Academy of Romanian Scientists

Journal of Knowledge Dynamics

Effects of Economic and Geopolitical Shocks on Labour

Market

Marian-Cristian JARCĂ¹

1

National University of Political Studies and Public Administration, Bld. Expoziției 30A, 012104,

Bucharest, Romania; ORCID No. 0009-0001-7710-8605; marian-cristian.jarca.25@drd.snspa.ro

(corresponding author)

Received: April 19, 2026

Revised: May 14, 2026

Accepted: June 3, 2026

Published: June 30, 2026

Abstract: Beginning in 2008, overlapping crises from financial collapse to pandemic and war

have fundamentally reshaped how economies absorb stress. Systems now face new pressures

before old ones fade, meaning labour markets respond differently than historical models

assumed. Evidence spanning over a decade shows repeated disturbances alter the speed and

shape of job losses, pay shifts, and worker mobility. Resilience is no longer about returning to

normal, it is about adjusting within ongoing instability.

Existing research largely examines crises in isolation, missing what happens when several hit

simultaneously. Concurrent disruptions intensify one another, producing patterns linear models

cannot capture. Job markets bear much of this strain: hiring slows, automation and gig-based

platforms accelerate, and worker skills become outdated faster than anticipated. What might

unfold over years under isolated disruption now compresses into months when shocks overlap.

The analysis combines quantitative labour market data across multiple downturns with insights

into how policy frameworks and organisations adapt, spotlighting forces that amplify damage

when crises collide. Layered setbacks consistently strike hardest at already exposed groups,

accelerate shifts already underway, and demand new forms of policy response rather than

stronger versions of existing ones. Regional variation reveals how structures such as safety nets

and hiring practices reshape outcomes in compounded emergencies, defying forecasts built for

simpler events.

Digital acceleration and trade disruptions reshaped job structures, requiring a revised

framework that captures complex, networked workforce adjustments.

Keywords: compound shocks; overlapping crises; labour market resilience; economic shocks;

geopolitical shocks; unemployment dynamics.

Introduction

Now comes a time when the world economy faces several large-scale disruptions at once,

reshaping how we think about jobs and work. Not long after one crisis ends, another

begins — unlike past patterns where breaks between downturns allowed healing. Back in

2008 came a crash worse than any since the 1930s, and then just over ten years passed

before a deadly virus swept across nations. While societies struggled with that shock, war

erupted in Eastern Europe, further straining systems already under pressure. Because

these events happen so close together, job markets now deal with more than one blow at

a time. Each disturbance spreads differently through economies, yet they all twist

outcomes for pay, hiring, and daily working life in linked ways (Hodler, 2014; Malynovska,

2025; Margarit, 2019; Rezaei Soufi, 2022).

A fresh look at recent upheavals begins to make sense only when one notices a flaw in

standard analysis — traditional methods assume big disturbances happen alone, finish

quickly, then vanish (Bruneckiene, 2019). Though easier to model mathematically, such

thinking misses how today's breakdowns stretch across time, pile up, and interact. By the

time Coronavirus hit jobs worldwide in 2020, many systems were still adjusting from

How to cite

Jarcă, M.C. (2026). Effects Of Economic And Geopolitical Shocks On Labour Market. Journal of

Knowledge Dynamics, Vol. 3. No. 1 pp. 91-102. https://doi.org/10.56082/jkd.2026.1.91 ISSN

ONLINE 3061-2640

92 | Cristian JARCĂ

Effects Of Economic And Geopolitical Shocks On Labour Market

post-2008 reforms meant to fix deeper imbalances. Even as emergency shifts toward

online work changed who does what and where they do it, war broke out in Eastern

Europe, shaking raw material prices, transport networks, and fuel supplies. These

overlapping forces do not just add pressure; they magnify each other, building cycles of

strain that older tools can neither forecast nor untangle.

Looking at jobs reveals how combined disruptions play out over time. Prices shift fast in

finance, yet people take longer to adjust because of training needs, workplace rules, trust

between employers and staff, and slow-moving systems. As crises pile up, employees must

handle new tools, move across industries, learn different abilities, switch roles —

meanwhile governments and organisations lag behind, trying to keep pace with constant

change. What we have seen lately shows shortened learning curves that reshape job

trends so deeply that older models fail to explain what happens when everything shifts at

once.

Beginning in 2008, this study spans fifteen years, chosen so patterns across multiple

upheavals can be seen clearly. Because shocks rarely occur in isolation, later events

unfolded against backdrops shaped by earlier ones. A wave of instability started when the

financial system collapsed, reshaping job structures throughout wealthy nations. Years

afterward, a viral outbreak pushed millions into working remotely, speeding up shifts

already underway (Piroșcă, 2021; Vyas, 2022). Even as people adapted, war erupted

between two countries, sending ripples through trade networks. Supply chains faltered,

prices climbed, and recovery efforts tangled with prior government actions. Each event

overlapped — effects piled on top of effects, altering employment conditions step by step.

