The Case for Trend-Stationarity Is Stronger Than We Thought
In DeJong and Whiteman (1991a), the authors concluded that 11 of the 14 macroeconomic time-series originally studied by Nelson and Plosser (1982) supported trend-stationarity. Phillips (1991) criticizes this inference, claiming that their procedure is biased against integration, and that their results are sensitive to model and prior specification. However, Phillips' alternative models and priors bias his results in favor of integration; despite these biases, Phillips' own findings indicate that the data provide the greatest relative support to trend-stationarity. This result is similar to their own (1989, 1990, 1991b) findings concerning the sensitivity of their results; the trend-stationarity inference is remarkably robust. Copyright 1991 by John Wiley & Sons, 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.
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.
Volume (Year): 6 (1991)
Issue (Month): 4 (Oct.-Dec.)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.interscience.wiley.com/jpages/0883-7252/|
|Order Information:|| Web: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/jcatalog/subscribe.jsp?issn=0883-7252 Email: |
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:jae:japmet:v:6:y:1991:i:4:p:413-21. 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.