Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-685pp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-07T19:44:33.581Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

AR(1) MODELS, UNIT ROOTS, AND ADJUSTED PROFILE LIKELIHOOD

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2003

Pekka Pere
Pekka Pere
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An unobserved components and a conventional first-order autoregressive (AR) model with constant are analyzed with the adjusted profile likelihood of Cox and Reid (1987, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 49, 1–39; 1993, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 55, 467–71). Both the unobserved components model and the Cox–Reid adjustment can provide more accurate estimates of an AR coefficient of unity. The unobserved components model yields more powerful unit-root tests. In general the most powerful test utilizes the adjustment. Under the unobserved components model the adjusted statistics follow the asymptotic distributions better than the unadjusted.The basis of this research is my D. Phil. thesis (1997) for the University of Oxford. I am grateful to David Hendry for supervision and to Pentti Saikkonen for most helpful advice. I appreciate also the CBRT Young Economist Award with which I was honored after presenting a previous version at the 1998 erc/METU International Conference on Economics. I remain responsible for any errors. Financial support by the Yrjö Jahnsson Foundation and Academy of Finland is gratefully acknowledged.

Type
Research Article
Information
Econometric Theory , Volume 19 , Issue 6 , December 2003 , pp. 885 - 922
Copyright
© 2003 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

Abadir, K.M. (1995) A new test for nonstationarity against the stable alternative. Econometric Theory 11, 81–104.Google Scholar
Ahn, S.K. (1993) Some tests for unit roots in autoregressive-integrated-moving average models with deterministic trends. Biometrika 80, 855–868.Google Scholar
Andrews, D.W.K. (1993) Exactly median-unbiased estimation of first order autoregressive/unit root models. Econometrica 61, 139–165.Google Scholar
Bhargava, A. (1986) On the theory of testing for unit roots in observed time series. Review of Economic Studies 52, 369–384.Google Scholar
Cox, D.R. & N. Reid (1987) Parameter orthogonality and approximate conditional inference. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 49, 1–39.Google Scholar
Cox, D.R. & N. Reid (1993) A note on the calculation of adjusted profile likelihood. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 55, 467–471.Google Scholar
Cruddas, A.M., N. Reid, & D.R. Cox (1989) A time series illustration of approximate conditional likelihood. Biometrika 76, 231–237.Google Scholar
Dickey, D.A. (1976) Estimation and Hypothesis Testing in Nonstationary Time Series. Ph.D. thesis. Iowa State University.
Dickey, D.A., W.R. Bell, & R.B. Miller (1986) Unit roots in time series models: Tests and implications. American Statistician 40, 12–26.Google Scholar
Dickey, D.A. & W.A. Fuller (1979) Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Journal of the American Statistical Association 74, 427–431.Google Scholar
Dickey, D.A. & W.A. Fuller (1981) The likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Econometrics 49, 1057–1072.Google Scholar
Elliot, G., T.J. Rothenberg, & J.H. Stock (1996) Efficient tests for an autoregressive unit root. Econometrica 4, 813–836.Google Scholar
The GAUSS System Version 3.0 (1992) Washington, D.C.: Aptech Systems.
Hansen, H. & A. Rahbek (2002) Approximate conditional unit root inference. Journal of Time Series Analysis 23, 1–28.Google Scholar
Lee, J. & P. Schmidt (1994) Unit root tests based on instrumental variables estimation. International Economic Review 35, 449–462.Google Scholar
Neyman, J. & E.L. Scott (1948) Consistent estimates based on partially consistent observations. Econometrica 16, 1–32.Google Scholar
Pantula, S.G., G. Gonzalez-Farias, & W.A. Fuller (1994) A comparison of unit-root test criteria. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 12, 449–459.Google Scholar
Pere, P. (1997) Adjusted Profile Likelihood Applied to Estimation and Testing of Unit Roots. D.Phil. thesis, University of Oxford.
Pere, P. (2000) Adjusted estimates and Wald statistics for the AR(1) model with constant. Journal of Econometrics 98, 335–363.Google Scholar
Phillips, P.C.B. (1987) Towards a unified asymptotic theory for autoregression. Biometrika 74, 535–547.Google Scholar
Phillips, P.C.B. & P. Perron (1988) Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika 75, 335–346.Google Scholar
Robinson, P.M. (1994) Efficient tests of nonstationary hypotheses. Journal of the American Statistical Association 89, 1420–1437.Google Scholar
Saikkonen, P. & R. Luukkonen (1997) Testing cointegration in infinite order vector autoregressive processes. Journal of Econometrics 81, 93–126.Google Scholar
Schmidt, P. & J. Lee (1991) A modification of the Schmidt–Phillips unit root test. Economics Letters 36, 285–289.Google Scholar
Schmidt, P. & P.C.B. Phillips (1992) LM tests for a unit root in the presence of deterministic time trends. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 54, 257–287.Google Scholar
Seber, G.A.F. & C.J. Wild (1989) Nonlinear Regression. New York: Wiley.
Stock, J.H. (1994) Unit Roots, Structural Breaks and Trends. In R.F. Engle & D.L. McFadden (eds.), Handbook of Econometrics, vol. 4. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
West, K.D. (1988) Asymptotic normality, when regressors have a unit root. Econometrica 56, 1397–1417.Google Scholar
Zivot, E. (1994) A Bayesian analysis of the unit root hypothesis within an unobserved components model. Econometric Theory 10, 552–578.Google Scholar