Testing for Multicointegration in Panel Data with Common Factors*

This paper addresses the concept of multicointegration in a panel data framework and builds upon the panel data cointegration procedures developed in Pedroni [Econometric Theory (2004), Vol. 20, pp. 597–625]. When individuals are either cross‐section independent, or cross‐section dependence can be removed by cross‐section demeaning, our approach can be applied to the wider framework of mixed I(2) and I(1) stochastic processes. The paper also deals with the issue of cross‐section dependence using approximate common‐factor models. Finite sample performance is investigated through Monte Carlo simulations. Finally, we illustrate the use of the procedure investigating an inventories, sales and production relationship for a panel of US industries.     

Cointegration Testing in Panels with Common Factors*

Panel unit‐root and no‐cointegration tests that rely on cross‐sectional independence of the panel unit experience severe size distortions when this assumption is violated, as has, for example, been shown by Banerjee, Marcellino and Osbat [Econometrics Journal (2004), Vol. 7, pp. 322–340; Empirical Economics (2005), Vol. 30, pp. 77–91] via Monte Carlo simulations. Several studies have recently addressed this issue for panel unit‐root tests using a common factor structure to model the cross‐sectional dependence, but not much work has been done yet for panel no‐cointegration tests. This paper proposes a model for panel no‐cointegration using an unobserved common factor structure, following the study by Bai and Ng [Econometrica (2004), Vol. 72, pp. 1127–1177] for panel unit roots. We distinguish two important cases: (i) the case when the non‐stationarity in the data is driven by a reduced number of common stochastic trends, and (ii) the case where we have common and idiosyncratic stochastic trends present in the data. We discuss the homogeneity restrictions on the cointegrating vectors resulting from the presence of common factor cointegration. Furthermore, we study the asymptotic behaviour of some existing residual‐based panel no‐cointegration tests, as suggested by Kao [Journal of Econometrics (1999), Vol. 90, pp. 1–44] and Pedroni [Econometric Theory (2004a), Vol. 20, pp. 597–625]. Under the data‐generating processes (DGP) used, the test statistics are no longer asymptotically normal, and convergence occurs at rate T rather than as for independent panels. We then examine the possibilities of testing for various forms of no‐cointegration by extracting the common factors and individual components from the observed data directly and then testing for no‐cointegration using residual‐based panel tests applied to the defactored data.     

A Simple Test for Cointegration in Dependent Panels with Structural Breaks*

This paper develops a very simple test for the null hypothesis of no cointegration in panel data. The test is general enough to allow for heteroskedastic and serially correlated errors, unit‐specific time trends, cross‐sectional dependence and unknown structural breaks in both the intercept and slope of the cointegrated regression, which may be located at different dates for different units. The limiting distribution of the test is derived, and is found to be normal and free of nuisance parameters under the null. A small simulation study is also conducted to investigate the small‐sample properties of the test. In our empirical application, we provide new evidence concerning the purchasing power parity hypothesis.     

Panicca: Panic on Cross‐Section Averages

The cross‐section average (CA) augmentation approach of Pesaran (A simple panel unit root test in presence of cross‐section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics 2007; 22 : 265–312) and Pesaran et al. (Panel unit root test in the presence of a multifactor error structure. Journal of Econometrics 2013; 175 : 94–115), and the principal components‐based panel analysis of non‐stationarity in idiosyncratic and common components (PANIC) of Bai and Ng (A PANIC attack on unit roots and cointegration. Econometrica 2004; 72 : 1127–1177; Panel unit root tests with cross‐section dependence: a further investigation. Econometric Theory 2010; 26 : 1088–1114) are among the most popular ‘second‐generation’ approaches for cross‐section correlated panels. One feature of these approaches is that they have different strengths and weaknesses. The purpose of the current paper is to develop PANICCA, a combined approach that exploits the strengths of both CA and PANIC. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

基于结构突变和截面相关的面板协整检验

本文基于Westerlund和Edgerton（2008）,考虑了无时间趋势和有时间趋势的面板协整检验。在检验协整时,本文不仅允许误差项存在异方差、序列相关以及截面相关,而且还允许各截面在截距和协整斜率上存在未知时点的多个突变点。蒙特卡洛模拟结果表明,（1）该检验的具有较小的水平扭曲和较高的检验势,（2）将模型拓展到不含有趋势项的情形是必要的。在此基础上,使用基于动态最小二乘估计量的新统计量对国际CO2排放和经济增长关系进行检验,发现在考虑了突变和截面相关的情形下,两者间的长期均衡关系确实存在。     