What makes this study matter goes far beyond scholarly curiosity about how crises unfold.

Those shaping policy, managing organisations, and employees themselves need clearer

ways to grasp sudden, layered disturbances. Past strategies built for single emergencies

often fall short once several upheavals hit at once. Systems meant to help workers through

economic dips struggle differently when deep, long-term shifts speed up amid converging

breakdowns. Support programmes that worked before might not meet today's demands,

where job changes, new technologies, and global instability collide without warning.

Though researchers now identify how combined crises ripple across job markets, a full

picture stays out of reach. From war zones to border tensions, shifts in global politics stir

job losses by rattling raw material costs and breaking trade routes, yet sometimes

sparking cautious spending that slows new hires. As Chakrabarti (2015) has documented,

downturns tied to finance squeeze jobs via tighter borrowing rules, shrinking household

assets, and banking breakdowns that stall payrolls. Health emergencies limit workers'

ability to show up, force shops to shut, and push firms toward machines faster than before.

Overlapping waves — conflict layered on recession, illness meeting inflation — twist

pathways so some forces grow stronger, others fade, leaving outcomes far removed from

forecasts built on single causes.

A resilience model designed to reflect complex, layered disruptions meets a pressing real-

world demand. With connections across nations growing tighter and political strains

showing little sign of ease, concurrent crises seem more probable now than before. This

study builds its structure by looking closely at three significant shifts in job markets since

2009. The resulting Compound Shock Resilience Framework offers both retrospective

explanatory power for understanding recent labour market transformations and

prospective analytical capacity for anticipating future overlapping disruptions.

Two research questions guide this inquiry:

RQ1: How do overlapping economic and geopolitical shocks produce labour market effects

that differ from isolated shocks, and what mechanisms drive these compound effects?

RQ2: Can a resilience framework be developed that successfully identifies the

accumulated risks and compound effects of overlapping crises as demonstrated through

Academy of Romanian Scientists | 93

Journal of Knowledge Dynamics

Vol. 3 (2026) No.1, pp. 91-102

retrospective analysis of recent disruptions, and can this framework provide actionable

insights for anticipating and mitigating future overlapping shocks?

Literature Review

Scholarly work on economic and geopolitical crises often treats them separately, one

falling into economics, the other into global politics. Even so, focusing apart limits grasp

of what happens when both strike at once, feeding into each other across systems. Insights

gained in isolation do help, yet blind spots remain where forces converge unexpectedly.

Some newer studies attempt bridge-building, but a full method to assess combined impact

on jobs is still missing.

Employment outcomes often shift when economies face sudden downturns, as shown by

early studies on shock impacts. Evidence from the 2008 crisis reveals that limited credit

access, shrinking household wealth, and sharp drops in spending led to uneven labour

market results worldwide. Looking at Europe, as Eichhorst (2017) and Potrafke (2013)

have noted, policy adjustments in work regulations exposed ongoing friction: making

hiring easier sometimes weakened safety nets, creating debate over fairness versus

efficiency. While sectors like construction and industrial production saw steep job losses

after the crash, instability within finance spilled into service sector staffing patterns. Not

every institution reacted the same way when crises hit — some cushioned blows better

due to how jobs are structured, a factor many mainstream models tend to ignore. When

shocks arrive, regions respond differently, and one reason lies in whether local economies

mix industries well, have trustworthy systems, or strong community ties (Causo, 2023;

Ding, 2024; Fang, 2022).

Recent global tensions have widened the scope of geopolitical shock studies. Because of

events like the Russia–Ukraine war, researchers now see how such crises ripple through

raw material markets. Energy prices shift sharply and so do those for food crops. These

swings feed into rising costs across economies, and as living expenses climb, worker

spending habits change — production budgets tighten and firms respond by adjusting

staffing levels. Even countries distant from active conflicts feel these shifts. When political

risks rise, companies tend to pause expansion plans, hiring slows before profits drop, and

investor caution plays a role too. Supply networks break apart under strain, trade rules

become unpredictable, and cross-border funding fluctuates without warning. Each of

these forces nudges labour markets off balance (Andrews, 2026; Bondarenko, 2024). Job

losses in Ukraine reached devastating levels during the conflict, hitting around 21%

joblessness in 2022 (International Labour Organization, 2021), meanwhile European

Union labour markets saw little immediate harm by mid-year, even if pay growth trailed

rising prices.

