Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T11:33:53.032Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Near Observational Equivalence and Theoretical size Problems with Unit Root Tests

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Jon Faust
Jon Faust
Affiliation:
Federal Reserve Board
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Said and Dickey (1984, Biometrika 71, 599–608) and Phillips and Perron (1988, Biometrika 75, 335–346) have derived unit root tests that have asymptotic distributions free of nuisance parameters under very general maintained models. Under models as general as those assumed by these authors, the size of the unit root test procedures will converge to one, not the size under the asymptotic distribution. Solving this problem requires restricting attention to a model that is small, in a topological sense, relative to the original. Sufficient conditions for solving the asymptotic size problem yield some suggestions for improving finite-sample size performance of standard tests.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Econometric Theory , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , October 1996 , pp. 724 - 731
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Basu, D. (1977) On the elimination of nuisance parameters. Journal of the American Statistical Association 72, 355–366.Google Scholar
Blough, S.R. (1992) The relationship between power and level for generic unit root tests in finite samples. Journal of Applied Econometrics 7, 295–308.Google Scholar
Campbell, J.Y. & Perron, P. (1991) Pitfalls and opportunities: What macroeconomists should know about unit roots. In Blanchard, O. & Fischer, S. (eds.), NBER Macroeconomics Annual, pp. 141–201. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cheung, Y.W. & Lai, K.S. (1993) Lag Order and the Finite Sample Behavior of the Augmented Dickey-Fuller Test. Manuscript, University of California at Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Cochrane, J.H. (1991) A critique of the application of unit root tests. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 15, 275–284.Google Scholar
Dickey, D.A. & Fuller, W.A. (1979) Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Journal of the American Statistical Association 74, 427–431.Google Scholar
Engle, R.F., Hendry, D.F., & Richard, J.F. (1983) Exogeneity. Econometrica 51, 277–304.Google Scholar
Faust, J. (1993) Near Observational Equivalence and Unit Root Processes: Formal Concepts and Implications. Manuscript, Federal Reserve Board, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
MacKinnon, J. (1991) Critical values for cointegration tests. In Engle, R.F. & Granger, C.W.J. (eds.), Long-Run Economic Relationships. Readings in Cointegration, pp. 267–276. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Parthasarathy, K.R. (1967) Probability Measures on Metric Spaces. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, P.C.B. (1995) Nonstationary time series and cointegration. Journal of Applied Econometrics 10, 87–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, P.C.B. & Perron, P. (1988) Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika 75, 335–346.Google Scholar
Phillips, P.C.B. & Solo, V. (1992) Asymptotics for linear processes. Annals of Statistics 20, 971–1001.Google Scholar
Royden, H.L. (1968) Real Analysis. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Said, S.E. & Dickey, D.A. (1984) Testing for unit roots in autoregressive-moving average models of unknown order. Biometrika 71, 599–608.Google Scholar
Schwert, G.W. (1989) Tests for unit roots: A Monte Carlo investigation. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 7, 147–160.Google Scholar
Sims, C. (1971) Distributed lag estimation when the parameter space is explicitly infinite-dimensional. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 42, 1622–1636.Google Scholar
Sims, C. (1972) The role of approximate prior restrictions in distributed lag estimation. Journal of the American Statistical Association 67, 169–175.Google Scholar