2006RePEc: Research Papers in EconomicsRequires access

Unit Root Tests Allowing for a Break in the Trend Function at an Unknown Time Under Both the Null and Alternative Hypotheses

Mohitosh Kejriwal, Pierre Perrón

Open publisher page 2 citations

Abstract

Perron (1989) introduced a variety of unit root tests that are valid when a break in the trend function of a time series is present. The motivation was to devise testing procedures that were invariant to the magnitude of the shift in level and/or slope. In particular, if a change is present it is allowed under both the null and alternative hypotheses. This analysis was carried under the assumption of a known break date. The subsequent literature aimed to devise testing procedures valid in the case of an unknown break date. However, in doing so, most of the literature and, in particular the commonly used test of Zivot and Andrews (1992), assumed that if a break occurs, it does so only under the alternative hypothesis of stationarity. This is undesirable for several reasons. First, it imposes an asymmetric treatment when allowing for a break, so that the test may reject when the noise is integrated but the trend is changing. Second, if a break is present, this information is not exploited to improve the power of the test. In this paper, we propose a testing procedure that addresses both issues. It allows a break under both the null and alternative hypotheses and, when a break is present, the limit distribution of the test is the same as in the case of a known break date, thereby allowing increased power while maintaining the correct size. Simulation experiments confirm that our procedure offers an improvement over commonly used methods in small samples.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Perron (1989) introduced a variety of unit root tests that are valid when a break in the trend function of a time series is present. The motivation was to devise testing procedures that were invariant to the magnitude of the shift in level and/or slope. In particular, if a change is present it is allowed under both the null and alternative hypotheses. This analysis was carried under the assumption of a known break date. The subsequent literature aimed to devise testing procedures valid in the case of an unknown break date. However, in doing so, most of the literature and, in particular the commonly used test of Zivot and Andrews (1992), assumed that if a break occurs, it does so only under the alternative hypothesis of stationarity. This is undesirable for several reasons. First, it imposes an asymmetric treatment when allowing for a break, so that the test may reject when the noise is integrated but the trend is changing. Second, if a break is present, this information is not exploited to improve the power of the test. In this paper, we propose a testing procedure that addresses both issues. It allows a break under both the null and alternative hypotheses and, when a break is present, the limit distribution of the test is the same as in the case of a known break date, thereby allowing increased power while maintaining the correct size. Simulation experiments confirm that our procedure offers an improvement over commonly used methods in small samples.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 2 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

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

Perron (1989) introduced a variety of unit root tests that are valid when a break in the trend function of a time series is present. The motivation was to devise testing procedures that were invariant to the magnitude of the shift in level and/or slope. In particular, if a change is present it is allowed under both the null and alternative hypotheses. This analysis was carried under the assumption of a known break date. The subsequent literature aimed to devise testing procedures valid in the case of an unknown break date. However, in doing so, most of the literature and, in particular the commonly used test of Zivot and Andrews (1992), assumed that if a break occurs, it does so only under the alternative hypothesis of stationarity. This is undesirable for several reasons. First, it imposes an asymmetric treatment when allowing for a break, so that the test may reject when the noise is integrated but the trend is changing. Second, if a break is present, this information is not exploited to improve the power of the test. In this paper, we propose a testing procedure that addresses both issues. It allows a break under both the null and alternative hypotheses and, when a break is present, the limit distribution of the test is the same as in the case of a known break date, thereby allowing increased power while maintaining the correct size. Simulation experiments confirm that our procedure offers an improvement over commonly used methods in small samples.

Key concepts: Null hypothesis, Null (SQL), Alternative hypothesis, Unit root, Structural break, Statistical hypothesis testing, Function (biology), Null distribution

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Unit Root Tests Allowing for a Break in the Trend Function at an Unknown Time Under Both the Null and Alternative Hypotheses — Research Paper | ScholarLens