Though sparked by a virus, the ripple effects of COVID-19 unfolded unlike financial

downturns or political crises. Instead of isolated breakdowns, this disruption hit

production and consumption at once — illness reducing labour supply while fear pulled

consumers away from services needing closeness. In early forecasts, researchers saw

working time vanish: nearly 7% lost worldwide during spring 2020, matching about 195

million full-time employees vanishing from work. As the International Labour

Organization (2021) has reported, year after year, evaluations showed time lost at work

nearly quadrupled compared to levels seen in 2009. Rather than rising joblessness, many

simply left the workforce — a shift noted widely across data. Digital shifts moved fast and

tools and platforms took hold within months, reshaping how tasks are organised — not

just temporarily, but possibly for good (Capello, 2025; Piroșcă, 2021).

Starting with published studies, sources reveal how global trade links reshape

employment systems unevenly. High-skill individuals often gain chances elsewhere, while

those in lower-tier roles confront tougher demands. Location matters just as much as

education level when facing outside forces. Shifts in supply chains ripple through

94 | Cristian JARCĂ

Effects Of Economic And Geopolitical Shocks On Labour Market

employment systems, yet full understanding lags behind. Exposure is not random — it

clusters by industry type, ability range, and place.

Although still sparse, new studies on repeated and concurrent crises provide useful

understanding. Existing models of macroeconomic resilience often miss combined

impacts, despite offering ways to gauge a region's ability to withstand setbacks (Giotis,

2024; Gogoi, 2023; Kapička, 2022). Depending on local industry makeup and governance

setups, regions differ greatly in their ability to handle sudden stress. When disruptions

pile up — as seen during Europe's turbulent shift amid health and conflict emergencies —

effects unfold unpredictably, something conventional single-event analyses cannot

capture.

How rules shape job markets becomes clear through studies of policy response. When

designed well, programmes helping people find work cut unemployment rates — yet

results depend heavily on local systems and the nature of disruption (Irandoust, 2023).

Workforce abilities play a central role when systems face disruption; when downturns

occur, mismatched skills tend to worsen job loss, yet targeted training can ease transitions

(Andabayeva, 2024; Bhattacharyya, 2024).

Even so, key shortcomings persist. While some work highlights single crises, it often

ignores how events unfold alone versus together. What happens when various shocks

strike at once — how they blend, amplify, or shift one another — is still unclear. So too is

what this means for workers and responses meant to support them. A new approach

emerges here: a structure built to trace layered impacts across employment systems.

Methodology

This study draws together insights from existing sources through structured document

review, blending careful comparison of real-world examples alongside creation of an

adaptive analytical structure focused on how layered crises impact employment systems.

By weaving qualitative exploration of government actions into numerical evaluation of

workforce trends during turbulent years — from financial downturns to more recent

disruptions — the work builds mainly on scholarly publications, verified statistics, and

established policy records. Though rooted in previously collected information, the process

allows patterns to emerge across timeframes often examined separately. Periods under

scrutiny extend beyond immediate recessions, capturing delayed consequences up to mid-

century projections where available.

Starting with figures gathered by the International Labour Organization, patterns emerge

on worldwide and area-specific job markets. Alongside these, evaluations from the

European Commission shed light on how institutions react and how pay trends shift over

time. Information pulled directly from official national statistics allows meaningful

comparisons between countries. Ideas taken from scholarly studies contribute concepts

explaining economic stress spread. Coverage stays broad, reaching diverse regions

without losing depth.

Beginning with a clear outline, the study's design unfolded across four separate stages that

shaped the inquiry while supporting consistent examination of combined shock

behaviours. Step-by-step progression allowed each phase to build on prior work without

overlap or repetition.

Step 1: Shock characterisation and periodisation

One way to start was by pinning down every key disruption hitting job markets during the

fifteen years under review — defining exact start points, peak durations, and early

rebounds for the 2008 banking collapse, the global viral outbreak, and the war between

Russia and Ukraine. Instead of assuming clean breaks between crises, effort went into

spotting stretches where upheavals bled into one another. Each event carried its own

pathway: frozen lending plus lost household assets marked the downturn in finance;

Academy of Romanian Scientists | 95

Journal of Knowledge Dynamics

Vol. 3 (2026) No.1, pp. 91-102

halted production alongside weakened spending defined the health emergency; surging

raw material prices along with jittery investor sentiment traced back to hostilities abroad.

Step 2: Transmission mechanism analysis

Following the first phase, attention shifted to how distinct shocks influenced employment

via their unique routes. From origin to outcome, chains of cause and effect were mapped

across different scenarios. When studying the financial downturn, restricted lending

curtailed company growth even as weaker household assets reduced spending. During the

health emergency, worker availability shrank due to illness while lockdowns halted

operations. Amid territorial disputes, surging fuel prices disrupted manufacturing

budgets along with global delivery networks. This phase looked closely at combined

impacts — such as how rapid digital shifts during the pandemic affected job markets when

later hit by global political events — and examined how economic crises reshaped

institutions in ways that altered government actions during health emergencies.

