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|
|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|
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.:
- John Y. Campbell & Pierre Perron, 1991.
"Pitfalls and Opportunities: What Macroeconomists Should Know About Unit Roots,"
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.
- Campbell, J.Y. & Perron, P., 1991. "Pitfalls and Opportunities: What Macroeconomics should know about unit roots," Papers 360, Princeton, Department of Economics - Econometric Research Program.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 333-364, Oct.-Dec..
- Schwert, G William, 2002.
"Tests for Unit Roots: A Monte Carlo Investigation,"
Journal of Business & Economic Statistics,
American Statistical Association, vol. 20(1), pages 5-17, January.
- 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: (Franz Osorio)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.