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

Testing for Stationarity and Cointegration in an Unobserved Components Framework

  • James Morley
  • Tara M. Sinclair

    ()

    (Economics Washington University)

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

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

Paper provided by Society for Computational Economics in its series Computing in Economics and Finance 2005 with number 451.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 11 Nov 2005
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:sce:scecf5:451
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://comp-econ.org/
Email:


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. Busetti, Fabio & Harvey, Andrew, 2008. "Testing For Trend," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(01), pages 72-87, February.
  2. Perron, P, 1988. "The Great Crash, The Oil Price Shock And The Unit Root Hypothesis," Papers 338, Princeton, Department of Economics - Econometric Research Program.
  3. Robert G. King & Charles I. Plosser & James H. Stock & Mark W. Watson, 1987. "Stochastic Trends and Economic Fluctuations," NBER Working Papers 2229, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  4. 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, 03.
  5. Stuart E. Weiner, 1993. "New estimates of the natural rate of unemployment," Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, issue Q IV, pages 53-69.
  6. Nyblom, Jukka & Harvey, Andrew, 2000. "Tests Of Common Stochastic Trends," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(02), pages 176-199, April.
  7. Clark, Peter K, 1987. "The Cyclical Component of U.S. Economic Activity," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 102(4), pages 797-814, November.
  8. Christoph Schleicher, 2003. "Structural Time-Series Models with Common Trends and Common Cycles," Computing in Economics and Finance 2003 108, Society for Computational Economics.
  9. 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.
  10. Kwiatkowski, D. & Phillips, P.C.B. & Schmidt, P., 1990. "Testing the Null Hypothesis of Stationarity Against the Alternative of Unit Root : How Sure are we that Economic Time Series have a Unit Root?," Papers 8905, Michigan State - Econometrics and Economic Theory.
  11. 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.
  12. Clark, Peter K., 1989. "Trend reversion in real output and unemployment," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 15-32, January.
  13. 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 655-73, September.
  14. 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.
  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. Bruce E. Hansen & Mehmet Caner, 1997. "Threshold Autoregressions with a Unit Root," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 381, Boston College Department of Economics.
  17. Glenn D. Rudebusch, 1990. "Trends and random walks in macroeconomic time series: a re-examination," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 139, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
  18. Harvey, A C, 1985. "Trends and Cycles in Macroeconomic Time Series," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 3(3), pages 216-27, June.
  19. 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, 06.
  20. Rudebusch, Glenn D, 1993. "The Uncertain Unit Root in Real GNP," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(1), pages 264-72, March.
  21. repec:cup:etheor:v:6:y:1990:i:4:p:433-44 is not listed on IDEAS
  22. Granger, C. W. J. & Newbold, P., 1974. "Spurious regressions in econometrics," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(2), pages 111-120, July.
  23. Tanaka, Katsuto, 1990. "Testing for a Moving Average Unit Root," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(04), pages 433-444, December.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
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: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)

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.