Step 3: Resilience indicator development

Beginning with the next phase, a full range of indicators was built to reflect short-term

disruptions, ability to adapt, and paths toward recovery when multiple pressures occur

together. Unemployment figures, workforce engagement levels, and jobholding

proportions offered starting points for gauging effects. Alongside these, shifts in economic

structure appeared through changes in technology uptake, movement between industries,

spread of remote working, and evolving needs for worker capabilities. To assess resilience

more directly, researchers tracked how fast jobs returned after disruption, whether

employment reached earlier expected levels, and how available budget room and extent

of safety net programmes influenced outcomes. Patterns across populations emerged by

examining differences based on age, gender, education, industry, and location.

Step 4: Framework validation and comparative analysis

Testing came last: could the new resilience model outperform old single-shock versions

at explaining job market results? Rather than adding up separate disruptions, real work

paths, bounce-back times, and deep shifts were weighed across shared crisis windows.

Attention focused on who suffered most under combined blows, which economies held

steady despite layered strain, and how fast change stuck versus faded when upheavals

overlapped.

Results and discussion

RQ1: Compound effects of overlapping crises

Not one but several crises piling up over fifteen years revealed how combined economic

blows reshape job markets unlike single events ever could. Recovery after 2008 followed

familiar paths seen before, yet what came next — crisis stacked on top of crisis —

shortened timeframes for adaptation dramatically. Standard forecasting tools proved

inadequate when faced with such sequence of upheavals.

Six years passed before U.S. job numbers climbed back to where they stood before 2008,

even though economic output bounced back in less than three, due mainly to shrinking

credit and a sharp drop in spending. Across Europe, the rebound dragged on further —

many countries did not see stable work levels again until between 2015 and 2017.

Globally, lost work time during the pandemic hit nearly four times harder than during the

earlier downturn: an 8.8% decline in 2020, matching 255 million full-time positions gone.

By early 2022, when conflict erupted between Russia and Ukraine, labour systems had yet

to settle from two years of health-related shifts. In Ukraine itself, joblessness soared to

21%, whereas much of Europe saw pay power shrink without large layoffs taking hold

(Aizenman, 2024; European Commission, 2022; International Labour Organization,

2021).

Early signs pointed to a return of job markets near their old paths once health rules faded

and Europe shifted its stance by 2023–2024. Yet reality shows stubborn gaps remain.

96 | Cristian JARCĂ

Effects Of Economic And Geopolitical Shocks On Labour Market

Though certain wealthy nations hit earlier hiring highs again during this window, people

still took part in work at lower rates than before the crisis struck; temporary roles climbed

faster than stable ones; fields kept misaligning instead of fixing themselves. Nations

wrestling both soaring fuel costs and rapid technology shifts found change dragged on far

longer than in areas shielded by location, proving layered disruptions breed deeper

instability that standard single-event forecasts fail to capture.

What emerged from these overlapping crises was something entirely different — not just

a sum of parts. Disappearing chances to recover came first. The economy had barely

steadied after 2008 when the pandemic hit, then inflation tied to conflict tightened budget

limits even more, worsening risks linked to debt. Over time, one disruption after another

wore down financial reserves and coping mechanisms, leaving institutions drained in

ways never seen during single events (Feng, 2025; Fricke, 2025).

Notably, shifts in economic structure moved faster due to overlapping stresses. Even

before health crises emerged, digital advances had begun reshaping industries; once

disruption hit, changes deepened while borders tightened and remote job platforms

spread quickly — reshaping how people negotiate pay and roles (Duch-Brown, 2022).

Changes expected to take generations if driven by single events instead happened within

half a decade, worsening gaps in opportunity — especially for those without college

qualifications compared to peers holding degrees (Capello, 2025).

The gap in how impacts were felt grew over time. In developing countries, informal jobs

and roles needing fewer skills faced stronger setbacks (Andabayeva, 2024). While gender

gaps had improved before the pandemic, they worsened once more — with different

populations recovering at uneven speeds (Blair, 2025).

These forces expose three consistent workforce trends separate from single-event

downturns: intensification emerged as several pathways acted at once, making impacts

worse than expected sum totals; structural shifts unfolded more rapidly during layered

pressures, squeezing long-term changes into short timeframes; healing proceeded

unequally and stretched out because systems wore down and financial room shrank.

Rather than follow predictable bounce-back narratives common in standard analyses,

outcomes evolved based on sequence effects — where combined disruptions, linked

propagation routes, and building organisational exhaustion created trajectories that

single-incident models fail to reflect (Bogliacino, 2024; Bellardini, 2025).

