IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwpem/0311008.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Behaviour of Dickey-Fuller Unit Root Tests Under Trend Misspecification

Author

Listed:
  • Steve Leybourne

    (Nottingham)

  • Tae-Hwan Kim

    (Nottingham)

  • Paul Newbold

    (Nottingham)

Abstract

We analyse the case where a unit root test is based on a Dickey-Fuller regression whose only deterministic term is a fixed intercept. Suppose, however, as could well be the case, that the actual data generating process includes a broken linear trend. It is shown theoretically, and verified empirically, that under the I(1) null and I(0) alternative hypotheses the Dickey-Fuller test can display a wide range of different characteristics depending on the nature and location of the break.

Suggested Citation

  • Steve Leybourne & Tae-Hwan Kim & Paul Newbold, 2003. "Behaviour of Dickey-Fuller Unit Root Tests Under Trend Misspecification," Econometrics 0311008, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpem:0311008
    Note: Type of Document -
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de/econ-wp/em/papers/0311/0311008.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Elliott, Graham & Rothenberg, Thomas J & Stock, James H, 1996. "Efficient Tests for an Autoregressive Unit Root," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 64(4), pages 813-836, July.
    3. Vogelsang, Timothy J & Perron, Pierre, 1998. "Additional Tests for a Unit Root Allowing for a Break in the Trend Function at an Unknown Time," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 39(4), pages 1073-1100, November.
    4. Pantula, Sastry G & Gonzalez-Farias, Graciela & Fuller, Wayne A, 1994. "A Comparison of Unit-Root Test Criteria," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 12(4), pages 449-459, October.
    5. West, Kenneth D., 1987. "A note on the power of least squares tests for a unit root," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 249-252.
    6. Leybourne, Stephen J. & Newbold, Paul, 2000. "BEHAVIOR OF DICKEY–FULLER t-TESTS WHEN THERE IS A BREAK UNDER THE ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(5), pages 779-789, October.
    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. Ventosa-Santaularària, Daniel & Gómez, Manuel, 2006. "Inflation and Breaks: the validity of the Dickey-Fuller test," MPRA Paper 58773, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Dagum, Estela Bee & Giannerini, Simone, 2006. "A critical investigation on detrending procedures for non-linear processes," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 175-191, March.
    3. Geetilaxmi MOHAPATRA & A. K. GIRI & Madhu SEHRAWAT, 2016. "Foreign aid, macroeconomic policies and economic growth nexus in India: An ARDL bounds testing approach," Theoretical and Applied Economics, Asociatia Generala a Economistilor din Romania - AGER, vol. 0(4(609), W), pages 183-202, Winter.
    4. Tursoy, Turgut & Faisal, Faisal, 2018. "The impact of gold and crude oil prices on stock market in Turkey: Empirical evidences from ARDL bounds test and combined cointegration," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 49-54.
    5. Madhu Sehrawat & A.K. Giri, 2018. "Globalization, role of institutions and economic performance in Indian economy," Journal of Financial Economic Policy, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 11(1), pages 82-100, October.
    6. Muhammad Shahbaz & Faridul Islam, 2011. "Financial Development And Income Inequality In Pakistan: An Application Of Ardl Approach," Journal of Economic Development, Chung-Ang Unviersity, Department of Economics, vol. 36(1), pages 35-58, March.
    7. Juan Carlos Cuestas & Luis A. Gil-Alana & María Malmierca, 2022. "Credit-to-GDP ratios – non-linear trends and persistence: evidence from 44 OECD economies," Journal of Economic Studies, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 50(3), pages 448-463, March.
    8. Jürgen Wolters & Uwe Hassler, 2006. "Unit Root Testing," Springer Books, in: Olaf Hübler & Jachim Frohn (ed.), Modern Econometric Analysis, chapter 4, pages 41-56, Springer.
    9. Geetilaxmi MOHAPATRA & A. K. GIRI & Madhu SEHRAWAT, 2016. "Foreign aid, macroeconomic policies and economic growth nexus in India: An ARDL bounds testing approach," Theoretical and Applied Economics, Asociatia Generala a Economistilor din Romania - AGER, vol. 0(4(609), W), pages 183-202, Winter.
    10. Choi, Yongok & Jacewitz, Stefan & Park, Joon Y., 2016. "A reexamination of stock return predictability," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 192(1), pages 168-189.
