In this paper we study and compare the properties of several bootstrap unit root tests recently proposed in the literature. The tests are Dickey-Fuller or Augmented DF-tests, either based on residuals from an autoregression and the use of the block bootstrap (Paparoditis & Politis, 2003) or on first differenced data and the use of the stationary bootstrap (Swensen, 2003a) or sieve bootstrap (Psaradakis, 2001; Chang & Park, 2003). We extend the analysis by interchanging the data transformations (differences versus residuals), the types of bootstrap and the presence or absence of a correction for autocorrelation in the tests. We prove that two sieve bootstrap tests based on residuals remain asymptotically valid, thereby completing the proofs of validity for all the types of DF bootstrap tests. In contrast to the literature which basically focuses on a comparison of the bootstrap tests with an asymptotic test, we compare the bootstrap tests among them using response surfaces for their size and power in a simulation study. We also investigate how the tests behave when accounting for a deterministic trend, even in the absence of such a trend in the data. This study leads to the following conclusions: (i) augmented DF-tests are always preferred to standard DF-tests; (ii) the sieve bootstrap performs slightly better than the block bootstrap; (iii) difference-based and residual-based tests behave similarly in terms of size although the latter appear more powerful. The results for the response surfaces allow us to make statements about the behaviour of the bootstrap tests as sample size increases.
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.
Publisher Info
Paper provided by Maastricht : METEOR, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization in its series Research Memoranda with number
015.
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.)