependence in exit rates from , where initial job-finding probabilities exceed those after several months by factors of 2-3. While technological platforms have mitigated some frictions—reducing search times by enhancing flows—persistent structural elements like mismatches sustain frictional components at 2-3% of total in recent estimates.

Measurement and Empirical Estimation

Methodological Challenges

Frictional unemployment cannot be directly observed through standard unemployment metrics, which capture the aggregate stock of unemployed individuals at a given time rather than isolating short-term transitions between jobs. Surveys like the U.S. () classify respondents as unemployed based on lack of work and active job search within the past four weeks, but fail to differentiate frictional spells—typically brief periods of voluntary job quitting or initial labor market entry—from structural or cyclical causes. This aggregation obscures the flow-based nature of frictional unemployment, necessitating indirect estimation methods prone to specification errors. Empirical decomposition techniques, such as empirical mode (EMD), attempt to parse total into cyclical, structural, and frictional components by identifying intrinsic oscillatory modes in time-series data. Applied to Brazilian monthly unemployment rates from 2002 to 2021, EMD yielded a frictional estimate averaging around 4-5%, but results depend heavily on data preprocessing and the non-linear, non-stationary assumptions of the model, which may not generalize across economies with varying labor dynamics. Similarly, stochastic frontier models treat frictional unemployment as an inefficiency frontier in job-matching processes, estimating it at approximately 3.7% for the U.S. in analyses of the 1980s-1990s, yet maximum likelihood estimators diverge from ordinary by up to 1.13 points due to unobserved heterogeneity in search efficiencies. Labor flow data from gross worker transitions—tracking movements between , , and nonparticipation—offer a proxy for frictional dynamics, as voluntary separations and rapid reemployment inflows characterize this type. However, deriving reliable flows from panel surveys requires extensive corrections for recall errors, classification inconsistencies (e.g., misreporting marginal attachments), and temporal inconsistencies, introducing substantial margins of error; for instance, uncorrected flows overestimate inflows by 20-30% in some periods. The , plotting vacancies against unemployment, further informs frictional estimates by revealing matching frictions, but outward shifts—observed during the 2008-2010 recession—complicate attribution, as they may reflect structural mismatches rather than pure search delays. Distinguishing frictional from remains arduous, as both stem from mismatches, with frictional involving transient informational barriers resolvable via search, while structural demands skill reconfiguration. Proxying frictional via short-duration spells (under 5 weeks) encounters survey biases, including heaping at round numbers and underreporting of brief episodes, leading to inconsistent cross-country comparisons; estimates via administrative suggest frictional rates of 1-2%, contrasting higher U.S. figures from surveys. Search-matching models like Diamond-Mortensen-Pissarides provide equilibrium frictional rates calibrated to separation and matching parameters, but these hinge on untestable assumptions about homogeneous agents and exogenous shocks, yielding sensitivity to calibration choices—e.g., a 10% matching drop can inflate estimates by 0.5-1 . Overall, methodological variances across approaches preclude precise quantification, with estimates ranging 2-5% in advanced economies, underscoring the need for integrated sources and robust robustness checks.

Historical and Current Estimates

Economists derive estimates of frictional unemployment primarily from search-matching models, job flow statistics such as separations and hires from the BLS Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS), and analyses of short-duration unemployment spells, rather than direct measurement. These approaches yield consistent figures of approximately 2 percent of the labor force for the , representing the level from normal job transitions and voluntary searches in a dynamic . This estimate aligns with the portion of attributable to workers between jobs, excluding mismatches or cyclical downturns. Historical assessments from the late 20th century, including Federal Reserve analyses, positioned frictional unemployment at around 2 percent within the then-higher natural rate of 5 to 6 percent. For example, a 1993 Kansas City Federal Reserve study noted that prevailing natural rate estimates exceeded the baseline frictional level, implying the latter's relative constancy amid varying structural components. Over the post-World War II era, this frictional share showed little variation, even as overall labor market conditions fluctuated, due to persistent worker mobility driven by career advancement and geographic relocations. By the 2000s, estimates remained stable at 2 percent, even as the natural rate trended downward to 4.5-5.5 percent, reflecting technological improvements in job matching that primarily reduced structural unemployment rather than frictional turnover. Current estimates continue to hover at 2 percent, embedded within the Congressional Budget Office's 4.3 percent non-cyclical rate projection for 2025, corroborated by models. Supporting evidence includes JOLTS data showing average monthly quit rates of 2.3 percent in 2023, indicative of ongoing voluntary separations that replenish frictional pools without signaling distress, and short-term unemployment (under 5 weeks) averaging 1.5-2 percent of the labor force. These figures underscore frictional unemployment's resilience amid modern trends like digital job platforms, which accelerate matching but do not eliminate search frictions inherent to individual preferences and information asymmetries.