    11. Ventosa-Santaulária, Daniel & Gómez-Zaldívar, Manuel, 2009. "Broken mean stationarity and the validity of the Dickey-Fuller test: the case of controlled inflation," Brazilian Review of Econometrics, Sociedade Brasileira de Econometria - SBE, vol. 29(1), May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Scott E. Harrington & Tong Yu, 2003. "Do Property‐Casualty Insurance Underwriting Margins Have Unit Roots?," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 70(4), pages 715-733, December.
    2. Jürgen Wolters & Uwe Hassler, 2006. "Unit Root Testing," Springer Books, in: Olaf Hübler & Jachim Frohn (ed.), Modern Econometric Analysis, chapter 4, pages 41-56, Springer.
    3. Papell, David H. & Prodan, Ruxandra, 2006. "Additional Evidence of Long-Run Purchasing Power Parity with Restricted Structural Change," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 38(5), pages 1329-1349, August.
    4. Vicente Esteve & Manuel Navarro-Ibáñez & María A. Prats, 2013. "The present value model of US stock prices revisited: long-run evidence with structural breaks, 1871-2010," Working Papers 04/13, Instituto Universitario de Análisis Económico y Social.
    5. László KÓNYA, 2023. "Per Capita Income Convergence and Divergence of Selected OECD Countries to and from the US: A Reappraisal for the period 1900-2018," Applied Econometrics and International Development, Euro-American Association of Economic Development, vol. 23(1), pages 33-56.
    6. Marcus Box & Karl Gratzer & Xiang Lin, 2020. "Destructive entrepreneurship in the small business sector: bankruptcy fraud in Sweden, 1830–2010," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 437-457, February.
    7. Cavaliere, Giuseppe & Harvey, David I. & Leybourne, Stephen J. & Taylor, A.M. Robert, 2011. "Testing For Unit Roots In The Presence Of A Possible Break In Trend And Nonstationary Volatility," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(5), pages 957-991, October.
    8. Jang, Myoung Jin & Shin, Dong Wan, 2005. "Comparison of panel unit root tests under cross sectional dependence," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 89(1), pages 12-17, October.
    9. Dakpogan, Arnaud & Smit, Eon, 2018. "The effect of electricity losses on GDP in Benin," MPRA Paper 89545, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Acaravici, Ali, 2010. "Structural Breaks, Electricity Consumption and Economic Growth: Evidence from Turkey," Journal for Economic Forecasting, Institute for Economic Forecasting, vol. 0(2), pages 140-154, July.
    11. Kai Carstensen, 2003. "The finite-sample performance of robust unit root tests," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 469-482, October.
    12. Raslan Alzubi & Mustafa Caglayan & Kostas Mouratidis, 2017. "The Risk-Taking Channel in the US: A GVAR Approach," Working Papers 2017009, The University of Sheffield, Department of Economics.
    13. Barros, Geraldo Sant’Ana de Camargo & Carrara, Aniela Fagundes & Castro, Nicole Rennó & Silva, Adriana Ferreira, 2022. "Agriculture and inflation: Expected and unexpected shocks," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 178-188.
    14. Marriott, John & Newbold, Paul, 2000. "The strength of evidence for unit autoregressive roots and structural breaks: A Bayesian perspective," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 1-25, September.
    15. Kristin J. Forbes & Menzie D. Chinn, 2004. "A Decomposition of Global Linkages in Financial Markets Over Time," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 86(3), pages 705-722, August.
    16. Bianco, Dominique & Salies, Evens, 2009. "Productivité et R&D au Luxembourg [Productivity and R&D in Luxembourg]," MPRA Paper 21170, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. 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.
    18. Lai, Kon S., 2004. "On structural shifts and stationarity of the ex ante real interest rate," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 217-228.
    19. Valadkhani, Abbas & Smyth, Russell, 2015. "Switching and asymmetric behaviour of the Okun coefficient in the US: Evidence for the 1948–2015 period," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 281-290.
    20. Westerlund, Joakim, 2015. "The effect of recursive detrending on panel unit root tests," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 185(2), pages 453-467.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C1 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General
    • C2 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables
    • C3 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables
    • C4 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics
    • C5 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling
    • C8 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs

    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:wpa:wuwpem:0311008. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: EconWPA (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.