IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/19963.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Impact of Model Specification Decisions on Unit Root Tests

Author

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

Abstract

Performance of unit tests depends on several specification decisions prior to their application e.g., whether or not to include a deterministic trend. Since there is no standard procedure for making such decisions, therefore the practitioners routinely make several arbitrary specification decisions. In Monte Carlo studies, the design of DGP supports these decisions, but for real data, such specification decisions are often unjustifiable and sometimes incompatible with data. We argue that the problems posed by choice of initial specification are quite complex and the existing voluminous literature on this issue treats only certain superficial aspects of this choice. We also show how these initial specifications affect the performance of unit root tests and argue that Monte Carlo studies should include these preliminary decisions to arrive at a better yardstick for evaluating such tests.

Suggested Citation

  • Atiq-ur-Rehman, Atiq-ur-Rehman & Zaman, Asad, 2009. "Impact of Model Specification Decisions on Unit Root Tests," MPRA Paper 19963, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:19963
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/19963/1/MPRA_paper_19963.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    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. Atiq-ur-Rehman, 2011. "Impact of Model Specification Decisions on Unit Root Tests," International Econometric Review (IER), Econometric Research Association, vol. 3(2), pages 22-33, September.
    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. 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.
    6. Gilberto Libanio, 2005. "Unit roots in macroeconomic time series: theory, implications, and evidence," Nova Economia, Economics Department, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (Brazil), vol. 15(3), pages 145-176, September.
    7. Elena Andreou & Aris Spanos, 2003. "Statistical Adequacy and the Testing of Trend Versus Difference Stationarity," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(3), pages 217-237, January.
    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. 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.
    10. Perron, Pierre, 1988. "Trends and random walks in macroeconomic time series : Further evidence from a new approach," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 12(2-3), pages 297-332.
    11. Ayat, Leila & Burridge, Peter, 2000. "Unit root tests in the presence of uncertainty about the non-stochastic trend," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 71-96, March.
    12. Giuseppe Cavaliere, 2005. "Unit Root Tests under Time-Varying Variances," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(3), pages 259-292.
    13. Engle, R. F. & Granger, C. W. J. (ed.), 1991. "Long-Run Economic Relationships: Readings in Cointegration," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198283393.
    14. Perron, Pierre, 1989. "The Great Crash, the Oil Price Shock, and the Unit Root Hypothesis," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(6), pages 1361-1401, November.
    15. Perron, Pierre & Rodriguez, Gabriel, 2003. "GLS detrending, efficient unit root tests and structural change," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 1-27, July.
    16. James G. MacKinnon, 1990. "Critical Values for Cointegration Tests," Working Papers 1227, Queen's University, Department of Economics.
    17. Rudebusch, Glenn D, 1993. "The Uncertain Unit Root in Real GNP," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(1), pages 264-272, March.
    18. Banerjee, Anindya & Lumsdaine, Robin L & Stock, James H, 1992. "Recursive and Sequential Tests of the Unit-Root and Trend-Break Hypotheses: Theory and International Evidence," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 10(3), pages 271-287, July.
    19. Pagan, Adrian R. & Schwert, G. William, 1990. "Testing for covariance stationarity in stock market data," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 165-170, June.
    20. 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..
    21. Nelson, Charles R & Kang, Heejoon, 1984. "Pitfalls in the Use of Time as an Explanatory Variable in Regression," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 2(1), pages 73-82, January.
    22. 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.
    23. 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.
    24. 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.
    25. Perron, Pierre & Rodriguez, Gabriel, 2003. "GLS detrending, efficient unit root tests and structural change," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 1-27, July.
    26. 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.
    27. David H Papell & Ruxandra Prodan, 2007. "Restricted Structural Change And The Unit Root Hypothesis," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 45(4), pages 834-853, October.
    28. Perron, Pierre, 1990. "Testing for a Unit Root in a Time Series with a Changing Mean," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 8(2), pages 153-162, April.
    29. 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.
    30. 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.
    31. Nunes, Luis C. & Kuan, Chung-Ming & Newbold, Paul, 1995. "Spurious Break," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(04), pages 736-749, August.
    32. 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)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Asad Zaman, 2012. "Methodological Mistakes and Econometric Consequences," International Econometric Review (IER), Econometric Research Association, vol. 4(2), pages 99-122, September.
    2. Muhammad Irfan Malik & Atiq-ur-Rehman, 2015. "Choice of Spectral Density Estimator in Ng-Perron Test: A Comparative Analysis," International Econometric Review (IER), Econometric Research Association, vol. 7(2), pages 51-63, September.
    3. Atiq-ur-Rehman, 2011. "Impact of Model Specification Decisions on Unit Root Tests," International Econometric Review (IER), Econometric Research Association, vol. 3(2), pages 22-33, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    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:19963. 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.