Economic Implications

Benefits to Efficiency and Growth

Frictional unemployment facilitates the efficient matching of workers to jobs by allowing individuals time to search for positions that better align with their skills and preferences, thereby enhancing overall labor productivity. In the search-and-matching framework, this process addresses information asymmetries between employers and job seekers, leading to superior allocations of human capital compared to immediate job acceptance. The Diamond-Mortensen-Pissarides model, recognized in the 2010 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences, demonstrates that such frictions generate equilibrium unemployment but enable dynamic efficiency through surplus-sharing in matches, where workers and firms negotiate based on outside options. Empirical calibrations of this model to U.S. data indicate that frictional components dominate low-unemployment states (below 5%), supporting reallocation to higher-output opportunities without excessive rigidity. This matching mechanism promotes by enabling labor mobility across sectors and firms, essential for reallocating resources amid or shifts in demand. For instance, higher productivity growth correlates with elevated job-finding rates, as workers transition to roles in expanding industries, accelerating aggregate output gains. In flexible labor markets, frictional unemployment signals confidence in better prospects, fostering voluntary quits that drive and ; economies with moderate frictional rates exhibit sustained reallocation flows, contributing to long-term GDP expansion. Studies integrating firm heterogeneity show that improved match efficiency reduces unemployment while hastening worker shifts to more productive entities, amplifying growth effects from . By resisting mismatches from or imperfect information, frictional unemployment enhances market flexibility and counters inefficiencies in rigid systems. This includes transmitting job quality signals, allowing workers to bypass suboptimal roles and employers to select suitable candidates, which bolsters overall economic and output potential. In stable, growing , it constitutes a small share of total —typically 2-3%—yet underscores a healthy churn that prevents stagnation and supports structural adjustments necessary for sustained prosperity.

Costs and Potential Inefficiencies

Frictional unemployment imposes on individuals through wages during the interim period between jobs, as workers remain unproductive while searching for better matches. These losses, though typically brief—often spanning a few weeks to months—can strain finances, particularly for those without savings or access to , and may include ancillary expenses such as to interviews or updating credentials. At the macroeconomic level, these transitions result in temporary reductions in labor utilization, diverting resources toward non-productive search activities rather than output generation, which contributes to frictional costs embedded in broader estimates. Public expenditures on insurance also rise, as short-term benefits are frequently claimed during frictional spells, representing a fiscal burden funded by taxpayers. Empirical models incorporating search frictions, such as those estimating vacancy durations and matching inefficiencies, quantify these productivity losses via the friction cost approach, which accounts for the time until a is found, often revealing costs that, while small relative to cyclical unemployment, accumulate across millions of annual job transitions. Potential inefficiencies emerge when frictions distort optimal matching, as search decisions fail to internalize externalities like the positive impact of on aggregate vacancy filling rates, leading to equilibrium unemployment rates above the social optimum in Diamond-Mortensen-Pissarides frameworks. High search costs—encompassing information gaps, relocation barriers, or regulatory hurdles—can prolong spells, fostering wage dispersion and suboptimal allocations where workers accept inferior positions or remain unmatched longer than necessary. Evidence from stochastic frontier analyses estimates baseline frictional rates around 3.7% in sectors like , but deviations due to elevated frictions correlate with reduced labor market efficiency, as seen in studies linking industrial diversity to lower frictional unemployment persistence.

