Near observational equivalence and unit root processes: formal concepts and implications
A number of recent papers have discussed the fact that difference stationary and trend stationary processes are nearly observationally equivalent. The meaning of this fact, however, remains clouded. This paper defines near observational equivalence and derives several implications of the notion for classical and Bayesian unit root inference. For example, unless restrictions are imposed on the general difference and trend stationary models, the exact size of any consistent unit root test rises to one with sample size. Bayesian posteriors regarding unit roots are arbitrary in the sense that given any prior, there are other priors that agree with the first regarding empirical outcomes, but that imply arbitrarily different unit root posteriors.
|Date of creation:||1993|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: 20th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20551|
Web page: http://www.federalreserve.gov/
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/ifdp/order.htm|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Schwert, G William, 1989.
"Tests for Unit Roots: A Monte Carlo Investigation,"
Journal of Business & Economic Statistics,
American Statistical Association, vol. 7(2), pages 147-59, April.
- Christiano, Lawrence J. & Eichenbaum, Martin, 1990.
"Unit roots in real GNP: Do we know, and do we care?,"
Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy,
Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 7-61, January.
- Lawrence J. Christiano & Martin Eichenbaum, 1989. "Unit roots in real GNP: do we know, and do we care?," Discussion Paper / Institute for Empirical Macroeconomics 18, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
- Lawrence J. Christiano & Martin Eichenbaum, 1989. "Unit Roots in Real GNP: Do We Know, and Do We Care?," NBER Working Papers 3130, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Lawrence J. Christiano & Martin Eichenbaum, 1990. "Unit roots in real GNP: do we know, and do we care?," Working Paper Series, Macroeconomic Issues 90-2, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
- Phillips, P C B, 1991.
"To Criticize the Critics: An Objective Bayesian Analysis of Stochastic Trends,"
Journal of Applied Econometrics,
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(4), pages 333-64, Oct.-Dec..
- Peter C.B. Phillips, 1990. "To Criticize the Critics: An Objective Bayesian Analysis of Stochastic Trends," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 950, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
- Campbell, J.Y. & Perron, P., 1991.
"Pitfalls and Opportunities: What Macroeconomics should know about unit roots,"
360, Princeton, Department of Economics - Econometric Research Program.
- John Y. Campbell & Pierre Perron, 1991. "Pitfalls and Opportunities: What Macroeconomists Should Know About Unit Roots," NBER Chapters, in: NBER Macroeconomics Annual 1991, Volume 6, pages 141-220 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- John Y. Campbell & Pierre Perron, 1991. "Pitfalls and Opportunities: What Macroeconomists Should Know About Unit Roots," NBER Technical Working Papers 0100, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Campbell, John & Perron, Pierre, 1991. "Pitfalls and Opportunities: What Macroeconomists Should Know about Unit Roots," Scholarly Articles 3374863, Harvard University Department of Economics.
- Cochrane, John H., 1991. "A critique of the application of unit root tests," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 275-284, April.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fip:fedgif:447. 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: (Marlene Vikor)
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.