A theoretical model for growth or inflation should be able to reproduce the empirical features of these variables better than competing alternatives. Therefore, it is common practice in the literature, whenever a new model is suggested, to compare its performance with that of a benchmark model. However, while the theoretical models become more and more sophisticated, the benchmark typically remains a simple linear time series model. Recent examples are provided, e.g., by articles in the real business cycle literature or by new-keynesian studies on inflation persistence. While a time series model can provide a reasonable benchmark to evaluate the value added of economic theory relative to the pure explanatory power of the past behavior of the variable, recent developments in time series analysis suggest that more sophisticated time series models could provide more serious benchmarks for economic models. In this paper we evaluate whether these complicated time series models can really outperform standard linear models for GDP growth and inflation, and should therefore substitute them as benchmarks for economic theory based models. Since a complicated model specification can over-fit in sample, i.e. the model can spuriously perform very well compared to simpler alternatives, we conduct the model comparison based on the out of sample forecasting performance. We consider a large variety of models and evaluation criteria, using real time data and a sophisticated bootstrap algorithm to evaluate the statistical significance of our results. Our main conclusion is that in general linear time series models can be hardly beaten if they are carefully specified, and therefore still provide a good benchmark for theoretical models of growth and inflation. However, we also identify some important cases where the adoption of a more complicated benchmark can alter the conclusions of economic analyses about the driving forces of GDP growth and inflation. Therefore, comparing theoretical models also with more sophisticated time series benchmarks can guarantee more robust conclusions.
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
file. 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
Paper provided by C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers in its series CEPR Discussion Papers with number
6012.
Find related papers by JEL classification: C2 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables C53 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling - - - Forecasting and Other Model Applications E30 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Prices, Business Fluctuations, and Cycles - - - General (includes Measurement and Data)
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
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.:
Cited by: (explanations, 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.)