Relation to Broader Labor Market Dynamics

Integration with Natural Rate of Unemployment

Frictional unemployment constitutes a fundamental element of the , defined as the equilibrium unemployment rate at which the economy operates without accelerating , comprising frictional and structural components while excluding cyclical fluctuations driven by . This framework, articulated by in his 1968 American Economic Association presidential address, posits that frictional unemployment arises from inherent labor market frictions—such as information asymmetries and job search durations—that prevent instantaneous matching of workers and vacancies, even when aligns with potential output. Consequently, the natural rate reflects a baseline level of joblessness attributable to voluntary transitions and temporary mismatches, rather than economic slack. The integration manifests in macroeconomic models where frictional unemployment determines the of job matching, influencing the position of the natural rate. For example, shifts in the —which plots unemployment against job vacancy rates—signal changes in frictional dynamics, such as increased search reducing the natural rate or heightened mismatches elevating it. of the natural rate, often via non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment () proxies, incorporates frictional elements through job flows data; [Federal Reserve](/page/Federal Reserve) analyses from the early 2010s, for instance, modeled frictional unemployment via equilibrium curves to assess post-recession natural rate persistence around 5-6 percent, with frictional contributions tied to worker mobility. These models underscore that frictional unemployment is not eliminable without distorting , as policies compressing search times—such as overly generous benefits—can inflate the natural rate by prolonging voluntary unemployment spells. Variations in frictional unemployment directly alter rate's magnitude, responsive to institutional factors like unemployment duration and geographic mobility costs. Cross-country comparisons reveal that economies with flexible labor markets, such as the in the late , exhibited lower natural rates (estimated at 4-5 percent) partly due to subdued frictional pressures from rapid job matching, whereas rigid systems correlate with higher baselines. Demographically, frictional shares rise with youth entry into the workforce, as evidenced by age-disaggregated data showing young workers comprising disproportionate short-term spells. Thus, rate serves as a for , where frictional integration highlights trade-offs: minimizing it below equilibrium risks inflationary overheating, per Friedman's accelerationist critique. The , encompassing platform-mediated short-term contracts via services such as and , lowers frictional unemployment by enabling rapid entry into flexible work arrangements that bridge gaps between traditional jobs. Empirical analysis of U.S. data from 2015–2017 indicates that gig participation serves as a safety net, reducing insurance claims by providing income during search periods and shortening spells of joblessness. A 2024 study further estimates that gig , due to its low and exit, decreases overall rates by facilitating quicker labor market re-entry, particularly for those facing matching frictions. This effect aligns with causal mechanisms where workers engage in gig tasks while continuing searches for permanent roles, thereby compressing transition times without displacing formal employment. Remote work, which expanded post-2020 due to pandemic-induced adoption of tools like and , diminishes geographical and frictions, broadening job search scopes and accelerating matches. Norwegian data from a 2024 NBER show that access to high-speed —enabling remote applications and interviews—reduces aggregate by easing search costs, with effects concentrated in frictional components as workers access distant opportunities without relocation. Complementary from labor market simulations posits that remote flexibility prevents extended joblessness by allowing simultaneous and , directly targeting frictional delays. Cross-country links higher penetration, including remote-enabling technologies, to lower long-term frictional rates, as quantified in estimates controlling for structural factors. These trends interact: gig platforms often incorporate remote elements, amplifying reductions in search frictions, though outcomes vary by skill level, with high-skilled workers benefiting more from expanded remote options. Overall, both phenomena enhance labor market fluidity, supporting lower frictional rates amid rising platform adoption—gig work comprising 8–10% of U.S. by 2023 estimates—without evidence of net increases in voluntary .

Policy Considerations and Debates

Effects of Unemployment Insurance and Job Search Policies

Unemployment insurance () programs, by replacing a portion of lost wages during joblessness, reduce the financial urgency for recipients to accept job offers, thereby extending the duration of frictional unemployment spells. Empirical studies consistently find that more generous benefits—measured by higher replacement rates or longer eligibility periods—increase average unemployment duration by 0.1 to 0.5 weeks per additional week of benefits, with meta-analyses indicating prior estimates understated this effect due to incomplete accounting of behavioral responses. For instance, a 10 increase in the benefit replacement rate correlates with a 3-10% prolongation of job search, as recipients raise reservation wages and selectively reject offers that fall below updated expectations. This causal link holds across quasi-experimental designs exploiting policy variation, such as benefit extensions in the U.S. and , where spells lengthen without commensurate improvements in match quality. Mechanisms driving this extension include diminished search intensity and heightened selectivity, though evidence on effort varies: some analyses show UI recipients submit 20-30% fewer applications early in spells compared to non-recipients, while others detect no aggregate decline in applications but attribute duration effects to accepted wage premia. Time-use data reveal UI delays reemployment by subsidizing leisure or informal activities over intensive , with search effort often spiking only near benefit exhaustion due to looming income cliffs. These dynamics elevate frictional unemployment's aggregate level, as prolonged individual searches aggregate into higher measured rates without reflecting structural mismatches. Job search policies, such as mandatory reporting, monitoring, and assistance programs, counteract UI-induced extensions by enforcing active participation and providing tools to accelerate matching. Randomized evaluations of job search assistance (JSA) demonstrate short-term reductions in unemployment duration, with treated individuals exiting spells 10-20% faster via heightened application volumes and rates, yielding 4 employment gains in the first year post-assignment. Requirements like verifiable search logs or sanctions for non-compliance boost effort by 15-50% during benefit periods, shortening frictional spells without displacing untreated workers in most contexts, though long-term effects (beyond 2-3 years) may fade due to selection into lower-quality jobs. Active labor market interventions combining counseling with UI conditionality prove most effective, as they align incentives with efficient search, mitigating while preserving insurance's role in smoothing consumption during voluntary transitions.

