Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T18:18:21.451Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A PROOF OF THE POWER OF KIM'S TEST AGAINST STATIONARY PROCESSES WITH STRUCTURAL BREAKS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 September 2005

Jorge Belaire-Franch
Affiliation:
University of Valencia

Abstract

In this note we show that, when the true data generating process is a stationary one around a constant term with a break, the stationarity test of Kim (2000, Journal of Econometrics 95, 97–116) against the alternative hypothesis of change of persistence rejects the null of stationarity asymptotically with probability one.I am grateful to an anonymous referee for his useful comments, which have helped to improve the content and presentation of this note. I acknowledge financial support from Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología, project SEC2003-09205.

Type
Notes and Problems
Copyright
© 2005 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

Busetti, F. & A.M.R. Taylor (2004) Tests of stationarity against a change in persistence. Journal of Econometrics 123, 1193.Google Scholar
Kim, J.-Y. (2000) Detection of a change in persistence of a linear time series. Journal of Econometrics 95, 97116.Google Scholar
Kim, J.-Y., J. Belaire-Franch, & R. Badillo Amador (2002) Corrigendum to “Detection of a change in persistence of a linear time series.” Journal of Econometrics 109, 389392.Google Scholar
Kwiatkowski, D., P.C.B. Phillips, P. Schmidt, & Y. Shin (1992) Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root: How sure are we that economic time series have a unit root? Journal of Econometrics 54, 159178.Google Scholar
Lee, J., C. Huang, & Y. Shin (1997) On stationarity tests in the presence of structural breaks. Economics Letters 55, 165172.Google Scholar