Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-7drxs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T21:21:04.175Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ROBUST TESTS OF THE UNIT ROOT HYPOTHESIS SHOULD NOT BE “MODIFIED”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2004

Samuel B. Thompson
Samuel B. Thompson
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The rank-based unit root tests proposed by Hasan and Koenker (1997, Econometrica 65, 133–161) have power equal to size for normal innovations. Unit root tests based on M-estimators exhibit the same behavior. The problem occurs because the test statistics are transformed to obtain computationally convenient critical values. I describe a convenient way to compute critical values without transforming the test statistics. The resulting tests are almost as powerful as least squares–based tests for normal errors and much more powerful for thicker tailed distributions.I thank Thomas Rothenberg for many useful comments. This paper is based on my dissertation, which he supervised. I also thank Jack Porter, Jim Powell, Richard Stanton, and Jim Stock for good advice. Comments of Bruce Hansen, the editor, and two anonymous referees improved the exposition.

Type
Research Article
Information
Econometric Theory , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , April 2004 , pp. 360 - 381
Copyright
© 2004 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Chan, N.H. & C.Z. Wei (1987) Asymptotic inference for nearly nonstationary Ar(1) processes. Annals of Statistics 15, 1050–1063.Google Scholar
Chernoff, H. & R. Savage (1958) Asymptotic normality and efficiency of certain nonparametric test statistics. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 29, 972–994.Google Scholar
Cox, D.D. & I. Llatas (1991) Maximum likelihood type estimation for nearly nonstationary autoregressive time series. Annals of Statistics 19, 1109–1128.Google Scholar
Dickey, D. & W. Fuller (1979) Distribution of estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Journal of the American Statistical Association 74, 427–431.Google Scholar
Elliott, G., T. Rothenberg, & J.H. Stock (1996) Efficient tests for an autoregressive unit root. Econometrica 64, 813–836.Google Scholar
Elliott, G. & J.H. Stock (2001) Confidence intervals for autoregressive coefficients near one. Journal of Econometrics 103, 155–181.Google Scholar
Hansen, B.E. (1997) Approximate asymptotic p values for structural-change tests. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 15, 60–67.Google Scholar
Hasan, M.N. & R.W. Koenker (1997) Robust rank tests of the unit root hypothesis. Econometrica 65, 133–161.Google Scholar
Herce, M.A. (1996) Asymptotic theory of LAD estimation in a unit root process with finite variance errors. Econometric Theory 12, 129–153.Google Scholar
Hettmansperger, T.P. (1984) Statistical Inference Based on Ranks. Wiley.
Hjort, H.L. & D. Pollard (1993) Asymptotics for Minimizers of Convex Processes. Preprint, Department of Statistics, Yale University.
Hoek, H., A. Lucas, & H.K. van Dijk (1995) Classical and Bayesian aspects of robust unit root inference. Journal of Econometrics 69, 27–59.Google Scholar
Juhl, T. & Z. Xiao (2002) Partially Linear Models with Unit Roots. Discussion paper 1359, Cowles Foundation.
King, M.L. (1988) Towards a theory of point optimal testing. Econometric Reviews 6, 169–218.Google Scholar
Koenker, R. & G. Bassett (1978) Regression quantiles. Econometrica 46, 33–50.Google Scholar
Lucas, A. (1995a) An outlier robust unit root test with an application to the extended Nelson-Plosser data. Journal of Econometrics 66, 153–173.Google Scholar
Lucas, A. (1995b) Unit root tests based on m estimators. Econometric Theory 11, 331–346.Google Scholar
Lucas, A. (1998) Inference on cointegrating ranks with LR and LM tests based on pseudo-likelihoods. Econometric Reviews 17, 185–214.Google Scholar
Phillips, P.C.B. (1987) Toward a unified asymptotic theory for autoregression. Biometrika 74, 535–547.Google Scholar
Phillips, P.C.B. (1988) Regression theory for near-integrated time series. Econometrica 56, 1021–1043.Google Scholar
Pollard, D. (1985) New ways to prove central limit theorems. Econometric Theory 1, 295–314.Google Scholar
Pollard, D. (1991) Asymptotics for least absolute deviation regression estimators. Econometric Theory 7, 186–199.Google Scholar
Rothenberg, T.J. & J.H. Stock (1997) Inference in a nearly integrated autoregressive model with nonnormal innovations. Journal of Econometrics 80, 269–286.Google Scholar
Schwarz, G. (1978) Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics 6, 461–464.Google Scholar
Seo, B. (1999) Distribution theory for unit root tests with conditional heteroskedasticity. Journal of Econometrics 91, 113–144.Google Scholar
Shin, D.W. & B.S. So (1999) Unit root tests based on adaptive maximum likelihood estimation. Econometric Theory 15, 1–23.Google Scholar
Silverman, B.W. (1986) Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis. Chapman and Hall.
Stock, J.H. (1991) Confidence intervals for the largest autoregressive root in U.S. macroeconomic time series. Journal of Monetary Economics 28, 435–459.Google Scholar
Stock, J.H. (1994) Unit roots, structural breaks, and trends. In R.F. Engle & D.L. McFadden (eds.), Handbook of Econometrics, vol. 4, pp. 2739–2841. Elsevier.
Thompson, S.B. (2004a) Optimal versus robust inference in nearly integrated non-Gaussian models. Econometric Theory 20, 23–55.Google Scholar
Thompson, S.B. (2004b) Robust confidence intervals for autoregressive coefficients near one. In Fetschrift in Honor of Thomas Rothenberg. Cambridge University Press, forthcoming.