Critiques of Attempts to Minimize Frictional Unemployment

Attempts to minimize frictional unemployment through policies like subsidized job search assistance or mandatory rapid reemployment have drawn criticism for distorting natural labor market signals and potentially reducing long-term . In dynamic economies, frictional unemployment enables workers to transition to roles that better match their skills, preferences, and levels, fostering efficient ; artificially curtailing search time risks trapping individuals in mismatched positions, which lowers output and . Economic theory underscores that search frictions are inherent to heterogeneous labor markets, where immediate matching is infeasible due to imperfect and worker-job variability; eliminating them could collapse wage bargaining and lead to equilibria with persistent rather than true efficiency gains. For example, models incorporating matching frictions demonstrate that some unemployment duration is necessary to discipline effort and align incentives, preventing in hiring. Empirically, interventions aimed at shortening job search durations often yield mixed or counterproductive results. A two-level on job search assistance found it reduced unemployment spells for participants but induced displacement effects, as treated workers crowded out untreated applicants for the same vacancies, netting minimal aggregate gains. Similarly, field experiments subsidizing search costs—intended to lower frictions—revealed potential harm, including reduced application quality and prolonged mismatches, as financial incentives altered search strategies without improving overall outcomes. Critics further highlight failures in these efforts, such as bureaucratic inefficiencies and poor aggregation compared to decentralized mechanisms like referral networks, which better capture localized knowledge. Policies enforcing quick reemployment, such as stringent conditions, may exacerbate mismatches by prioritizing speed over fit, leading to higher turnover and eventual frictional spikes. Overall, these critiques emphasize that frictional unemployment, typically 1-2% of the labor force, signals rather than , and aggressive minimization risks stifling adaptability in response to shocks.

Historical Development

Origins in Economic Theory

The concept of frictional unemployment traces its roots to classical economic theory, which maintained that labor markets clear at under flexible wages and prices, rendering persistent anomalous and attributable to temporary impediments rather than inherent . In this framework, any deviation from was viewed as arising from "frictions" such as imperfect information, geographic mismatches between workers and jobs, or delays in job search and matching, rather than insufficient . Classical economists like and implicitly endorsed this view through , positing that supply creates its own demand and that voluntary idleness or transitional delays explain observed joblessness, without necessitating government intervention. The explicit terminology of "frictional unemployment" emerged in early 20th-century , particularly in the , as scholars sought to categorize short-term, voluntary transitions in dynamic labor markets. Economists such as Arthur C. Pigou, in works like (1913), integrated frictional elements into analyses of labor market inefficiencies, distinguishing them from structural rigidities while emphasizing their role in a functioning where workers seek better matches. Similarly, William Beveridge's : A Problem of Industry (1909) highlighted frictional causes like seasonal or transitional joblessness, framing them as inevitable in industrial societies but amenable to mitigation through improved labor exchanges and flows. John also contributed to this early conceptualization, linking frictions to search costs in proto-search models. John Maynard Keynes, in The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (1936), referenced as a category accepted by classical theory, alongside voluntary unemployment, but critiqued it as insufficient to explain mass involuntary joblessness during depressions. Keynes described as reducible through better organization or foresight, such as enhanced job placement services, thereby preserving its status as a benign, feature rather than a policy target. This acknowledgment solidified the term's place in macroeconomic discourse, paving the way for its integration into postwar models of the natural rate of .

Evolution and Key Contributions

The distinction between frictional unemployment and other forms arose in the mid-20th century amid debates on , recognizing short-term job transitions as inherent to dynamic labor markets rather than economic failure. Early empirical insights came from William Beveridge's 1944 study, which plotted against job vacancies to illustrate persistent mismatches, foreshadowing frictional dynamics in matching workers to openings. This laid groundwork for viewing such frictions as normal, even in prosperous economies. The concept solidified with the natural rate of unemployment hypothesis, articulated by in his 1968 presidential address to the , positing that frictional unemployment—alongside structural factors—forms a baseline rate immune to monetary policy influences without accelerating . Independently, developed microfounded models around the same time, incorporating imperfect information and search costs to explain why equilibrium unemployment exceeds zero due to voluntary transitions and matching inefficiencies. Key theoretical advances followed in , with ’s 1961 and 1962 papers modeling job search under imperfect information, where workers sample wages sequentially, generating frictional delays as a rational response to . This static framework evolved into dynamic models, such as John McCall’s 1970 sequential search formulation, quantifying reservation wages and expected durations. Culminating contributions came from the Diamond-Mortensen-Pissarides (DMP) matching framework in the 1970s–1980s, which integrated bilateral search frictions between workers and firms, yielding equilibrium rates determined by vacancy posting, separation rates, and matching efficiency; this work earned the trio the 2010 in Economic Sciences for reshaping understanding of labor market frictions.