Panel Stationarity Test with Structural Breaks*

In this paper, we extend the heterogeneous panel data stationarity test of Hadri [Econometrics Journal, Vol. 3 (2000) pp. 148–161] to the cases where breaks are taken into account. Four models with different patterns of breaks under the null hypothesis are specified. Two of the models have been already proposed by Carrion‐i‐Silvestre et al. [Econometrics Journal, Vol. 8 (2005) pp. 159–175]. The moments of the statistics corresponding to the four models are derived in closed form via characteristic functions. We also provide the exact moments of a modified statistic that do not asymptotically depend on the location of the break point under the null hypothesis. The cases where the break point is unknown are also considered. For the model with breaks in the level and no time trend and for the model with breaks in the level and in the time trend, Carrion‐i‐Silvestre et al. [Econometrics Journal, Vol. 8 (2005) pp. 159–175] showed that the number of breaks and their positions may be allowed to differ across individuals for cases with known and unknown breaks. Their results can easily be extended to the proposed modified statistic. The asymptotic distributions of all the statistics proposed are derived under the null hypothesis and are shown to be normally distributed. We show by simulations that our suggested tests have in general good performance in finite samples except the modified test. In an empirical application to the consumer prices of 22 OECD countries during the period from 1953 to 2003, we found evidence of stationarity once a structural break and cross‐sectional dependence are accommodated.     

A test of cross section dependence for a linear dynamic panel model with regressors

This paper proposes a new testing procedure for detecting error cross section dependence after estimating a linear dynamic panel data model with regressors using the generalised method of moments (GMM). The test is valid when the cross-sectional dimension of the panel is large relative to the time series dimension. Importantly, our approach allows one to examine whether any error cross section dependence remains after including time dummies (or after transforming the data in terms of deviations from time-specific averages), which will be the case under heterogeneous error cross section dependence. Finite sample simulation-based results suggest that our tests perform well, particularly the version based on the [Blundell, R., Bond, S., 1998. Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics 87, 115–143] system GMM estimator. In addition, it is shown that the system GMM estimator, based only on partial instruments consisting of the regressors, can be a reliable alternative to the standard GMM estimators under heterogeneous error cross section dependence. The proposed tests are applied to employment equations using UK firm data and the results show little evidence of heterogeneous error cross section dependence.     

Diagnostic Tests of Cross‐section Independence for Limited Dependent Variable Panel Data Models*

This article considers the problem of testing for cross‐section independence in limited dependent variable panel data models. It derives a Lagrangian multiplier (LM) test and shows that in terms of generalized residuals of Gourieroux et al. (1987) it reduces to the LM test of Breusch and Pagan (1980) . Because of the tendency of the LM test to over‐reject in panels with large N (cross‐section dimension), we also consider the application of the cross‐section dependence test (CD) proposed by Pesaran (2004) . In Monte Carlo experiments it emerges that for most combinations of N and T the CD test is correctly sized, whereas the validity of the LM test requires T (time series dimension) to be quite large relative to N. We illustrate the cross‐sectional independence tests with an application to a probit panel data model of roll‐call votes in the US Congress and find that the votes display a significant degree of cross‐section dependence.     

Multiple Testing for No Cointegration under Nonstationary Volatility

With cointegration tests often being oversized under time‐varying error variance, it is possible, if not likely, to confuse error variance non‐stationarity with cointegration. This paper takes an instrumental variable (IV) approach to establish individual‐unit test statistics for no cointegration that are robust to variance non‐stationarity. The sign of a fitted departure from long‐run equilibrium is used as an instrument when estimating an error‐correction model. The resulting IV‐based test is shown to follow a chi‐square limiting null distribution irrespective of the variance pattern of the data‐generating process. In spite of this, the test proposed here has, unlike previous work relying on instrumental variables, competitive local power against sequences of local alternatives in 1/T‐neighbourhoods of the null. The standard limiting null distribution motivates, using the single‐unit tests in a multiple testing approach for cointegration in multi‐country data sets by combining P‐values from individual units. Simulations suggest good performance of the single‐unit and multiple testing procedures under various plausible designs of cross‐sectional correlation and cross‐unit cointegration in the data. An application to the equilibrium relationship between short‐ and long‐term interest rates illustrates the dramatic differences between results of robust and non‐robust tests.     

