Table A.6: Johansen’s test results for the number (r) of cointegrating vectors (intercept
present, but linear trend absent)
p |
r |
test |
crit. |
val. |
conclusions: |
test table(*) type | |
10% |
5% | ||||||
_2_ |
__0__ |
___7._8__ |
__1__2.__1 |
_14__.0__ |
accept |
accept |
lambda-max A.1 |
1 |
0.9 |
2.8 |
4.0 |
accept |
accept |
’’ ’’ | |
1 |
0.9 |
2.8 |
4.0 |
accept |
accept |
trace ’’ | |
0 |
8.7 |
13.3 |
15.2 |
accept |
accept |
’’ ’’ | |
0 |
7.8 |
12.8 |
14.6 |
accept |
accept |
lambda-max A.2 | |
1 |
0.9 |
6.7 |
8.1 |
accept |
accept |
’’ ’’ | |
1 |
0.9 |
6.7 |
8.1 |
accept |
accept |
trace ’’ | |
0 |
8.7 |
15.6 |
17.8 |
accept |
accept |
’’ ’’ | |
0 |
16.4 |
13.8 |
15.8 |
reject |
reject |
lambda-max A.3 | |
1 |
6.1 |
7.6 |
9.1 |
accept |
accept |
’’ ’’ | |
1 |
6.1 |
7.6 |
9.1 |
accept |
accept |
trace ’’ | |
0 |
22.5 |
18.0 |
20.2 |
reject |
reject |
’’ ’’ | |
1 |
8.63 |
2.71 |
3.84 |
reject |
reject |
interc. restr. χ2(1) | |
r=0 |
r=0 | ||||||
4 |
0 |
15.2 |
12.1 |
14.0 |
reject |
reject |
lambda-max A.1 |
1 |
2.4 |
2.8 |
4.0 |
accept |
accept |
’’ ’’ | |
1 |
2.4 |
2.8 |
4.0 |
accept |
accept |
trace ’’ | |
0 |
17.6 |
13.3 |
15.2 |
reject |
reject |
’’ ’’ | |
0 |
15.2 |
12.8 |
14.6 |
reject |
reject |
lambda-max A.2 | |
1 |
2.4 |
6.7 |
8.1 |
accept |
accept |
’’ ’’ | |
1 |
2.4 |
6.7 |
8.1 |
accept |
accept |
trace ’’ | |
0 |
17.6 |
15.6 |
17.8 |
reject |
accept |
’’ ’’ | |
0 |
18.5 |
13.8 |
15.8 |
reject |
reject |
lambda-max A.3 | |
1 |
11.9 |
7.6 |
9.1 |
reject |
reject |
’’ ’’ | |
1 |
11.9 |
7.6 |
9.1 |
reject |
reject |
trace ’’ | |
0 |
30.5 |
18.0 |
20.2 |
reject |
reject |
’’ ’’ | |
1 |
3.36 |
2.71 |
3.84 |
reject |
accept |
interc. restr. χ2(1) | |
r=1 |
r=2 | ||||||
6 |
0 |
14.7 |
12.1 |
14.0 |
reject |
reject |
lambda-max A.1 |
1 |
2.2 |
2.8 |
4.0 |
accept |
accept |
’’ ’’ | |
1 |
2.2 |
2.8 |
4.0 |
accept |
accept |
trace ’’ | |
0 |
16.9 |
13.3 |
15.2 |
reject |
reject |
’’ ’’ | |
0 |
14.7 |
12.8 |
14.6 |
reject |
reject |
lambda-max A.2 | |
1 |
2.2 |
6.7 |
8.1 |
accept |
accept |
’’ ’’ | |
1 |
2.2 |
6.7 |
8.1 |
accept |
accept |
trace ’’ | |
0 |
16.9 |
15.6 |
17.8 |
reject |
accept |
’’ ’’ | |
0 |
19.0 |
13.8 |
15.8 |
reject |
reject |
lambda-max A.3 | |
1 |
6.7 |
7.6 |
9.1 |
accept |
accept |
’’ ’’ | |
1 |
6.7 |
7.6 |
9.1 |
accept |
accept |
trace ’’ | |
0 |
25.7 |
18.0 |
20.2 |
reject |
reject |
’’ ’’ | |
1 |
4.31 |
2.71 |
3.84 |
reject |
reject |
interc. restr. χ2(1) | |
r=1 |
r=1 |
(*) Cf. Johansen and Juselius (1990). Table A.3 applies if cointegration restrictions have been imposed on
the intercept parameters, whereas tables A.1 and A.2 apply if no cointegration restrictions are imposed. Table
A.2 applies if these cointegration restrictions actually hold, and table A.1 applies if not. The χ2(1) tests test the
null hypothesis that cointegration restrictions on the intercept parameters hold, given r = 1, i.e., that the
cointegration relation contains an intercept rather than the error correction model itself.
62
More intriguing information
1. The name is absent2. Regional differentiation in the Russian federation: A cluster-based typification
3. WP RR 17 - Industrial relations in the transport sector in the Netherlands
4. The name is absent
5. FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE PROGRAMS AND FOREIGN RELATIONS
6. Fighting windmills? EU industrial interests and global climate negotiations
7. A Bayesian approach to analyze regional elasticities
8. Parallel and overlapping Human Immunodeficiency Virus, Hepatitis B and C virus Infections among pregnant women in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, Nigeria
9. The name is absent
10. Human Resource Management Practices and Wage Dispersion in U.S. Establishments