IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-00797521.html

Are Unit Root Tests Useful in the Debate over the (Non) Stationarity of Hours Worked?

Author

Listed:
  • Amélie Charles

    (Audencia Business School)

  • Olivier Darné

    (LEMNA - Laboratoire d'économie et de management de Nantes Atlantique - IEMN-IAE Nantes - Institut d'Économie et de Management de Nantes - Institut d'Administration des Entreprises - Nantes - UN - Université de Nantes)

  • Fabien Tripier

    (CLERSÉ - Centre Lillois d’Études et de Recherches Sociologiques et Économiques - UMR 8019 - Université de Lille - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, CEPII - Centre d'Etudes Prospectives et d'Informations Internationales - Centre d'analyse stratégique)

Abstract

This article compares the performances of some non-stationarity tests on simulated series, using the business-cycle model of Chang et al. (2007) [Y. Chang, T. Doh, F. Schorfheide, (2007). Non-stationary Hours in a DSGE Model. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 39, 357-1373] as data generating process. Overall, Monte Carlo simulations show that the efficient unit root tests of Ng and Perron (2001) [Ng, S., Perron, P. (2001). Lag length selection and the construction of unit root tests with good size and power. Econometrica 69, 1519-1554] are more powerful than the standard non-stationarity tests (ADF and KPSS). More precisely, these efficient tests are able to reject frequently the unit-root hypothesis on simulated series using the best specification of business-cycle model found by Chang et al. (2007), in which hours worked are stationary with adjustment costs.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Amélie Charles & Olivier Darné & Fabien Tripier, 2011. "Are Unit Root Tests Useful in the Debate over the (Non) Stationarity of Hours Worked?," Post-Print hal-00797521, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-00797521
    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

    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:hal:journl:hal-00797521. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.