IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/13489.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Model specification, observational equivalence and performance of unit root tests

Author

Listed:
  • Atiq-ur-Rehman, Atiq-ur-Rehman
  • Zaman, Asad

Abstract

In this paper we highlight the necessity of new criteria for evaluation of performance of unit root tests. We suggest focusing directly on the reasons that create ambiguity in unit root test’s results. Two reasons for unsatisfactory properties of unit root tests can be found in the literature (i) the model misspecification and (ii) observational equivalence. Regarding first reason, there is immense literature on several components of model specification covering specification techniques, consequence of misspecification and robust methods. However complete model specification involves multiple decisions and most of studies on performance of unit root tests do not address issue of multiple specification decisions simultaneously. The Monte Carlo studies are conditional on some of implicit specification and for Monte Carlo; these specifications are by construction valid. But for real data, the implicit decisions are often not true and specification decisions need to be endogenized. A closer match with real case is possible if multiple specification decisions are endogenized, thus providing more reliable measure of performance of unit root tests. Second problem in differentiating trend and difference stationary process is the observational equivalence between two processes. We suggest exploring data generating processes with different long run dynamics and small sample equivalence so that a researcher should have an idea about other plausible models for a data set for which he has estimated some model.

Suggested Citation

  • Atiq-ur-Rehman, Atiq-ur-Rehman & Zaman, Asad, 2008. "Model specification, observational equivalence and performance of unit root tests," MPRA Paper 13489, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:13489
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/13489/1/MPRA_paper_13489.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hacker, Scott & Hatemi-J, Abdulnasser, 2010. "The Properties of Procedures Dealing with Uncertainty about Intercept and Deterministic Trend in Unit Root Testing," Working Paper Series in Economics and Institutions of Innovation 214, Royal Institute of Technology, CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies.
    2. Rudebusch, Glenn D, 1993. "The Uncertain Unit Root in Real GNP," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(1), pages 264-272, March.
    3. 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.
    4. Murray, Christian J. & Nelson, Charles R., 2000. "The uncertain trend in U.S. GDP," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 79-95, August.
    5. Serena Ng & Pierre Perron, 2001. "LAG Length Selection and the Construction of Unit Root Tests with Good Size and Power," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(6), pages 1519-1554, November.
    6. Kilian, Lutz & Ohanian, Lee E., 2002. "Unit Roots, Trend Breaks, And Transitory Dynamics: A Macroeconomic Perspective," Macroeconomic Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(05), pages 614-632, November.
    7. Christiano, Lawrence J, 1992. "Searching for a Break in GNP," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 10(3), pages 237-250, July.
    8. Dickey, David A & Fuller, Wayne A, 1981. "Likelihood Ratio Statistics for Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(4), pages 1057-1072, June.
    9. Giuseppe Cavaliere, 2005. "Unit Root Tests under Time-Varying Variances," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(3), pages 259-292.
    10. Zivot, Eric & Andrews, Donald W K, 2002. "Further Evidence on the Great Crash, the Oil-Price Shock, and the Unit-Root Hypothesis," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 20(1), pages 25-44, January.
    11. Mark W. Watson, 1999. "Explaining the increased variability in long-term interest rates," Economic Quarterly, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, issue Fall, pages 71-96.
    12. Diebold, Francis X & Senhadji, Abdelhak S, 1996. "The Uncertain Unit Root in Real GNP: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(5), pages 1291-1298, December.
    13. Kim, Tae-Hwan & Leybourne, Stephen & Newbold, Paul, 2002. "Unit root tests with a break in innovation variance," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 365-387, August.
    14. Nelson, Charles R. & Plosser, Charles I., 1982. "Trends and random walks in macroeconmic time series : Some evidence and implications," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 139-162.
    15. Nunes, Luis C. & Kuan, Chung-Ming & Newbold, Paul, 1995. "Spurious Break," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(04), pages 736-749, August.
    16. Cati, Regina Celia & Garcia, Marcio G P & Perron, Pierre, 1999. "Unit Roots in the Presence of Abrupt Governmental Interventions with an Application to Brazilian Data," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(1), pages 27-56, Jan.-Feb..
    17. John Elder & Peter E. Kennedy, 2001. "Testing for Unit Roots: What Should Students Be Taught?," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(2), pages 137-146, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Observational equivalence; model specification; trend stationary; difference stationary;

    JEL classification:

    • C15 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Statistical Simulation Methods: General
    • C22 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Time-Series Models; Dynamic Quantile Regressions; Dynamic Treatment Effect Models; Diffusion Processes
    • C01 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - General - - - Econometrics

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:pra:mprapa:13489. 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: (Joachim Winter). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.html .

    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 CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.