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. KNOWLEDGE EVOLUTION2. Uncertain Productivity Growth and the Choice between FDI and Export
3. NATURAL RESOURCE SUPPLY CONSTRAINTS AND REGIONAL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS: A COMPUTABLE GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM APPROACH
4. Brauchen wir ein Konjunkturprogramm?: Kommentar
5. The Impact of Cognitive versus Affective Aspects on Consumer Usage of Financial Service Delivery Channels
6. MATHEMATICS AS AN EXACT AND PRECISE LANGUAGE OF NATURE
7. Searching Threshold Inflation for India
8. The name is absent
9. Plasmid-Encoded Multidrug Resistance of Salmonella typhi and some Enteric Bacteria in and around Kolkata, India: A Preliminary Study
10. The name is absent