RQ2: The Compound Shock Resilience Framework

The Compound Shock Resilience Framework challenges standard views of labour market

disruptions. Rather than treating shocks as separate moments with cumulative results, it

questions whether such events truly unfold in isolation. In reality, when disturbances

overlap, their combined force grows stronger — more intense than traditional models

suggest. Instead of adding effects together, this method tracks how stress multiplies under

pressure.

The framework quantifies this through a compound amplification coefficient (λ)

calculated as follows:

λ = (Actual Impact − Predicted Impact) / Predicted Impact

This coefficient represents proportional amplification beyond conventional predictions. A

λ value of zero indicates outcomes matched isolated shock model predictions, while

positive λ values quantify the degree to which overlapping dynamics amplified impacts

beyond additive expectations.

Through step-by-step contrast of expected and real workforce changes, the method

reveals hidden patterns. When big disruptions hit, groups like the ILO, IMF, and

government offices estimated consequences using past trends plus standard tools — tools

Academy of Romanian Scientists | 97

Journal of Knowledge Dynamics

Vol. 3 (2026) No.1, pp. 91-102

built on the idea that shocks act alone. Actual results differed, showing gaps unexplained

by single-event logic. The framework uses three key indicators: unemployment rates,

employment losses, and working hours lost. Because each captures a separate angle of

damage, they fill gaps the others miss. Measurement rules stay fixed across nations and

years, so comparisons hold up whether shocks hit alone or pile on top of one another.

Table 1 illustrates the empirical calibration of the compound effect coefficient (λ) across

the three crisis periods examined.

Table 1. Compound effect coefficient (λ): empirical calibration across economic crises

Crisis period

Indicator

Predicted

Actual

λ value

2008 Financial

Crisis (baseline)

Unemployment

rate

8–9%

10%

0.10–0.12

Employment

losses (FTE)

~50

million

~55

million

0.10

0.08

Working hours

lost

−2.5%

−2.7%

COVID-19

Pandemic

(overlapping)

Working hours

lost (2020)

−6.7%

−8.8%

0.31

0.23

Employment

losses (FTE)

~195

million

~255

million

U.S.

unemployment

rate

~12%

14.7%

21%

Russia–Ukraine

War

(overlapping)

Ukraine

unemployment

15–17%

0.29

Employment

losses

~3.5

million

~4.8

million

0.37

Working hours

lost (Q2 2022)

Standard

forecast

−1/6 of

hours

0.60+

Average across

overlapping

crises

≈ 0.40

Source: Author's own elaboration based on data from ILO, IMF, and relevant literature.

During the 2008 downturn — when job markets began in a steady state — the values of λ

fell between 0.08 and 0.12. Joblessness rose to 10%, higher than the expected 8–9% range.

There were about 55 million fewer full-time equivalent positions versus an estimate of 50

million. Small gaps like these suggest results aligned fairly well with standard forecasts.

Greater impact came more from how intense the shock was rather than overlapping

stressors.

Early signs of combined impacts emerged during the pandemic, visible through all three

measures. Though the ILO estimated a 6.7% drop in work time for April–June 2020, the

full year ended up at 8.8% lower (λ = 0.31). Instead of the expected 195 million job losses

by midyear, the total came to 255 million jobs gone (λ = 0.31). In the United States,

joblessness climbed higher than forecast — hitting 14.7% instead of roughly 12% (λ =

0.23). When the pandemic hit, job markets had not yet settled from shifts after 2008, so

new stress piled onto old imbalances, pushing outcomes far beyond what single

disruptions would cause.

98 | Cristian JARCĂ

Effects Of Economic And Geopolitical Shocks On Labour Market

A sudden spike appeared in the data when Russia invaded Ukraine, hitting labour markets

harder than any recent crisis. Though past conflicts suggested joblessness would rise to

15–17%, actual unemployment climbed to 21% (λ = 0.29). Instead of losing around 3.5

million positions, Ukraine saw a drop of nearly 4.8 million workers (λ = 0.37). By the

second quarter of 2022, time spent working fell by roughly one in six hours — far beyond

standard forecasts (λ = 0.60+). Recovery efforts were already fragile due to earlier

pandemic strains.

On average, combining data from nine pairs of indicators and crises during overlapping

disruptions gives a value near 0.40 — meaning labour effects were almost 40% worse

compared to single-event forecasts. What stands out is how steadily this pattern appears,

whether looking at joblessness, lost positions, or reduced work time. Across varied

measures and sequences of turmoil, the repeated rise points to deeper structural buildup

— not random noise or one-time distortion.