References

  1. [1]
    Introduction to U.S. Economy: Unemployment | Congress.gov
    Feb 24, 2025 · Frictional unemployment refers to short-term unemployment due to job searching or transition. After an individual leaves a job, it generally ...
  2. [2]
    Unemployment: The Curse of Joblessness - Back to Basics
    Such temporary spells of unemployment are referred to as frictional unemployment. The combination of these factors brings about a long-term average around which ...
  3. [3]
    How is unemployment measured and what are different types of ...
    May 1, 2007 · The type of unemployment that exists because a job search takes time is sometimes referred to as frictional unemployment. In contrast ...Missing: effects | Show results with:effects
  4. [4]
    Unemployment: Its Measurement and Types | Explainer | Education
    Frictional unemployment occurs when people move between jobs in the labour market, as well as when people transition into and out of the labour force. Movement ...How Is The Unemployment Rate... · What Are The Main Types Of... · Frictional Unemployment<|separator|>
  5. [5]
    Frictional Unemployment: Definition, Causes, and Quit Rate Explained
    The frictional unemployment rate is calculated by dividing the workers actively looking for jobs by the total labor force. The workers actively looking for jobs ...
  6. [6]
    Frictional Unemployment: What It Is, Why It Happens, and What to Do
    Apr 3, 2025 · Frictional unemployment refers to the short-term period of unemployment that can occur when someone leaves their current job in search of a better fit.
  7. [7]
    [PDF] The Internet, Search Frictions and Aggregate Unemployment
    Our empirical analysis shows that the internet expansion led more firms to recruit online and caused 9% shorter vacancy durations and 13% fewer unsuccessful ...
  8. [8]
    Frictional Unemployment: Definition, Causes and Effects | Indeed.com
    May 16, 2025 · Frictional unemployment refers to employees voluntarily transitioning to new positions, which is often a sign of a healthy economy.What Is Frictional... · Solutions To Address... · Make Job Information Readily...
  9. [9]
    What Is Frictional Unemployment And Its' Economic Impact?
    Apr 19, 2022 · Frictional unemployment is why some economists call 2-3% unemployment, or even as much as 5% unemployment, “full employment,” and why state governments don't ...
  10. [10]
    Full employment: an assumption within BLS projections
    Both frictional unemployment and structural unemployment involve workers who are searching for a job, but, in order to secure a position, workers who are ...
  11. [11]
    Does the effect of employment protection depend on the ...
    Nov 1, 2024 · Lower market tightness lowers recruiting costs per worker c m ( x ) , which in turn leads to lower frictional unemployment. 3 Empirical evidence ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  12. [12]
    Exploring the Dynamics of Unemployment | St. Louis Fed
    May 3, 2024 · Economists associate frictional unemployment with these times; unemployed people tend to be either new entrants to the labor market (such as ...
  13. [13]
    Frictional Unemployment - Intelligent Economist
    Feb 2, 2022 · Frictional unemployment is a temporary, voluntary period when individuals leave one job to transition to another, often due to personal choice.Key Takeaways · Characteristics of Frictional... · How to Calculate the Frictional...
  14. [14]
  15. [15]
    What Is Frictional Unemployment? Voluntary Resignation Causes
    Oct 11, 2022 · Frictional unemployment is when people voluntarily leave their jobs in the short term, before starting new ones, and is generally transitory.Learn From The Best · 5 Causes Of Frictional... · 5 Types Of Unemployment
  16. [16]
    Overview of projections to 2022 - Bureau of Labor Statistics
    In a full-employment economy, any existing unemployment is frictional, that is, attributable to the usual churn of workers who are transitioning between jobs, ...
  17. [17]
    Frictional Unemployment: Causes, Examples and More - Entrepreneur
    Jan 20, 2023 · Frictional unemployment is the natural transitional phase when a worker leaves a job by choice and is searching for another.
  18. [18]
    Making Sense Of Unemployment Data | St. Louis Federal Reserve
    Feb 1, 2016 · Economists classify unemployment into three categories: frictional, structural, and cyclical. Frictional unemployment results when people ...Missing: types | Show results with:types
  19. [19]
    Types of Unemployment - Economics Help
    Nov 26, 2021 · Frictional – This occurs when people are in between jobs. For example, a school-leaver may take some time to get his first job. · Structural – ...
  20. [20]
    Frictional Unemployment - Economics Help
    Frictional unemployment would generally be classed as voluntary unemployment because workers are choosing to remain unemployed rather than get the first job ...
