A comparison of alternative unit root tests
In this paper we evaluate the performance of three methods for testing the existence of a unit root in a time series, when the models under consideration in the null hypothesis do not display autocorrelation in the error term. In such cases, simple versions of the Dickey-Fuller test should be used as the most appropriate ones instead of the known augmented Dickey-Fuller or Phillips-Perron tests. Through Monte Carlo simulations we show that, apart from a few cases, testing the existence of a unit root we obtain actual type I error and power very close to their nominal levels. Additionally, when the random walk null hypothesis is true, by gradually increasing the sample size, we observe that p-values for the drift in the unrestricted model fluctuate at low levels with small variance and the Durbin-Watson (DW) statistic is approaching 2 in both the unrestricted and restricted models. If, however, the null hypothesis of a random walk is false, taking a larger sample, the DW statistic in the restricted model starts to deviate from 2 while in the unrestricted model it continues to approach 2. It is also shown that the probability not to reject that the errors are uncorrelated, when they are indeed not correlated, is higher when the DW test is applied at 1% nominal level of significance.
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): 32 (2005)
Issue (Month): 1 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/CJAS20|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/CJAS20|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:japsta:v:32:y:2005:i:1:p:45-60. 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: (Michael McNulty)
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.