IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fip/fedhma/90-2.html

Unit roots in real GNP: do we know, and do we care?

Author

Abstract

No, and maybe not. [additional text from author's introduction] To us, the possibility of providing a compelling case that real GMP is either trend or difference stationary seems extremely small, certainly on the basis of post-war data. This is because there is only one difference between these two types of processes and that difference is completely summarized by the answer to the question. How much should an innovation to real GMP affect the optimal forecast of real GMP into the infinite future? If the answer is zero, then real GMP is trend stationary. If the answer is not zero, then real GMP is difference stationary. The competing hypotheses have no other testable differences. Once we pose the question in this way, it seems clear that economists ought to be extremely skeptical of any argument that purports to support one view or the other. Simply put, it's hard to believe that a mere 40 years of data contain any evidence on the only experiment that is relevant.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Lawrence J. Christiano & Martin S. 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:fip:fedhma:90-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a
    for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    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:fip:fedhma:90-2. 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: Lauren Wiese (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/frbchus.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.