Statistical Adequacy and the Testing of Trend Versus Difference Stationarity
The debate on whether macroeconomic series are trend or difference stationary, initiated by Nelson and Plosser [Nelson, C. R.; Plosser, C. I. (1982). Trends and random walks in macroeconomic time series: some evidence and implications. Journal of Monetary Economics 10:139-162] remains unresolved. The main objective of the paper is to contribute toward a resolution of this issue by bringing into the discussion the problem of statistical adequacy . The paper revisits the empirical results of Nelson and Plosser [Nelson, C. R.; Plosser, C. I. (1982). Trends and random walks in macroeconomic time series: some evidence and implications. Journal of Monetary Economics 10:139-162] and Perron [Perron, P. (1989). The great crash, the oil price shock, and the unit root hypothesis. Econometrica 57:1361-1401] and shows that several of their estimated models are misspecified. Respecification with a view to ensuring statistical adequacy gives rise to heteroskedastic AR( k) models for some of the price series. Based on estimated models which are statistically adequate, the main conclusion of the paper is that the majority of the data series are trend stationary.
Volume (Year): 22 (2003)
Issue (Month): 3 (January)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/LECR20|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/LECR20|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:emetrv:v:22:y:2003:i:3:p:217-237. 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: ()
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.