Unit root tests have been known for a long time to suffer from a variety of problems. Considering that simulation methods are obvious candidates for solving some of these problems, the aim of this paper is to assess the performance of bootstrap tests of the unit root hypothesis of the Dickey--Fuller type. The results obtained show that boostrap tests have empirical sizes very close to the nominal ones and deliver rejection rates generally at least as high as those obtained using simulated critical points, and are therefore a promising alternative to the latter. The applications sto non-standard problems such as structural stability analysis appear to be especially promising.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Publisher Info
Article provided by Taylor and Francis Journals in its journal Applied Economics.
Volume (Year): 29 (1997) Issue (Month): 9 (September) Pages: 1155-1161 Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML
(with abstract),
plain text
(with abstract),
BibTeX,
RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite),
ReDIF
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Christopher F. Baum).
Related research
Keywords:
Other versions of this item:
Article
De Angelis, Daniela & Fachin, Stefano & Young, G Alastair, 1997.
"Bootstrapping Unit Root Tests,"
Applied Economics,
Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 29(9), pages 1155-61, September.
[Downloadable!] (restricted)
References listed on IDEAS Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.: