A comparison of alternative unit root tests, Journal of Applied Statistics, 32(1): 45-60 (JEL, ISI Listed, impact factor: 0.449 and 5-year 0.531) (2005 in common with I. Kevork)
A comparison of alternative unit root tests, Journal of Applied Statistics 32(1): 45-60. (SCOPUS, EconLit, ISI Listed. Impact factor: 0.699 and 5-year: 0.791). In common with I. Kevork (2005).
In this paper we evaluate the performance of three methods for testing the existence of a unit root in a time series, when the models under consideration in the null hypothesis do not display autocorrelation in the error term. In such cases, simple versions of the Dickey-Fuller test should be used as the most appropriate ones instead of the known augmented Dickey-Fuller or Phillips-Perron tests. Through Monte Carlo simulations we show that, apart from a few cases, testing the existence of a unit root we obtain actual type I error and power very close to their nominal levels. Additionally, when the random walk null hypothesis is true, by gradually increasing the sample size, we observe that p-values for the drift in the unrestricted model fluctuate at low levels with small variance and the Durbin-Watson (DW) statistic is approaching 2 in both the unrestricted and restricted models. If, however, the null hypothesis of a random walk is false, taking a larger sample, the DW statistic in the restricted model starts to deviate from 2 while in the unrestricted model it continues to approach 2. It is also shown that the probability not to reject that the errors are uncorrelated, when they are indeed not correlated, is higher when the DW test is applied at 1% nominal level of significance.
JEL Classification: Autocorrelation-; Time-Series; Unit-Root; Econometric-Methods-Single-Equation-Models; Single-Variables-Time-Series-Models (C220)