  21. [21]
  22. [22]
    Frictional Unemployment - Defintion, Causes, Effects
    Frictional unemployment is a type of unemployment that arises when workers are searching for new jobs or are transitioning from one job to another.Missing: measurement | Show results with:measurement
  23. [23]
    Frictional Unemployment: Everything You Need To Know - CoachHub
    Nov 1, 2022 · Frictional unemployment occurs when employees decide to make decisions that favor an upward move or a better outcome in their unique experiences and re-enter ...
  24. [24]
    [PDF] MARKETS WITH SEARCH FRICTIONS - Nobel Prize
    Oct 11, 2010 · Empirical work has consisted of systematic ways of evaluating the search and matching model using aggregate data on vacancies and unemployment, ...
  25. [25]
    [PDF] Job Search and Unemployment Insurance: New Evidence from Time ...
    On weekdays, for example, the average unemployed worker spent 41 minutes a day searching for a job in the U.S., compared with just 12 minutes in the average ...
  26. [26]
    Job search with commuting and unemployment insurance: A look at ...
    We estimate that search costs are substantial and increase differently over time for local and non-local jobs, accounting for the patterns found in the data.
  27. [27]
    Unemployment Duration in the Pandemic: A Look at Jobseeker ...
    The median duration of unemployment for all US jobseekers was 9.7 weeks in 2020 and rose to 16.5 weeks in 2021.
  28. [28]
    Search and Matching in Modern Labor Markets: A Landscape Report
    Jul 20, 2022 · This report analyzes and summarizes evidence from more than 100 empirical studies on the search and matching process that brings workers and employers together ...
  29. [29]
    Labor Market Frictions and Moving Costs of the Employed and ...
    Apr 1, 2022 · This paper examines the role of labor market frictions and moving costs in explaining worker flows across US labor markets.
  30. [30]
    [PDF] The Intensity of Job Search and Search Duration
    The salient finding among these studies is the presence of negative duration dependence for the exit rate from unemployment. Our work is also related to models ...
  31. [31]
    [PDF] Declining Search Frictions and Unequal Growth
    Declining search frictions generate productivity growth by allowing workers to find jobs for which they are better suited. The return of declining search ...
  32. [32]
    [PDF] unemployment in local labor markets
    While these estimates give us soae insight into the determinants of frictional and structural unemployment differentials, they give us little understanding of ...
  33. [33]
  34. [34]
    The Estimation of Frictional Unemployment: A Stochastic Frontier ...
    estimated frictional unemployment rate is 3.7%. The difference between the OLS and ML estimates is u* - u* = 0.0113, which can be interpreted as the sample ...Missing: difficulties | Show results with:difficulties
  35. [35]
    [PDF] The Recent Evolution of the Natural Rate of Unemployment
    Feb 9, 2018 · This model specifies two curves that determine equilibrium frictional unemployment: the Beveridge Curve (BC) and the Job Creation curve (JCC).
  36. [36]
    [PDF] A New Approach to Frictional Unemployment
    It should also be evident that any analysis based on gross labour flow data will depend on the par- ticular statistical methodology used to create such data.
  37. [37]
    Frictional unemployment on labor flow networks - ScienceDirect.com
    Altogether, these frictions interact and shape the landscape through which individuals flow from one job to an anther, often experiencing unemployment spells in ...
  38. [38]
    Estimating structural and frictional unemployment: An application of ...
    Aug 6, 2025 · The aim of this paper was to estimate Brazilian structural and frictional unemployment by the empirical mode decomposition (EMD) method, ...
  39. [39]
    What Causes Changes in Unemployment over the Long Run
    These factors include the frictional unemployment that occurs when people either choose to change jobs or are put out of work for a time by the shifts of a ...Missing: making | Show results with:making
  40. [40]
    [PDF] New Estimates of the Natural Rate of Unemployment
    But an unemployment rate in the vicinity of 5 3/4 percent-where many estimates of the natural rate currently cluster-clearly exceeds this frictional level.
  41. [41]
    The Natural Rate of Unemployment over the Past 100 Years
    Aug 14, 2017 · Results suggest the natural rate has been remarkably stable over history, hovering between 4.5 and 5.5% for long periods, even during the Great Depression.Missing: frictional | Show results with:frictional
  42. [42]
    [PDF] A Model of Unemployment with Matching Frictions and Job Rationing
    In the model calibrated with U.S. data, I find that when unemployment is below 5%, it is only frictional; but when unemployment reaches. 9%, frictional ...
  43. [43]
