- Carrion-i-Silvestre, Josep Lluís
- Kim, Dukpa
- Perron, Pierre
Perron (1989, Econometrica 57, 1361–1401) introduced unit root tests valid when a break at a known date in the trend function of a time series is present. In particular, they allow a break under both the null and alternative hypotheses and are invariant to the magnitude of the shift in level and/or slope. The subsequent literature devised procedures valid in the case of an unknown break date. However, in doing so most research, in particular the commonly used test of Zivot and Andrews (1992, Journal of Business & Economic Statistics 10, 251–270), assumed that if a break occurs it does so only under the alternative hypothesis of stationarity. This is undesirable for several reasons. Kim and Perron (2009, Journal of Econometrics 148, 1–13) developed a methodology that allows a break at an unknown time under both the null and alternative hypotheses. When a break is present, the limit distribution of the test is the same as in the case of a known break date, allowing increased power while maintaining the correct size. We extend their work in several directions: (1) we allow for an arbitrary number of changes in both the level and slope of the trend function; (2) we adopt the quasi–generalized least squares detrending method advocated by Elliott, Rothenberg, and Stock (1996, Econometrica 64, 813–836) that permits tests that have local asymptotic power functions close to the local asymptotic Gaussian power envelope; (3) we consider a variety of tests, in particular the class of M-tests introduced in Stock (1999, Cointegration, Causality, and Forecasting: A Festschrift for Clive W.J. Granger) and analyzed in Ng and Perron (2001, Econometrica 69, 1519–1554).
Carrion-i-Silvestre, Josep Lluís & Kim, Dukpa & Perron, Pierre, 2009.
"Gls-Based Unit Root Tests With Multiple Structural Breaks Under Both The Null And The Alternative Hypotheses,"
Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(6), pages 1754-1792, December.
Download full text from publisher
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:cup:etheor:v:25:y:2009:i:06:p:1754-1792_99. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/ect .
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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/ect .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.