IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/macdyn/v19y2015i01p167-188_00.html

Are Unit Root Tests Useful In The Debate Over The (Non)Stationarity Of Hours Worked?

Author

Listed:
  • Charles, Amélie
  • Darné, Olivier
  • Tripier, Fabien

Abstract

The performance of unit root tests on simulated series is compared, using the business-cycle model of Chang et al. [Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 39(6), 1357–1373 (2007)] as a data-generating process. Overall, Monte Carlo simulations show that the efficient unit root tests of Ng and Perron (NP) [Econometrica 69(6), 1519–1554 (2001)] are more powerful than the standard unit root tests. These efficient tests are frequently able (i) to reject the unit-root hypothesis on simulated series, using the best specification of the business-cycle model found by Chang et al., in which hours worked are stationary with adjustment costs, and (ii) to reduce the gap between the theoretical impulse response functions and those estimated with a Structural VAR model. The results of Monte Carlo simulations show that the hump-shaped behavior of data can explain the divergence between unit root tests.

Suggested Citation

  • Charles, Amélie & Darné, Olivier & Tripier, Fabien, 2015. "Are Unit Root Tests Useful In The Debate Over The (Non)Stationarity Of Hours Worked?," Macroeconomic Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(1), pages 167-188, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:macdyn:v:19:y:2015:i:01:p:167-188_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1365100513000321/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:cup:macdyn:v:19:y:2015:i:01:p:167-188_00. 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/mdy .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.