IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cea/doctra/e2003_23.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

On Tests for Double Differencing: Some Extensions and the Role of Initial Values

Author

Abstract

In this paper we investigate the impact which starting values have upon the double differencing tests of Hasza and Fuller (1979, An. Stats.) and Sen and Dickey (1987, Jn.Bus.Ec.Stats.). We demonstrate that when bases on data which has been de-meaned, these tests are not exact similar to the starting values of the process, except when they are fixed and equal. We show that such tests can also fail to be asymptotically pivotal. We demonstrate that OLS test based on data which has been de-trended, yield exact similar inference correcting a further mistake which appears in the literature. We extend the SSLS-based tests in a similar direction and show that here one obtains exact similar tests only if direct de-trending is used. We highlight another error which appears in the literature, demonstrating that the two de-meaned OLS-based tests do not coincide, even asymptotically, and the same holds for the OLS- and SSLS-based tests for detrended data. We use Monte Carlo methods to quantify the finite sample dependence of these tests on the starting values.

Suggested Citation

  • Paulo M. M. Rodrigues & A. M. Robert Taylor, 2003. "On Tests for Double Differencing: Some Extensions and the Role of Initial Values," Economic Working Papers at Centro de Estudios Andaluces E2003/23, Centro de Estudios Andaluces.
    • Handle: RePEc:cea:doctra:e2003_23
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://public.centrodeestudiosandaluces.es/pdfs/E200323.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Unit roots tests.;

    JEL classification:

    • C15 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Statistical Simulation Methods: General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    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:cea:doctra:e2003_23. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Susana Mérida (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fcanges.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.