Author
Listed:
- Harvey David I.
(School of Economics, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)
- Leybourne Stephen J.
(School of Economics, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)
- Whitehouse Emily J.
(School of Economics, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)
Abstract
In this paper we examine the local power of unit root tests against globally stationary exponential smooth transition autoregressive [ESTAR] alternatives under two sources of uncertainty: the degree of nonlinearity in the ESTAR model, and the presence of a linear deterministic trend. First, we show that the KSS test (Kapetanios, G., Y. Shin, and A. Snell. 2003. “Testing for a Unit Root in the Nonlinear STAR Framework.” Journal of Econometrics 112: 359–379) for nonlinear stationarity has local asymptotic power gains over standard Dickey-Fuller [DF] tests for certain degrees of nonlinearity in the ESTAR model, but that for other degrees of nonlinearity, the linear DF test has superior power. Second, we derive limiting distributions of demeaned, and demeaned and detrended KSS and DF tests under a local ESTAR alternative when a local trend is present in the DGP. We show that the power of the demeaned tests outperforms that of the detrended tests when no trend is present in the DGP, but deteriorates as the magnitude of the trend increases. We propose a union of rejections testing procedure that combines all four individual tests and show that this captures most of the power available from the individual tests across different degrees of nonlinearity and trend magnitudes. We also show that incorporating a trend detection procedure into this union testing strategy can result in higher power when a large trend is present in the DGP.
Suggested Citation
Harvey David I. & Leybourne Stephen J. & Whitehouse Emily J., 2018.
"Testing for a unit root against ESTAR stationarity,"
Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics & Econometrics, De Gruyter, vol. 22(1), pages 1-29, February.
Handle:
RePEc:bpj:sndecm:v:22:y:2018:i:1:p:29:n:2
DOI: 10.1515/snde-2016-0076
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or
for a different version of it.
Other versions of this item:
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:sndecm:v:22:y:2018:i:1:p:29:n:2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyterbrill.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.