IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Impact of Model Specification Decisions on Unit Root Tests

  • Atiq-ur-Rehman

    ()

    (International Islamic University)

Performance of unit root tests depends on several specification decisions prior to their application, e.g., whether or not to include a deterministic trend. Since there is no standard procedure for making such decisions; therefore, the practitioners routinely make several arbitrary specification decisions. In Monte Carlo studies, the design of data generating process supports these decisions, but for real data, such specification decisions are often unjustifiable and sometimes incompatible with data. We argue that the problems posed by choice of initial specification are quite complex and the existing voluminous literature on this issue treats only certain superficial aspects of this choice. Outcomes of unit root tests are very sensitive to both choice and sequencing of these arbitrary specifications. This means that we can obtain results of our choice from unit root tests by varying these specifications.

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: http://www.era.org.tr/makaleler/11080064.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Article provided by Econometric Research Association in its journal International Econometric Review.

Volume (Year): 3 (2011)
Issue (Month): 2 (September)
Pages: 22-33

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:erh:journl:v:3:y:2011:i:2:p:22-33
Contact details of provider: Postal:
Sairler Sokak, No:32/C, Gaziosmanpasa, Ankara, Turkey

Phone: + 90 312 447 51 95
Fax: + 90 312 447 51 95
Web page: http://www.era.org.tr/
Email:


More information through EDIRC

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.:

as in new window
  1. Zivot, Eric & Andrews, Donald W K, 1992. "Further Evidence on the Great Crash, the Oil-Price Shock, and the Unit-Root Hypothesis," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 10(3), pages 251-70, July.
  2. Lawrence J. Christiano, 1988. "Searching For a Break in GNP," NBER Working Papers 2695, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  3. Giuseppe Cavaliere, 2005. "Unit Root Tests under Time-Varying Variances," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(3), pages 259-292.
  4. Atiq-ur-Rehman, 2011. "Impact of Model Specification Decisions on Unit Root Tests," International Econometric Review (IER), Econometric Research Association, vol. 3(2), pages 22-33, September.
  5. Nelson, Charles R. & Plosser, Charles I., 1982. "Trends and random walks in macroeconmic time series : Some evidence and implications," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 139-162.
  6. Murray, Christian J. & Nelson, Charles R., 2000. "The uncertain trend in U.S. GDP," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 79-95, August.
  7. Elena Andreou & Aris Spanos, 2003. "Statistical Adequacy and the Testing of Trend Versus Difference Stationarity," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(3), pages 217-237, January.
  8. Cati, Regina Celia & Garcia, Marcio G P & Perron, Pierre, 1999. "Unit Roots in the Presence of Abrupt Governmental Interventions with an Application to Brazilian Data," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(1), pages 27-56, Jan.-Feb..
  9. Perron, P., 1986. "Trends and Random Walks in Macroeconomic Time Series: Further Evidence From a New Approach," Cahiers de recherche 8650, Universite de Montreal, Departement de sciences economiques.
  10. Elliott, Graham & Rothenberg, Thomas J & Stock, James H, 1996. "Efficient Tests for an Autoregressive Unit Root," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 64(4), pages 813-36, July.
  11. Kilian, L. & Ohanian, L.E., 1999. "Unit Roots, Trend Breaks and Transitory Dynamics: A Macroeconomic Perspective," Papers 99-02, Michigan - Center for Research on Economic & Social Theory.
  12. John Y. Campbell & Pierre Perron, 1991. "Pitfalls and Opportunities: What Macroeconomists Should Know About Unit Roots," NBER Technical Working Papers 0100, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  13. Serena Ng & Pierre Perron, 2001. "LAG Length Selection and the Construction of Unit Root Tests with Good Size and Power," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(6), pages 1519-1554, November.
  14. Perron, Pierre, 1989. "The Great Crash, the Oil Price Shock, and the Unit Root Hypothesis," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(6), pages 1361-1401, November.
  15. Pagan, Adrian R. & Schwert, G. William, 1990. "Testing for covariance stationarity in stock market data," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 165-170, June.
  16. David H Papell & Ruxandra Prodan, 2007. "Restricted Structural Change And The Unit Root Hypothesis," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 45(4), pages 834-853, October.
  17. Engle, R. F. & Granger, C. W. J. (ed.), 1991. "Long-Run Economic Relationships: Readings in Cointegration," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198283393, June.
  18. Mark W. Watson, 1999. "Explaining the increased variability in long-term interest rates," Economic Quarterly, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, issue Fall, pages 71-96.
  19. Ayat, L. & Burridge, P., 1996. "Unit Root Tests in the presence of Uncertainty about the Non-Stochastic Trends," Discussion Papers 96-28, Department of Economics, University of Birmingham.
  20. Kim, Tae-Hwan & Leybourne, Stephen & Newbold, Paul, 2002. "Unit root tests with a break in innovation variance," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 365-387, August.
  21. Rudebusch, Glenn D, 1993. "The Uncertain Unit Root in Real GNP," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(1), pages 264-72, March.
  22. Nelson, Charles R & Kang, Heejoon, 1984. "Pitfalls in the Use of Time as an Explanatory Variable in Regression," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 2(1), pages 73-82, January.
  23. Dickey, David A & Fuller, Wayne A, 1981. "Likelihood Ratio Statistics for Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(4), pages 1057-72, June.
  24. John Elder & Peter E. Kennedy, 2001. "Testing for Unit Roots: What Should Students Be Taught?," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(2), pages 137-146, January.
  25. Anindya Banerjee & Robin L. Lumsdaine & James H. Stock, 1990. "Recursive and Sequential Tests of the Unit Root and Trend Break Hypothesis: Theory and International Evidence," NBER Working Papers 3510, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  26. Gilberto Libanio, 2005. "Unit roots in macroeconomic time series: theory, implications, and evidence," Nova Economia, Economics Department, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (Brazil), vol. 15(3), pages 145-176, September.
  27. James G. MacKinnon, 2010. "Critical Values for Cointegration Tests," Working Papers 1227, Queen's University, Department of Economics.
  28. Perron, Pierre, 1990. "Testing for a Unit Root in a Time Series with a Changing Mean," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 8(2), pages 153-62, April.
  29. Hacker, Scott & Hatemi-J, Abdulnasser, 2010. "The Properties of Procedures Dealing with Uncertainty about Intercept and Deterministic Trend in Unit Root Testing," Working Paper Series in Economics and Institutions of Innovation 214, Royal Institute of Technology, CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies.
  30. Diebold, Francis X & Senhadji, Abdelhak S, 1996. "The Uncertain Unit Root in Real GNP: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(5), pages 1291-98, December.
  31. Nunes, Luis C. & Kuan, Chung-Ming & Newbold, Paul, 1995. "Spurious Break," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(04), pages 736-749, August.
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:erh:journl:v:3:y:2011:i:2:p:22-33. 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: (M. F. Cosar)

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.