IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Panel Unit-root Tests for Cross-sectionally Correlated Panels: A Monte Carlo Comparison

Listed author(s):
  • Luciano Gutierrez

This paper deals with the finite-sample performance of a set of unit-root tests for cross-correlated panels. Most of the available macroeconomic time series cover short time periods. The lack of information, in terms of time observations, implies that univariate tests are not powerful enough to reject the null of a unit-root while panel tests, by exploiting the large number of cross-sectional units, have been shown to be a promising way of increasing the power of unit-root tests. We investigate the finite sample properties of recently proposed panel unit-root tests for cross-sectionally correlated panels. Specifically, the size and power of Choi's ["Econometric Theory and Practice: Frontiers of Analysis and Applied Research: Essays in Honor of Peter C. B. Phillips", Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001)], Bai and Ng's ["Econometrica" (2004), Vol. 72, p. 1127], Moon and Perron's ["Journal of Econometrics" (2004), Vol. 122, p. 81], and Phillips and Sul's ["Econometrics Journal" (2003), Vol. 6, p. 217] tests are analysed by a Monte Carlo simulation study. In synthesis, Moon and Perron's tests show good size and power for different values of "T" and "N", and model specifications. Focusing on Bai and Ng's procedure, the simulation study highlights that the pooled Dickey-Fuller generalized least squares test provides higher power than the pooled augmented Dickey-Fuller test for the analysis of non-stationary properties of the idiosyncratic components. Choi's tests are strongly oversized when the common factor influences the cross-sectional units heterogeneously. Copyright 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. 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.

File URL:
File Function: link to full text
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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.

Article provided by Department of Economics, University of Oxford in its journal Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics.

Volume (Year): 68 (2006)
Issue (Month): 4 (August)
Pages: 519-540

in new window

Handle: RePEc:bla:obuest:v:68:y:2006:i:4:p:519-540
Contact details of provider: Postal:
Manor Rd. Building, Oxford, OX1 3UQ

Web page:

More information through EDIRC

Order Information: Web:

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.:

in new window

  1. Perron, Pierre & Rodriguez, Gabriel, 2003. "GLS detrending, efficient unit root tests and structural change," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 1-27, July.
  2. Choi, In, 2001. "Unit root tests for panel data," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 249-272, April.
  3. Jushan Bai & Serena Ng, 2002. "Determining the Number of Factors in Approximate Factor Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(1), pages 191-221, January.
  4. Moon, H.R.Hyungsik Roger & Perron, Benoit, 2004. "Testing for a unit root in panels with dynamic factors," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 122(1), pages 81-126, September.
  5. Backus, David K & Kehoe, Patrick J, 1992. "International Evidence of the Historical Properties of Business Cycles," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(4), pages 864-888, September.
  6. Maddala, G S & Wu, Shaowen, 1999. " A Comparative Study of Unit Root Tests with Panel Data and a New Simple Test," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 61(0), pages 631-652, Special I.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:obuest:v:68:y:2006:i:4:p:519-540. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing)

or (Christopher F. Baum)

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.