What makes the approach solid lies in its consistent metrics applied uniformly during each

downturn — allowing clear insights into forecast breakdowns whether crises strike alone

or together. A look at 2008 shows standard tools handling single disruptions fairly

accurately (λ ≈ 0.10). When stress piles up, like during the pandemic and war in Ukraine,

errors grow sharply (λ ≈ 0.40) — proof that combined jolts hit harder than their separate

parts suggest.

Theoretical and practical implications

When shocks hit before systems recover, outcomes change. Instead of following a straight

path back to normal, economies stumble if new disruptions arrive mid-adjustment. Earlier

studies noticed differences in how firms adapt or regions bounce back, depending on local

institutions, yet those findings rarely considered what happens when one crisis lands atop

another. These forces do not just add up; they feed into each other, growing stronger

together. The way impacts spread shifts entirely when timing collapses between events.

Not only does the framework offer a way to measure combined impacts, it moves past

vague claims about how recent crises seem unique by showing clear evidence of growing

intensity. Earlier methods miss the added strain because they ignore timing overlaps

between crises. Predictions land closer to reality when sequence and persistence shape

the model. The calculated value λ ≈ 0.40 stands out — not just noise, but a meaningful

advance in how complex shocks are analysed.

When shocks pile up, changes thought to unfold slowly happen fast. Earlier reports saw

quick shifts in gig work, job markets shaped by artificial intelligence, and growing gaps

between worker skills and job needs — especially during downturns (Capello, 2025;

Duch-Brown, 2022). What sets this study apart is seeing those leaps as part of a deeper

rhythm, not random hiccups tied to a single event. Where change usually creeps forward,

sudden pressure makes it sprint ahead.

From a practical standpoint, this approach helps various groups deal with today's complex

emergencies more effectively. Because earlier disruptions weaken institutions, standard

forecasts tend to fall short when new ones hit soon after. One key insight: combined crises

cause damage nearly half again worse than older methods expect. So if job programmes

or financial aid rely only on past single-event planning, they simply will not hold up under

compound stress. Groups like the ILO or IMF might plug the compound effect coefficient

into their models — not doing so means repeating past errors.

When times are calm, labour market groups and their allies might push for stronger

preparedness using this tool. Because repeated crises wear down protective structures,

leaving societies more exposed later, keeping strong budgets, wide safety nets, and flexible

job rules makes sense long after emergencies fade. This approach shows what weak

Academy of Romanian Scientists | 99

Journal of Knowledge Dynamics

Vol. 3 (2026) No.1, pp. 91-102

rebound costs — every missing percentage point in rebuilding institutions means a

heavier hit the next time trouble comes.

Conclusions

When economic and political upheavals hit at once, job markets react more severely than

when only one type of disruption occurs. Evidence shows combined shocks led to

consequences about 40% worse than single ones, regardless of whether looking at

joblessness, lost positions, or reduced work time. What unfolds is not just a sum but a

cascade — each disturbance feeding the next. Most past studies treated major downturns

as separate, using tools built for standalone events. Yet reality now involves repeated hits

with little pause between them. This pattern reveals how multiple stressors intensify,

speed up damage, and stretch out harm far beyond typical cycles.

Understanding this shift changes how we interpret modern instability. The originality of

this paper lies in two interconnected contributions. First, it introduces a compound

amplification coefficient (λ) empirically calibrated across three overlapping crises — a

measurement advance that moves beyond vague claims about crisis uniqueness to

quantify precisely how much worse outcomes become when shocks arrive in sequence.

Second, by tracing transmission mechanisms across simultaneous disruptions rather than

isolated events, the study reveals structural dynamics — accelerated inequality,

compressed labour market transitions, and institutional exhaustion — that linear, single-

event frameworks systematically miss. The Compound Shock Resilience Framework built

around these contributions provides both a diagnostic lens for understanding recent

labour market transformations and a practical tool for calibrating future responses, filling

a gap that existing macroeconomic resilience models leave unaddressed.

The practical implications extend across stakeholder groups. Policymakers gain a basis for

scaling responses ahead of time rather than scrambling after compound shocks exceed

conventional forecasts — with the coefficient offering a concrete adjustment factor rather

than a qualitative warning. Organisations benefit from understanding that structural

changes accelerate under layered pressures, making early adaptation more valuable than

reactive adjustment. Labour market agencies can embed the compound effect coefficient

into standard projection models during periods of overlapping disruption, improving

forecast accuracy without wholesale model replacement. Taken together, these

contributions offer not only a retrospective account of fifteen years of converging crises

but an operational foundation for anticipating and mitigating the compounded

disruptions that an increasingly interconnected and geopolitically volatile world is likely

to produce.