Testing for Predictability in panels with General Predictors

The difficulty of predicting returns has recently motivated researchers to start looking for tests that are either more powerful or robust to more features of the data. Unfortunately, the way that these tests work typically involves trading robustness for power or vice versa. The current paper takes this as its starting point to develop a new panel‐based approach to predictability that is both robust and powerful. Specifically, while the panel route to increased power is not new, the way in which the cross‐section variation is exploited also to achieve robustness with respect to the predictor is. The result is two new tests that enable asymptotically standard normal and chi‐squared inference across a wide range of empirically relevant scenarios in which the predictor may be stationary, moderately non‐stationary, nearly non‐stationary, or indeed unit root non‐stationary. The type of cross‐section dependence that can be permitted in the predictor is also very general, and can be weak or strong, although we do require that the cross‐section dependence in the regression errors is of the strong form. What is more, this generality comes at no cost in terms of complicated test construction. The new tests are therefore very user‐friendly. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

On the Applicability of the Sieve Bootstrap in Time Series Panels*

In this article, we investigate the validity of the univariate autoregressive sieve bootstrap applied to time series panels characterized by general forms of cross‐sectional dependence, including but not restricted to cointegration. Using the final equations approach we show that while it is possible to write such a panel as a collection of infinite order autoregressive equations, the innovations of these equations are not vector white noise. This causes the univariate autoregressive sieve bootstrap to be invalid in such panels. We illustrate this result with a small numerical example using a simple DGP for which the sieve bootstrap is invalid, and show that the extent of the invalidity depends on the value of specific parameters. We also show that Monte Carlo simulations in small samples can be misleading about the validity of the univariate autoregressive sieve bootstrap. The results in this article serve as a warning about the practical use of the autoregressive sieve bootstrap in panels where cross‐sectional dependence of general form may be present.     

Testing for Panel Cointegration with Multiple Structural Breaks*

This paper proposes a Lagrange multiplier (LM) test for the null hypothesis of cointegration that allows for the possibility of multiple structural breaks in both the level and trend of a cointegrated panel regression. The test is general enough to allow for endogenous regressors, serial correlation and an unknown number of breaks that may be located at different dates for different individuals. We derive the limiting distribution of the test and conduct a small Monte Carlo study to investigate its finite sample properties. In our empirical application to the solvency of the current account, we find evidence of cointegration between saving and investment once a level break is accommodated.     

Modified CADF and CIPS Panel Unit Root Statistics with Standard Chi‐squared and Normal Limiting Distributions

In an influential paper Pesaran (‘A simple panel unit root test in presence of cross‐section dependence’, Journal of Applied Econometrics, Vol. 22, pp. 265–312, 2007) proposes two unit root tests for panels with a common factor structure. These are the CADF and CIPS test statistics, which are amongst the most popular test statistics in the literature. One feature of these statistics is that their limiting distributions are highly non‐standard, making for relatively complicated implementation. In this paper, we take this feature as our starting point to develop modified CADF and CIPS test statistics that support standard chi‐squared and normal inference.     

Combination of Tests for Cointegration in Cross‐Correlated Panels

In this paper, Cheng and Sheng's (2017) combination of ‘combinations of P‐values’ (CCP) is extended to a combination of more than two tests and applied for cointegration testing in cross‐correlated panels. In a Monte Carlo experiment, power and size of the different combinations of combinations are investigated. If uncertainty about the panel configuration is taken into account, the results indicate that a multi‐test combination can minimize power losses. Furthermore, the usefulness of the combinations studied is illustrated by an application to international interest rate linkage. Cross‐sectional dependencies in both the simulation and the empirical studies are accounted for by using the block bootstrap.     

