IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Performance of unit root tests in unbalanced panels: experimental evidence


  • Verena Werkmann



This paper is about the validity of established panel unit root tests applied to panels in which the individual time series are of different lengths, a case often encountered in practice. Most of the tests considered work well under various types of cross-correlation which is true for both, their application in balanced as well as in unbalanced panels. A Monte Carlo study reveals that in unbalanced panels, procedures involving the computation of individual $$p$$ -values for each cross-section unit (or the combination thereof) are mostly superior to those relying on a pooled Dickey–Fuller regression framework. As the former are able to consider each unit separately, they do not require cutting back the “longer” time series so as to obtain the smallest “balanced” quadrangle which in turn means that no potentially valuable information is lost. Copyright Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Suggested Citation

  • Verena Werkmann, 2013. "Performance of unit root tests in unbalanced panels: experimental evidence," AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis, Springer;German Statistical Society, vol. 97(3), pages 271-285, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:alstar:v:97:y:2013:i:3:p:271-285 DOI: 10.1007/s10182-012-0203-8

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Matei Demetrescu & Uwe Hassler & Adina-Ioana Tarcolea, 2006. "Combining Significance of Correlated Statistics with Application to Panel Data," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 68(5), pages 647-663, October.
    2. Moon, H.R.Hyungsik Roger & Perron, Benoit, 2004. "Testing for a unit root in panels with dynamic factors," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 122(1), pages 81-126, September.
    3. Moon, H.R. & Perron, B., 2012. "Beyond panel unit root tests: Using multiple testing to determine the nonstationarity properties of individual series in a panel," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 29-33.
    4. M. Hashem Pesaran, 2007. "A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(2), pages 265-312.
    5. Jörg Breitung & Samarjit Das, 2005. "Panel unit root tests under cross-sectional dependence," Statistica Neerlandica, Netherlands Society for Statistics and Operations Research, vol. 59(4), pages 414-433.
    6. Christoph Hanck, 2013. "An Intersection Test for Panel Unit Roots," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(2), pages 183-203, February.
    7. Jushan Bai & Serena Ng, 2004. "A PANIC Attack on Unit Roots and Cointegration," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(4), pages 1127-1177, July.
    8. Im, Kyung So & Pesaran, M. Hashem & Shin, Yongcheol, 2003. "Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 53-74, July.
    9. Maddala, G S & Wu, Shaowen, 1999. " A Comparative Study of Unit Root Tests with Panel Data and a New Simple Test," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 61(0), pages 631-652, Special I.
    10. Peter C. B. Phillips & Donggyu Sul, 2003. "Dynamic panel estimation and homogeneity testing under cross section dependence *," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 6(1), pages 217-259, June.
    11. MacKinnon, James G, 1996. "Numerical Distribution Functions for Unit Root and Cointegration Tests," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(6), pages 601-618, Nov.-Dec..
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Christoph Hanck & Robert Czudaj, 2015. "Nonstationary-volatility robust panel unit root tests and the great moderation," AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis, Springer;German Statistical Society, vol. 99(2), pages 161-187, April.
    2. Hassler Uwe & Werkmann Verena, 2014. "Multiple Comparisons and Joint Significance in Panel Unit Root Testing with Evidence on International Interest Rate Linkage," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 234(1), pages 23-43, February.


    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:spr:alstar:v:97:y:2013:i:3:p:271-285. 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: (Sonal Shukla) or (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: .

    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 CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.