Testing for Unit Roots with Breaks: Evidence on the Great Crash and the Unit Root Hypothesis Reconsidered.

B-Tier
Journal: Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics
Year: 1997
Volume: 59
Issue: 4
Pages: 435-48

Score contribution per author:

0.670 = (α=2.01 / 3 authors) × 1.0x B-tier

α: calibrated so average coauthorship-adjusted count equals average raw count

Abstract

C. R. Nelson and C. I. Plosser (1982), in a classic paper, failed to find strong evidence against the null hypothesis of a generating process with a unit autoregressive root for thirteen U.S. macroeconomic time series. P. Perron (1989) claimed that such evidence was available for a majority of these series if the alternative hypothesis was of trend stationarity with a break in 1929. E. Zivot and D. W. K. Andrews (1992) treated the break date as endogenous, then finding strong evidence against the null for a minority of these series. The authors' own analysis extends theirs by permitting a break under the null as well as the alternative hypothesis and allowing for the sequential nature of the testing. Their empirical findings complete the circle. The authors find no strong evidence against the unit root hypothesis for any of the thirteen Neslon-Plosser series. Copyright 1997 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Technical Details

RePEc Handle
repec:bla:obuest:v:59:y:1997:i:4:p:435-48
Journal Field
General
Author Count
3
Added to Database
2026-01-25