IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Evaluation of Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium Models Based on Distributional Comparison of Simulated and Historical Data

  • Valentina Corradi

    ()

    (Queen Mary, University of London)

  • Norman R. Swanson

    ()

    (Rutgers University)

We take as a starting point the existence of a joint distribution implied by different dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) models, all of which are potentially misspecified. Our objective is to compare "true" joint distributions with ones generated by given DSGEs. This is accomplished via the construction of a new tool for comparing the empirical joint distribution of historical time series with the empirical distribution of simulated time series. The tool draws on recent advances in the theory of the bootstrap, Kolmogorov type testing, and other work on the evaluation of DSGEs, aimed at comparing the second order properties of historical and simulated time series. We begin by fixing a given model as the "benchmark" model, against which all "alternative" models are to be compared. Our comparison is done using a distributional generalization of White's (2000) reality check. In particular, we test whether at least one of the alternative models provides a more "accurate" approximation to the true cumulative distribution than does the benchmark model. Accuracy is measured in terms of distributional square error. As the data are simulated using estimated parameters (as well as previously calibrated parameters), the limiting distribution of the test statistic is a Gaussian process with a covariance kernel that reflects the contribution of parameter estimation error. Thus, the limiting distribution is not nuisance parameter free, and critical values cannot be tabulated. In order to address this issue, we show the validity of two versions of the block bootstrap in our context. An illustrative example is also given, in which the testing approach is applied to a real business cycle model. It is shown that alternative versions of the model in which calibrated parameters are allowed to vary slightly perform equally well. On the other hand, there are stark differences between models when the shocks driving the models are assigned non-plausible variances and/or distributional assumptions.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: ftp://snde.rutgers.edu/Rutgers/wp/2003-20.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Rutgers University, Department of Economics in its series Departmental Working Papers with number 200320.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 27 Oct 2003
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:rut:rutres:200320
Contact details of provider: Postal: New Jersey Hall - 75 Hamilton Street, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1248
Phone: (732) 932-7482
Fax: (732) 932-7416
Web page: http://snde.rutgers.edu/Rutgers/wp/rutgers-wplist.html

More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Donald W.K. Andrews, 1999. "Higher-Order Improvements of a Computationally Attractive-Step Bootstrap for Extremum Estimators," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1230R, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University, revised Jan 2001.
  2. Francis X. Diebold & Lee E. Ohanian & Jeremy Berkowitz, 1997. "Dynamic equilibrium economies: a framework for comparing models and data," Working Papers 97-7, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.
  3. Goncalves, Silvia & White, Halbert, 2004. "Maximum likelihood and the bootstrap for nonlinear dynamic models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 119(1), pages 199-219, March.
  4. Halbert White, 2000. "A Reality Check for Data Snooping," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(5), pages 1097-1126, September.
  5. Atsushi Inoue & Mototsugu Shintani, 2001. "Bootstrapping GMM Estimators for Time Series," Vanderbilt University Department of Economics Working Papers 0129, Vanderbilt University Department of Economics, revised Aug 2003.
  6. Donald W. K. Andrews, 1997. "A Conditional Kolmogorov Test," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 65(5), pages 1097-1128, September.
  7. Francis X. Diebold & Robert S. Mariano, 1994. "Comparing Predictive Accuracy," NBER Technical Working Papers 0169, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  8. Danielsson, J & Richard, J-F, 1993. "Accelerated Gaussian Importance Sampler with Application to Dynamic Latent Variable Models," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(S), pages S153-73, Suppl. De.
  9. Duffie, Darrell & Singleton, Kenneth J, 1993. "Simulated Moments Estimation of Markov Models of Asset Prices," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 61(4), pages 929-52, July.
  10. DeJong, David N. & Ingram, Beth F. & Whiteman, Charles H., 2000. "A Bayesian approach to dynamic macroeconomics," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 98(2), pages 203-223, October.
  11. Hall, Peter & Horowitz, Joel L, 1996. "Bootstrap Critical Values for Tests Based on Generalized-Method-of-Moments Estimators," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 64(4), pages 891-916, July.
  12. Bierens, Herman J., 2007. "Econometric analysis of linearized singular dynamic stochastic general equilibrium models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 136(2), pages 595-627, February.
  13. Corradi, Valentina & Swanson, Norman R., 2007. "Evaluation of dynamic stochastic general equilibrium models based on distributional comparison of simulated and historical data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 136(2), pages 699-723, February.
  14. Long, John B, Jr & Plosser, Charles I, 1983. "Real Business Cycles," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 91(1), pages 39-69, February.
  15. Hansen, Peter Reinhard, 2005. "A Test for Superior Predictive Ability," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 23, pages 365-380, October.
  16. King, Robert G. & Plosser, Charles I. & Rebelo, Sergio T., 1988. "Production, growth and business cycles : II. New directions," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2-3), pages 309-341.
  17. Chang, Yongsung & Gomes, Joao F & Schorfheide, Frank, 2002. "Learning by Doing as a Propagation Mechanism," CEPR Discussion Papers 3599, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  18. Kydland, Finn E & Prescott, Edward C, 1982. "Time to Build and Aggregate Fluctuations," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(6), pages 1345-70, November.
  19. Valentina Corradi & Norman R. Swanson, 2003. "A Test for Comparing Multiple Misspecified Conditional Distributions," Departmental Working Papers 200314, Rutgers University, Department of Economics.
  20. Vuong, Quang H, 1989. "Likelihood Ratio Tests for Model Selection and Non-nested Hypotheses," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(2), pages 307-33, March.
  21. King, Robert G. & Plosser, Charles I. & Rebelo, Sergio T., 1988. "Production, growth and business cycles : I. The basic neoclassical model," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2-3), pages 195-232.
  22. Bierens, Herman J. & Swanson, Norman R., 2000. "The econometric consequences of the ceteris paribus condition in economic theory," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 95(2), pages 223-253, April.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rut:rutres:200320. 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: ()

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.