2002Applied Economics LettersRequires access

Pitfall of unit autoregressive root testing

Dimitrios V. Vougas

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

This paper examines whether the usually tested unit autoregressive (AR) root null hypothesis can be informative about the presence of a unit AR root (integration). This is considered null in generic models when the underlying time series is mean or linear trend stationary. It is concluded that non rejection of the unit AR root null hypothesis is not sufficient for integration of a time series. For sufficiency, absence of a unit MA root from the MA representation of the first difference is required. Hence, the analysis here is in line with the general statistical argument that non rejection of a null should not be taken as acceptance of the null; a false practice which is widespread in the unit root and (especially) cointegration literature. An empirical example, involving real quarterly UK GDP, is also provided.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

This paper examines whether the usually tested unit autoregressive (AR) root null hypothesis can be informative about the presence of a unit AR root (integration). This is considered null in generic models when the underlying time series is mean or linear trend stationary. It is concluded that non rejection of the unit AR root null hypothesis is not sufficient for integration of a time series. For sufficiency, absence of a unit MA root from the MA representation of the first difference is required. Hence, the analysis here is in line with the general statistical argument that non rejection of a null should not be taken as acceptance of the null; a false practice which is widespread in the unit root and (especially) cointegration literature. An empirical example, involving real quarterly UK GDP, is also provided.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

This paper examines whether the usually tested unit autoregressive (AR) root null hypothesis can be informative about the presence of a unit AR root (integration). This is considered null in generic models when the underlying time series is mean or linear trend stationary. It is concluded that non rejection of the unit AR root null hypothesis is not sufficient for integration of a time series. For sufficiency, absence of a unit MA root from the MA representation of the first difference is required. Hence, the analysis here is in line with the general statistical argument that non rejection of a null should not be taken as acceptance of the null; a false practice which is widespread in the unit root and (especially) cointegration literature. An empirical example, involving real quarterly UK GDP, is also provided.

Key concepts: Unit root, Null (SQL), Autoregressive model, Cointegration, Null hypothesis, Unit root test, Econometrics, Null model

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Pitfall of unit autoregressive root testing — Research Paper | ScholarLens