IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Panel Unit Roots Tests for Cross-Sectionally Correlated Panels: A Monte Carlo Comparison

Listed author(s):
  • Luciano Gutierrez

This paper deals with the finite sample performance of a set of unit root tests for cross correlated panels. As is well known, univariate tests are not powerful to reject the null of a unit root for the usual economic variables while panel tests, by exploiting the large number of cross-section units, provide a device to increase the power of unit root tests. We investigate the finite sample properties of recently proposed panel unit root tests for cross-sectionally correlated panels. Specifically, the size and power of Choi’s (2002), Bai and Ng’s (2003), Moon and Perron’s (2003), and Phillips and Sul’s (2003) tests are analyzed by a Monte Carlo simulation study. In synthesis, Moon and Perron’s (2003) tests show good size and power for different values of T and N and model specifications. Focusing on Bai and Ng’s (2003) procedure, the simulation study highlights first that the suggested ADF test for the nonstationary analysis of the common factor lack of power, and secondly the simulation shows that the pooled Dickey-Fuller-GLS test provides higher power than the pooled ADF test for the analysis of nonstationary properties of the idiosyncratic components. Choi’s (2002) tests are strongly oversized when the common factor influences the cross-section units heterogeneously. Finally, all the tests lack power when a deterministic trend is included in the data generating process.

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:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by EconWPA in its series Econometrics with number 0310004.

in new window

Date of creation: 23 Oct 2003
Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpem:0310004
Note: Type of Document - pdf; prepared on winme; to print on hp;
Contact details of provider: Web page:

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.:

in new window

  1. Jushan Bai & Serena Ng, 2002. "Determining the Number of Factors in Approximate Factor Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(1), pages 191-221, January.
  2. Moon, H.R.Hyungsik Roger & Perron, Benoit, 2004. "Testing for a unit root in panels with dynamic factors," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 122(1), pages 81-126, September.
  3. Backus, David K & Kehoe, Patrick J, 1992. "International Evidence of the Historical Properties of Business Cycles," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(4), pages 864-888, September.
  4. 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.
  5. Maddala, G S & Wu, Shaowen, 1999. " A Comparative Study of Unit Root Tests with Panel Data and a New Simple Test," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 61(0), pages 631-652, Special I.
  6. Choi, In, 2001. "Unit root tests for panel data," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 249-272, 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:wpa:wuwpem:0310004. 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: (EconWPA)

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.