Research limitations

Acknowledging the study's limits matters as much as its insights. Most apparent is the

narrow case base — results draw from three major crises over fifteen years, yielding just

nine moments where economic signals met simultaneous crisis conditions. Although each

case shows consistent patterns of worsening impact, so few examples make precise

figures harder to trust, particularly the cumulative multiplier value near 0.40. The data

itself carries limitations: everything drawn from published reports by global agencies,

scholarly journals, and government bodies — no firsthand tracking of how businesses

adapt step by step. Broad indicators dominate; sharp contrasts hidden beneath those

averages across industries, age groups, or geographies remain out of reach.

The model also treats the compound effect as a single fixed value regardless of which crisis

combination occurs. Crisis type, timing proximity, and geography are not yet

distinguished. Geographic scope adds another boundary — the model leans heavily on

wealthier nations and European economies where data is consistent and institutions are

stable. Whether the compound impact holds in contexts where informal employment

dominates, safety nets are minimal, or institutional logic differs remains an open question.

100 | Cristian JARCĂ

Effects Of Economic And Geopolitical Shocks On Labour Market

Finally, the 2008–2024 window was unusually dense with overlapping disruptions.

Whether this period marks a lasting structural shift or a rare historical cluster is unclear.

The model assumes such pileups will recur frequently enough to justify new analytical

approaches — yet if gaps between crises lengthen again, its relevance fades.

Future research directions

The Compound Shock Resilience Framework opens multiple avenues for theoretical

refinement, empirical extension, and practical application. The most immediate priority is

expanding the empirical foundation as new crises emerge. Each additional overlapping

shock provides further data for refining the compound effect coefficient, narrowing

confidence intervals, and testing whether λ ≈ 0.40 is stable across contexts or varies based

on shock characteristics, institutional configurations, or temporal patterns.

Geographic extension is equally critical. Future research should test whether compound

coefficients differ across contexts — examining whether economies with limited social

protection, high informality, or constrained fiscal capacity experience greater or lesser

amplification due to different adjustment mechanisms. Comparative studies across Asian,

African, and Latin American experiences would substantially strengthen generalisability.

Disaggregating the compound effect coefficient across demographic groups, sectors,

occupations, and skill levels would sharpen the framework's ability to identify vulnerable

populations. Microdata linking individual or firm-level outcomes to overlapping shock

exposure could reveal differential vulnerabilities and enable more targeted policy

responses.

Policy effectiveness research is an essential next step. While this study identifies that

compound shocks amplify impacts beyond conventional predictions, it does not evaluate

which interventions most effectively mitigate them. Incorporating additional shock types

— climate-related disruptions, technological shocks, and demographic transitions —

would further strengthen comprehensiveness. Finally, translating the framework into

operational early warning systems would maximise its practical value, embedding

compound dynamics into standard analytical practice at institutions such as the ILO and

IMF.

AI Declaration: Artificial intelligence tools were used for language editing and structural

refinement in the preparation of this article. All analytical frameworks, empirical

interpretations, and substantive arguments are the sole work of the author. AI assistance

was not used in data collection, conceptual development, or the generation of findings.

Acknowledgments: This paper is developed based on a presentation delivered at the

13th International Conference EULAB 2025 — European Perspectives on the Labour

Market: Global Challenges of the Digital Age Nowadays (Section: European Labour

Market Contemporary Developments), held on 20–21 November 2025. The author

acknowledges the support of the Doctoral School at the National University of Political

Studies and Public Administration (SNSPA), Bucharest, Romania, and expresses

gratitude to the doctoral thesis supervisor for guidance throughout this research.

References

Articles:

Aizenman, J., & Lahet, D. (2024). Geopolitical shocks and commodity market dynamics:

New evidence from the Russia–Ukraine conflict. European Journal of Political

Economy. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2024.102494

Andabayeva, G., & Mukhametzhanov, M. (2024). Labor market dynamics in developing

countries: Analysis of employment transformation at the macro-level. Journal of

Innovation

and

Entrepreneurship,

13(1),

1–22.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-024-00350-0

Academy of Romanian Scientists | 101

Journal of Knowledge Dynamics

Vol. 3 (2026) No.1, pp. 91-102

Andrews, D., & Sternberg, R. (2026). Transmission of geopolitical shocks to firm behavior:

A synthesis and integrative model. Journal of International Business Policy.

Advance online publication. doi: https://doi.org/10.1057/s42214-025-00205-9

Bellardini, L., & Ronchetti, M. (2025). International relations as a driver of equity

investments: Evidence from shareholders' reaction to geopolitical shocks.

Research

in

International

Business

and

Finance,

73.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2024.102583

Blair, P. Q., & Sims, J. (2025). Skills, degrees, and labor market inequality. Economics of

Education Review, 104. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2024.102618

Bogliacino, F., & Codagnone, C. (2024). Negative economic shocks and the compliance to

social

norms.

