What would Nelson and Plosser find had they used panel unit root tests?
In this study, we systemically apply nine recent panel unit root tests to the same fourteen macroeconomic and financial series as those considered in the seminal paper by Nelson and Plosser (1982). The data cover OECD countries from 1950 to 2003. Our results clearly point out the difficulty that applied econometricians would face when they want to get a simple and clear-cut diagnosis with panel unit root tests. We confirm the fact that panel methods must be very carefully used for testing unit roots in macroeconomic or financial panels. More precisely, we find mitigated results under the cross-sectional independence assumption, since the unit root hypothesis is rejected for many macroeconomic variables. When international cross-correlations are taken into account, conclusions depend on the specification of these cross-sectional dependencies. Two groups of tests can be distinguished. The first group tests are based on a dynamic factor structure or an error component model. In this case, the non stationarity of common factors (international business cycles or growth trends) is not rejected, but the results are less clear with respect to idiosyncratic components. The second group tests are based on more general specifications. Their results are globally more favourable to the unit root assumption.
|Date of creation:||22 Jun 2007|
|Note:||View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00156685|
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:halshs-00156685. 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: (CCSD)
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.