2013
DOI: 10.1080/00036846.2011.610752
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Size and power properties of structural break unit root tests

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
39
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 202 publications
(39 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
39
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In both cases, the null hypothesis is that the time series contains a unit root or exhibits a random walk. Narayan and Popp (2013) showed that the Narayan and Popp (2010) test has better size properties and identifies the breaks more accurately, than its main two-break unit root rivals; namely, the Lumsdaine and Papell (1997) and Lee and Strazicich (2003) tests. The purpose of employing this test is to examine the effect of allowing for structural breaks, without accounting for heteroscedasticity, on whether the null is rejected.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…In both cases, the null hypothesis is that the time series contains a unit root or exhibits a random walk. Narayan and Popp (2013) showed that the Narayan and Popp (2010) test has better size properties and identifies the breaks more accurately, than its main two-break unit root rivals; namely, the Lumsdaine and Papell (1997) and Lee and Strazicich (2003) tests. The purpose of employing this test is to examine the effect of allowing for structural breaks, without accounting for heteroscedasticity, on whether the null is rejected.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…In addition, given the length of our time series (54 years), it is important to check consistency between panel and individual country's unit root test. Appendix Table A4 and Table A5 presents results for the Narayan and Popp (2013) test, which allows for the presence of two structural breaks. Results are consistent with the panel data testing procedure as they indicate non-stationarity for the variable in levels and stationarity for the variables in first difference.…”
Section: Estimation Of the Traditional Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Narayan and Popp (2013) compareNarayan and Popp (2010) (NP) test with the prominent tests ofLumsdaine and Papell (1997) andLee and Strazicich (2003), and they find that the NP test has not only better size and power properties, but also identifies structural breaks more accurately.6 Please note thatTable 4presents only the banks of which the series had sufficient number of observations to conduct theNarayan and Popp (2010) test.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%