Judgment

and

Decision

Making,

19.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/jdm.2024.18

Bondarenko, Y., & Liu, P. (2024). Geopolitical risk perceptions. Journal of International

Economics, 149. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2024.103912

Bruneckiene, J., & Pekarskiene, I. (2019). An assessment of socio-economic systems'

resilience to economic shocks: The case of Lithuanian regions. Sustainability,

11(3). doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030566

Bruneckiene, J., & Pekarskiene, I. (2019). Measuring regional resilience to economic shocks

by

doi:https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.30.3.20084

Capello, R., & Caragliu, A. (2025). Digitalisation, platformisation and the transformations

of local labour markets. Papers in Regional Science, 104(2).

doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pirs.2025.100059

Chakrabarti, A. (2015). Organizational adaptation in an economic shock: The role of growth

reconfiguration. Strategic Management Journal, 36(11), 1717-1738.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2309

index.

Engineering

Economics,

30(3),

368–381.

Ding, J. (2024). Three pillars of just transition labour market policies. Contemporary Social

Science, 19(1-3). doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/21582041.2024.2316656

Duch-Brown, N. (2022). Market power and artificial intelligence work on online labour

markets.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104446

Eichhorst, W., & Marx, P. (2017). Labor market reforms in Europe: Towards more flexicure

labor markets? ournal for Labour Market Research, 51(1), 3.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12651-017-0231-7

Research

Policy

,

51(3).

Fang, J. (2022). Globalisation, economic uncertainty and labour market regulations:

Implications for the COVID-19 crisis. World Economy, 45(7), 1019-1044.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/twec.13230

Fricke, E. (2025). The importance of cash during an economic shock. Applied Economics,

57(12), 1452-1468. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2024.2503489

Giotis, G. (2024). Labor market institutions and employment. Encyclopedia of labor

economics, 4(1), 273-294. doi:10.3390/encyclopedia4010021

Gogoi, A. (2023). The impact of globalization on labour market, focusing on wage

inequality and job displacement. Theoretical and Applied Economics, 3(636), 45-

62.

Hodler, R. (2014). Economic shocks and civil conflict at the regional level.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2014.07.027. Economics Letters, 124(3), 530–

533. doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2014.07.027

Irandoust, M. (2023). Active labor market as an instrument to reduce unemployment.

Journal

of

Government

and

Economics,

9.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jge.2023.100065

Kapička, M. (2022). Labor markets during pandemics. Journal of Economic Theory, 204.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jet.2022.105520

Malynovska, Y., & Bondarenko (2025), I. Global economic shocks and business risk

management. Green, Blue and Digital Economy Journal, 6(1), 1-12. doi:

https://doi.org/ 10.30525/2661-5169/2025-1-6

Margarit, D. (2019). Political responses to economic shocks. Annual Review of Political

Science, 22, 277-295. doi:https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050517-

110713

102 | Cristian JARCĂ

Effects Of Economic And Geopolitical Shocks On Labour Market

Piroșcă, G. I. (2021). Digitalization and labor market—A perspective within the framework

of pandemic crisis. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce

Research, 16(7), 2843-2857. doi:https://doi.org/ 10.3390/jtaer16070156

Potrafke, N. (2013). Labor market deregulation and globalization: Empirical evidence from

OECD countries. Journal of Comparative Economics, 41(3), 1123–1133.

doi:https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jce.2013.02.002

Rezaei Soufi, H., & Esfahanipour, A. (2022). A quantitative approach for analysis of

macroeconomic resilience due to socio-economic shocks. Socio-Economic

Planning Sciences,, 79. doi:https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.seps.2021.101101

Vyas, L. (2022). ''New normal" at work in a post-COVID world: Work–life balance and labor

markets.

Policy

and

Society,

41(1),

155-167.

doi:https://doi.org/

10.1093/polsoc/puab011

Books:

Causo, M. S. (2023). Exploring globalization with cosmopolitics. Rowman & Littlefield.

Chapters in Edited Books:

Bhattacharyya, R. (2024). Role of Industry-Academia Interface in Skill Development:

Internalising Education Policies. In T. Roy, & S. Mandal (Eds.), Role of Industry-

Academia Interface in Skill Development: Internalising Education Policies (pp. 145-

162). Routledge India. doi:10.4324/9781032613444-3

Reports:

European Commission (2022). Employment and social developments in Europe 2022. EU,

Publications Office of the EU. Publications Office of the EU. Retrieved from

https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=8513

International Labour Organization (2021). ILO Monitor: COVID-19 and the world of work

(8th

ed.).

Retrieved

from

https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/coronavirus/impacts-and-

responses/WCMS_824092/lang--en/index.htm