    Productivity growth, on-the-job search, and unemployment
    This paper studies the impact of long-run productivity growth on unemployment. We document the fact that productivity growth increases the job finding rate and ...
  44. [44]
    [PDF] Firm and Worker Dynamics in a Frictional Labor Market *
    Sep 16, 2021 · First, we show that an increase in match efficiency that drives unemployment close to zero also accelerates worker reallocation to more ...
  45. [45]
    Frictional unemployment: Meaning, Criticisms & Real-World Uses
    Lost wages for the unemployed person and lost output for the economy are real costs, regardless of the cause.
  46. [46]
    Friction Costs and the Chain of Vacancies Problem - Value in Health
    Dec 24, 2020 · We suggest an original approach to empirically estimate productivity costs that include a chain of secondary vacancies. Methods: The vacancy ...
  47. [47]
    Friction cost estimates of productivity costs in cost-of-illness studies ...
    The FCA results in smaller productivity loss estimates than the HCA, although the differential varied widely across studies.
  48. [48]
    The Estimation of Frictional Unemployment: A Stochastic Frontier ...
    Aug 10, 2025 · The mean frictional unemployment rate during the sample period is estimated to be 3.7 percent of the manufacturing labor force. This estimate ...
  49. [49]
    Frictional Unemployment and the Role of Industrial Diversity
    This paper argues that a city's frictional unemployment rate will be lower, the more industrially diversified is the city; that is, the more evenly distributed ...Missing: evidence | Show results with:evidence
  50. [50]
    [PDF] The Natural Rate of Unemployment: Concepts and Issues
    This portion of structural unemployment is usually referred to as frictional unemployment. The gradual rise in the natural rate over the years is generally ...
  51. [51]
    [PDF] The Natural Rate of Unemployment
    In the short run the independence of unemployment and inflation may be obscured but in the long run this natural or equilibrium rate is unaffected by inflation.
  52. [52]
    [PDF] What is the natural rate of unemployment;
    The unemployment rate is the composite of three distinct types of unemployment: fric- tional, cyclical, and structural. This fact poses.
  53. [53]
    [PDF] A Rising Natural Rate of Unemployment: Transitory or Permanent?
    Sep 9, 2011 · Our empirical estimates of these curves in the short and long term reveal recent movements that are similar to those that occurred in previous.
  54. [54]
    MIT Sloan study finds gig economy serves as a safety net for ...
    Oct 8, 2020 · Jordan Nickerson found that the gig economy can have a “profound impact” on labor markets by decreasing the number of claims for unemployment ...
  55. [55]
    [PDF] Heterogeneity in Self-employment and Labor Market Risk
    Nov 4, 2024 · distinct features—such as easy entry and exit and lower earnings—this study finds that the gig economy effectively reduces unemployment rates, ...
  56. [56]
    [PDF] The Impact of the Gig-Economy on U.S. Labor Markets
    Finally, I expect the gig-economy to contribute to a decline in unemployment and not to take away jobs from employer firms. This can be investigated with the ...Missing: frictional | Show results with:frictional
  57. [57]
    [PDF] Exploring economic effects of work out of company office based on ...
    It can reduce frictional unemployment through the flexibility of the work schedule, prevent structural unemployment, through the awareness of the need for ...
  58. [58]
    Incidence of the Digital Economy and Frictional Unemployment
    This paper is the first to quantify the relationship between the incidence of the digital economy and long-term frictional unemployment across countries.
  59. [59]
    Unemployment and Worker Participation in the Gig Economy
    Jun 12, 2020 · The gig economy has low barriers to entry, enabling flexible work arrangements and allowing workers to engage in contingent employment, ...
  60. [60]
    [PDF] What Are The Economic Implications Of The Rise Of The Gig Economy
    Oct 10, 2024 · The gig economy reduces the natural rate of unemployment in the economy, thus increasing the efficiency with which workers are used, thus ...
  61. [61]
    [PDF] The Effect of Unemployment Benefits on the Duration of ...
    Despite the consensus that higher unemployment benefits lead to longer durations of unemployment, the precise magnitude of the effect is uncertain. Recent ...
  62. [62]
    Disemployment Effects of Unemployment Insurance: A Meta-Analysis
    Feb 4, 2025 · This review confirms that expansions in unemployment insurance benefits increase unemployment duration but reveals that previous studies likely ...<|separator|>
  63. [63]
    [PDF] The Effect of Unemployment Benefits on the Duration ... - David Card
