2008
DOI: 10.1002/jae.1014
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparing smooth transition and Markov switching autoregressive models of US unemployment

Abstract: SUMMARYLogistic smooth transition and Markov switching autoregressive models of a logistic transform of the monthly US unemployment rate are estimated by Markov chain Monte Carlo methods. The Markov switching model is identified by constraining the first autoregression coefficient to differ across regimes. The transition variable in the LSTAR model is the lagged seasonal difference of the unemployment rate. Out-of-sample forecasts are obtained from Bayesian predictive densities. Although both models provide ve… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
35
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 60 publications
(35 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
(33 reference statements)
0
35
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In lieu of obvious predetermined variables driving regime changes, we opt for the data driven regimes implied by the regime switching model. It is worth noting that in a comparison of smooth transition and regime switching autoregressive models on US unemployment data, Deschamps (2008) finds that both models provide similar descriptions of the data. Our model specification allows the intercept and trend of relative prices to shift between two different regimes.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…In lieu of obvious predetermined variables driving regime changes, we opt for the data driven regimes implied by the regime switching model. It is worth noting that in a comparison of smooth transition and regime switching autoregressive models on US unemployment data, Deschamps (2008) finds that both models provide similar descriptions of the data. Our model specification allows the intercept and trend of relative prices to shift between two different regimes.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…unconstrained) permutation sampler, using an importance sampling density constructed from the MCMC transition kernel. This method appears to be effective in the Gibbsian case; see Frühwirth-Schnatter (2004) and Deschamps (2008). However, its performance with the tailored Metropolis-Hastings proposal densities used in this paper appears to be uncharted territory.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…The magnitude of the difference between Schwarz information criteria is difficult to interpret, but this criterion has the advantage of being insensitive to the prior in large samples; we will therefore report its value along with Bayes factors. The marginal likelihood in (22) was estimated by the bridge sampling method of Meng and Wong (1996), as implemented in Deschamps (2008). This implementation uses posterior replications as well as an importance sampling density q(θ), chosen here as a multivariate Normal on: In all cases but one (the S&P500 data), the AR(0) model is clearly preferred, and the Bayes factor evidence in favor of a skewed error distribution ranges from strong (for the S&P500 data) to decisive (for all the other samples).…”
Section: Model Comparisonmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In (1) I take an approach similar to Boldin (1993) and Deschamps (2008) where each parameter may take on different values depending on the state of the labor market. This is in contrast to Hamilton (2005) study of the unemployment rate where only the constant, α, is state dependent.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%