IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fip/fedgif/447.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Near observational equivalence and unit root processes: formal concepts and implications

Author

Abstract

A number of recent papers have discussed the fact that difference stationary and trend stationary processes are nearly observationally equivalent. The meaning of this fact, however, remains clouded. This paper defines near observational equivalence and derives several implications of the notion for classical and Bayesian unit root inference. For example, unless restrictions are imposed on the general difference and trend stationary models, the exact size of any consistent unit root test rises to one with sample size. Bayesian posteriors regarding unit roots are arbitrary in the sense that given any prior, there are other priors that agree with the first regarding empirical outcomes, but that imply arbitrarily different unit root posteriors.

Suggested Citation

  • Jon Faust, 1993. "Near observational equivalence and unit root processes: formal concepts and implications," International Finance Discussion Papers 447, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    • Handle: RePEc:fip:fedgif:447
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/ifdp/1993/447/default.htm
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/ifdp/1993/447/ifdp447.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Y. Campbell & Pierre Perron, 1991. "Pitfalls and Opportunities: What Macroeconomists Should Know about Unit Roots," NBER Chapters, in: NBER Macroeconomics Annual 1991, Volume 6, pages 141-220, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Schwert, G William, 2002. "Tests for Unit Roots: A Monte Carlo Investigation," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 20(1), pages 5-17, January.
    3. Christiano, Lawrence J. & Eichenbaum, Martin, 1990. "Unit roots in real GNP: Do we know, and do we care?," Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 7-61, January.
    4. Cochrane, John H., 1991. "A critique of the application of unit root tests," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 275-284, April.
    5. Phillips, P C B, 1991. "To Criticize the Critics: An Objective Bayesian Analysis of Stochastic Trends," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(4), pages 333-364, Oct.-Dec..
    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. Christopher J. Neely & Lucio Sarno, 2002. "How well do monetary fundamentals forecast exchange rates?," Review, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, vol. 84(Sep), pages 51-74.
    2. repec:nbp:nbpbik:v:47:y:2016:i:6:p:435-462 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Francesc Marmol & Juan C. Reboredo, 1999. "Near Observational Equivalence and Fractionally Integrated Processes," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 61(2), pages 283-290, May.
    4. Rogers, John H., 1999. "Monetary shocks and real exchange rates," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 269-288, December.
    5. Campos, Julia & Ericsson, Neil R. & Hendry, David F., 1996. "Cointegration tests in the presence of structural breaks," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 187-220, January.
    6. Krzysztof Bartosik & Jerzy Mycielski, 2016. "Dynamika płac a długotrwałe bezrobocie w polskiej gospodarce," Bank i Kredyt, Narodowy Bank Polski, vol. 47(5), pages 435-462.
    7. Nelson Mark, 1998. "Fundamentals of the Real Dollar-Pound Rate: 1871-1994," Working Papers 98-14, Ohio State University, Department of Economics.
    8. Chinn, Menzie D. & Meese, Richard A., 1995. "Banking on currency forecasts: How predictable is change in money?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(1-2), pages 161-178, February.
    9. Christopher J. Mayer & C. Tsuriel Somerville, 1996. "Unifying empirical and theoretical models of housing supply," Working Papers 96-12, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.

    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. Murray, Christian J. & Nelson, Charles R., 2000. "The uncertain trend in U.S. GDP," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 79-95, August.
    2. John D. Levendis, 2018. "Time Series Econometrics," Springer Texts in Business and Economics, Springer, number 978-3-319-98282-3, October.
    3. Surajit Deb, 2003. "Terms of Trade and Supply Response of Indian Agriculture: Analysis in Cointegration Framework," Working papers 115, Centre for Development Economics, Delhi School of Economics.
    4. Robert A. Amano & Simon van Norden, 1995. "Unit Root Tests and the Burden of Proof," Econometrics 9502005, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Engel, Charles, 2000. "Long-run PPP may not hold after all," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 243-273, August.
    6. Newbold, Paul & Leybourne, Stephen & Wohar, Mark E., 2001. "Trend-stationarity, difference-stationarity, or neither: further diagnostic tests with an application to U.S. Real GNP, 1875-1993," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 85-102.
    7. Serena Ng & Pierre Perron, 2002. "PPP May not Hold Afterall: A Further Investigation," Annals of Economics and Finance, Society for AEF, vol. 3(1), pages 43-64, May.
    8. Bennett T. McCallum, 1993. "Unit roots in macroeconomic time series: some critical issues," Economic Quarterly, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, issue Spr, pages 13-44.
    9. Caporale, Guglielmo Maria & Hassapis, Christis & Pittis, Nikitas, 1998. "Unit roots and long-run causality: investigating the relationship between output, money and interest rates," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 91-112, January.
    10. Song, Frank M. & Wu, Yangru, 1998. "Hysteresis in unemployment: Evidence from OECD countries," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 181-192.
    11. Christoph Fischer & Daniel Porath, 2010. "A reappraisal of the evidence on PPP: a systematic investigation into MA roots in panel unit root tests and their implications," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 767-792, December.
    12. Perron, Pierre, 1992. "Racines unitaires en macroéconomie : le cas d’une variable," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 68(1), pages 325-356, mars et j.
    13. John Y. Campbell & Pierre Perron, 1991. "Pitfalls and Opportunities: What Macroeconomists Should Know about Unit Roots," NBER Chapters, in: NBER Macroeconomics Annual 1991, Volume 6, pages 141-220, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Wu, Yangru & Zhang, Hua, 1996. "Mean Reversion in Interest Rates: New Evidence from a Panel of OECD Countries," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 28(4), pages 604-621, November.
    15. Pohl, Walter & Schmedders, Karl & Wilms, Ole, 2016. "Asset prices with non-permanent shocks to consumption," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 152-178.
    16. Deb, Surajit, 2004. "Terms of Trade and Investment Behaviour in Indian Agriculture: A Cointegration Analysis," Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Indian Society of Agricultural Economics, vol. 59(2), pages 1-22.
    17. Lavan Mahadeva and Paul Robinson, 2004. "Unit Root Testing in a Central Bank," Handbooks, Centre for Central Banking Studies, Bank of England, number 22, April.
    18. Bierens, H.J. & Broersma, L., 1991. "The relation between unemployment and interest rate : some international evidence," Serie Research Memoranda 0112, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    19. Foders, Federico & Glismann, Hans H., 1992. "Explaining the Argentine growth paradox: new evidence applying cointegration techniques," Kiel Working Papers 506, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    20. Paqué, Karl-Heinz, 1991. "Structural wage rigidity in West Germany 1950-1989: Some new econometric evidence," Kiel Working Papers 489, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Econometrics;

    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:fip:fedgif:447. 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: Ryan Wolfslayer ; Keisha Fournillier (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/frbgvus.html .

    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.