    May 5, 2015 · Despite the consensus that higher unemploy- ment benefits lead to longer durations of unem- ployment, the precise magnitude of the effect is.Missing: frictional | Show results with:frictional
  64. [64]
    Job search, wage offers, and unemployment insurance - ScienceDirect
    Like previous studies, we find that UI significantly increases unemployment duration. However, part of this effect is estimated to stem from a decrease in the ...
  65. [65]
    [PDF] Job Search and Unemployment Insurance: New Evidence from ...
    Dec 21, 2020 · Higher unemployment benefits increase unemployment duration, but have no impact on job search behaviors. Reservation wages decrease with  ...
  66. [66]
    Evidence on Job Search Models from a Survey of Unemployed ...
    Oct 28, 2021 · We provide three key facts: (i) search effort is flat early on in the UI spell, (ii) search effort exhibits an increase up to UI exhaustion and ...
  67. [67]
    Employment Effects of Job Search Assistance for the Long-Term ...
    JSA increases employment in the first year after assignment by about 4 percentage points. However, averaged over five years, JSA decreases employment, albeit ...
  68. [68]
    Does Job Search Assistance Reduce Unemployment? Evidence on ...
    Using a two-level randomized experiment, we find that job search assistance (JSA) reduces unemployment among the treated but also creates displacement effects.
  69. [69]
    [PDF] Job Search, Unemployment Insurance, and Active Labor Market ...
    Jul 3, 2024 · This paper overviews how job search among the unemployed is shaped by unemployment insurance (UI) and active labor market policies (ALMP), ...
  70. [70]
    Unemployment Insurance and Job Search Behavior
    We find that search effort (the number of job applications) increases by at least 50% during the year preceding benefits exhaustion and remains high thereafter.
  71. [71]
    Why 0% Unemployment Isn't Actually a Good Thing - ThoughtCo
    May 7, 2025 · While a high unemployment rate indicates an economy in distress, having a small amount of unemployment is actually desirable. Here's why.
  72. [72]
    22.3: Understanding Unemployment - Social Sci LibreTexts
    Jul 17, 2023 · Frictional unemployment is the time period between jobs when a worker is searching for or transitioning from one job to another. It is sometimes ...<|separator|>
  73. [73]
    How low can unemployment go? - The Economist
    Sep 22, 2017 · It takes time for people to move from one job to another. This is said to cause “frictional” unemployment. If people cannot find jobs because ...
  74. [74]
    Exploring the interaction between efficiency wages and labor market ...
    It is also found that the efficiency wage and frictional distortions each increase the unemployment rate when introduced into a labor market in which the other ...
  75. [75]
    [PDF] Subsidizing Job Search Considered Harmful: Evidence from a Field ...
    Jul 25, 2023 · The subsidy was purely financial. As such, it is possible to directly and unambiguously lower the cost of job search effort. In contrast, a ...
  76. [76]
    Government policy efforts on job search and intermediation
    Oct 30, 2023 · Our paper summarizes evidence on job search and intermediation policies designed to overcome these frictions, and we highlight some lessons here.Missing: critiques | Show results with:critiques
  77. [77]
    Frictional Unemployment - (AP Macroeconomics) - Fiveable
    While frictional unemployment is often voluntary and short-term as individuals transition between jobs, structural unemployment results from long-term shifts ...
  78. [78]
    7.4 What Causes Changes in Unemployment Over the Long Run
    Explain frictional and structural unemployment; Assess relationships between the natural rate of employment and potential real Gross Domestic Product (GDP), ...
  79. [79]
    From one to many islands : the emergence of search and match
    The notion of frictional unemployment first arose in the writings of Beveridge, Pigou and Hicks. Why did it fail at the time to grow into a fully fledged ...
  80. [80]
    Chapter 2 – The Postulates of the Classical Economics
    (a) An improvement in organisation or in foresight which diminishes 'frictional' unemployment; (b) a decrease in the marginal disutility of labour, as ...
  81. [81]
    [PDF] Friedman and Phelps on the Phillips Curve Viewed from a Half ...
    The workers were fooled into a reduction in frictional unemployment, and the macroeconomic data registered a decline in the unemployment rate. Hence there was a ...
  82. [82]
    [PDF] Search-Theoretic Models of the Labor Market: A Survey
    From its inception, search theory has provided a rigorous yet tractable frame- work that can be used to address these and related questions. Central to the ...
  83. [83]
    (PDF) Job Search Theory - ResearchGate
    Apr 12, 2016 · ... Frictional unemployment is a natural. outcome of this process. Ever since the 1970s, job search theory has been refined and extended in.