IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sce/scecf5/451.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Testing for Stationarity and Cointegration in an Unobserved Components Framework

Author

Listed:
  • James Morley
  • Tara M. Sinclair

    () (Economics Washington University)

Abstract

While tests for unit roots and cointegration have important econometric and economic implications, they do not always offer conclusive results. For example, Rudebusch (1992; 1993) demonstrates that standard unit root tests have low power against estimated trend stationary alternatives. In addition, Perron (1989) shows that standard unit root tests cannot always distinguish unit root from stationary processes that contain segmented or shifted trends. Recent research (Harvey 1993; Engel and Morley 2001; Morley, Nelson et al. 2003; Morley 2004; Sinclair 2004) suggests that unobserved components models can provide a useful framework for representing economic time series which contain unit roots, including those that are cointegrated. These series can be modeled as containing an unobserved permanent component, representing the stochastic trend, and an unobserved transitory component, representing the stationary component of the series. These unobserved components are then estimated using the Kalman filter. The unobserved components framework can also provide a more powerful way to test for unit roots and cointegration than what is currently available (Nyblom and Harvey 2000). This paper develops a new test that nests a partial unobserved components model within a more general unobserved components model. This nesting allows the general and the restricted models to be compared using a likelihood ratio test. The likelihood ratio test statistic has a nonstandard distribution, but Monte Carlo simulation can provide its proper distribution. The simulation uses data generated with the results from the partial unobserved components model as the values for the null hypothesis. Consequently, the null hypothesis for this test is stationarity, which is useful in many cases. In this sense our test is like the well-known KPSS test (Kwiatkowski, Phillips et al. 1992), but our test is a parametric version which provides more power by considering the unobserved components structure in calculation of the test statistic. This more powerful test can be used to evaluate important macroeconomic theories such as the permanent income hypothesis, real business cycle theories, and purchasing power parity for exchange rates

Suggested Citation

  • James Morley & Tara M. Sinclair, 2005. "Testing for Stationarity and Cointegration in an Unobserved Components Framework," Computing in Economics and Finance 2005 451, Society for Computational Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:sce:scecf5:451
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://repec.org/sce2005/up.29728.1107740078.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James C. Morley, 2007. "The Slow Adjustment of Aggregate Consumption to Permanent Income," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 39(2-3), pages 615-638, March.
    2. Blanchard, Olivier Jean & Quah, Danny, 1989. "The Dynamic Effects of Aggregate Demand and Supply Disturbances," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(4), pages 655-673, September.
    3. Nyblom, Jukka & Harvey, Andrew, 2000. "Tests Of Common Stochastic Trends," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(2), pages 176-199, April.
    4. Robert J. Gordon, 1997. "The Time-Varying NAIRU and Its Implications for Economic Policy," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 11(1), pages 11-32, Winter.
    5. Kwiatkowski, Denis & Phillips, Peter C. B. & Schmidt, Peter & Shin, Yongcheol, 1992. "Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root : How sure are we that economic time series have a unit root?," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 54(1-3), pages 159-178.
    6. Grant, Alan P., 2002. "Time-varying estimates of the natural rate of unemployment: a revisitation of Okun's law," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 95-113.
    7. Clark, Peter K., 1989. "Trend reversion in real output and unemployment," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 15-32, January.
    8. 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.
    9. Mehmet Caner & Bruce E. Hansen, 2001. "Threshold Autoregression with a Unit Root," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(6), pages 1555-1596, November.
    10. Rudebusch, Glenn D, 1993. "The Uncertain Unit Root in Real GNP," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(1), pages 264-272, March.
    11. Rudebusch, Glenn D, 1992. "Trends and Random Walks in Macroeconomic Time Series: A Re-examination," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 33(3), pages 661-680, August.
    12. Granger, C. W. J. & Newbold, P., 1974. "Spurious regressions in econometrics," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(2), pages 111-120, July.
    13. King, Robert G. & Plosser, Charles I. & Stock, James H. & Watson, Mark W., 1991. "Stochastic Trends and Economic Fluctuations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(4), pages 819-840, September.
    14. James C. Morley & Charles R. Nelson & Eric Zivot, 2003. "Why Are the Beveridge-Nelson and Unobserved-Components Decompositions of GDP So Different?," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 85(2), pages 235-243, May.
    15. Salemi, Michael K, 1999. "Estimating the Natural Rate of Unemployment and Testing the Natural Rate Hypothesis," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(1), pages 1-25, Jan.-Feb..
    16. Busetti, Fabio & Harvey, Andrew, 2008. "Testing For Trend," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(1), pages 72-87, February.
    17. repec:cup:etheor:v:6:y:1990:i:4:p:433-44 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Christoph Schleicher, 2003. "Structural Time-Series Models with Common Trends and Common Cycles," Computing in Economics and Finance 2003 108, Society for Computational Economics.
    19. Harvey, A C, 1985. "Trends and Cycles in Macroeconomic Time Series," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 3(3), pages 216-227, June.
    20. Peter K. Clark, 1987. "The Cyclical Component of U. S. Economic Activity," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 102(4), pages 797-814.
    21. Ralph W. Bailey & A. M. Robert Taylor, 2002. "An optimal test against a random walk component in a non-orthogonal unobserved components model," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 5(2), pages 520-532, June.
    22. Charles Engel & James Morley, 2000. "The Adjustment of Prices and the Adjustment of the Exchange Rate," Working Papers 0009, University of Washington, Department of Economics.
    23. 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.
    24. Stuart E. Weiner, 1993. "New estimates of the natural rate of unemployment," Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, issue qiv, pages 53-69.
    25. Tanaka, Katsuto, 1990. "Testing for a Moving Average Unit Root," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(4), pages 433-444, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    unobserved components; unit roots; cointegration;

    JEL classification:

    • C32 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Time-Series Models; Dynamic Quantile Regressions; Dynamic Treatment Effect Models; Diffusion Processes; State Space Models

    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:sce:scecf5:451. 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: (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/sceeeea.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.