面板数据非线性阈值协整的检验方法

非线性阈值协整是线性协整的后续发展。本文使用两机制TR模型对Westerlund和Edgerton(2005)的面板数据协整向量结构突变模型进行扩展,提出截距项具有阈值效应、截距项和斜率系数都具有阈值效应的面板数据非线性阈值协整模型。在此基础上,本文进而分别构造Zc、Ztc、Zr、Ztr统计量检验阈值协整,并对上述统计量的极限分布进行了数学推导,发现它们都收敛于随机泛函。仿真实验结果表明,有限样本下上述检验统计量具有较小的水平扭曲和较高的检验势。     

Habits and heterogeneity in demands: a panel data analysis

We examine demand behaviour for intertemporal dependencies, using Spanish panel data. We present evidence that there is both state dependence and correlated heterogeneity in demand behaviour. Our specific findings are that food outside the home, alcohol and tobacco are habit forming, whereas clothing and small durables exhibit durability. We conclude that demand analyses using cross‐section data that ignore these effects may be seriously biased. On the other hand, the degree of intertemporal dependence is not sufficiently strong to make composite ‘consumption’ significantly habit forming, as has been suggested in some recent analyses. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Identifying Structural Breaks in Cointegrated Vector Autoregressive Models*

This article suggests an alternative formulation of the cointegrated vector autoregressive (VAR) model such that the coefficients for the deterministic terms have straightforward interpretations. These coefficients can be interpreted as growth rates and cointegration mean level coefficients and express long‐run properties of the model. For example, the growth rate coefficients tell us how much to expect (unconditionally) the variables in the system to grow from one period to the next, representing the underlying (steady state) growth in the variables. The estimation of the proposed formulation is made operationally in GRaM, which is a program for Ox Professional. GRaM can be used for analysing structural breaks when the deterministic terms include shift dummies and broken trends. By applying a formulation with interpretable deterministic components, different types of structural breaks can be identified. Shifts in both intercepts and growth rates, or combinations of these, can be tested for. The ability to distinguish between different types of structural breaks makes the procedure superior compared with alternative procedures. Furthermore, the procedure utilizes the information more efficiently than alternative procedures. Finally, interpretable coefficients of different types of structural breaks can be identified.     

Bias in dynamic panel estimation with fixed effects,incidental trends and cross section dependence

Explicit asymptotic bias formulae are given for dynamic panel regression estimators as the cross section sample size N→∞$N\to \infty$. The results extend earlier work by Nickell [1981. Biases in dynamic models with fixed effects. Econometrica 49, 1417–1426] and later authors in several directions that are relevant for practical work, including models with unit roots, deterministic trends, predetermined and exogenous regressors, and errors that may be cross sectionally dependent. The asymptotic bias is found to be so large when incidental linear trends are fitted and the time series sample size is small that it changes the sign of the autoregressive coefficient. Another finding of interest is that, when there is cross section error dependence, the probability limit of the dynamic panel regression estimator is a random variable rather than a constant, which helps to explain the substantial variability observed in dynamic panel estimates when there is cross section dependence even in situations where N is very large. Some proposals for bias correction are suggested and finite sample performance is analyzed in simulations.     

Panel cointegration with global stochastic trends

This paper studies estimation of panel cointegration models with cross-sectional dependence generated by unobserved global stochastic trends. The standard least squares estimator is, in general, inconsistent owing to the spuriousness induced by the unobservable I(1) trends. We propose two iterative procedures that jointly estimate the slope parameters and the stochastic trends. The resulting estimators are referred to respectively as CupBC (continuously-updated and bias-corrected) and the CupFM (continuously-updated and fully-modified) estimators. We establish their consistency and derive their limiting distributions. Both are asymptotically unbiased and (mixed) normal and permit inference to be conducted using standard test statistics. The estimators are also valid when there are mixed stationary and non-stationary factors, as well as when the factors are all stationary.     

Truncated Product Methods for Panel Unit Root Tests*

This paper proposes two new panel unit root tests based on Zaykin et al. (2002) ’s truncated product method. The first one assumes constant correlation between P‐values and the second one uses sieve bootstrap to allow for general forms of cross‐section dependence in the panel units. Monte Carlo simulation shows that both tests have reasonably good size and are powerful in cases of some very large P‐values. The proposed tests are applied to a panel of real GDP and inflation density forecasts, resulting in evidence that professional forecasters may not update their forecast precision in an optimal Bayesian way.