Table 3
Forecast accuracy of alternative Phillips curves, USA, 1978:1 — 2006:4
|
h________ |
_____________x = GDP_____________ |
x = unemployment rate | ||||||||
|
sMed |
sDf |
sMom |
sWMed |
s 20 |
sM. |
sDf |
sMom |
sWMed |
s 20 | |
|
1 RMSFE |
0.91 |
0.92 |
1.08 |
0.93 |
0.94 |
0.92 |
0.93 |
1.11 |
0.94 |
0.96 |
|
DM |
-1.80** |
-1.53* |
1.17 |
-1.17 |
-1.28 |
-1.55* |
-1.30* |
1.66** |
-0.99 |
-0.88 |
|
MDM |
-1.79** |
-1.52* |
1.16 |
-1.16 |
-1.27 |
-1.54* |
-1.29 |
1.65* |
-0.98 |
-0.87 |
|
2 RMSFE |
0.87 |
0.86 |
1.18 |
0.92 |
0.85 |
0.85 |
0.85 |
1.18 |
0.91 |
0.84 |
|
DM |
-1.47* |
-1.51* |
2.17** |
-1.24 |
-1.51* |
-1.74** |
-1.78** |
2.39*** |
-1.18 |
-1.73** |
|
MDM |
-1.44* |
-1.48* |
2.13** |
-1.22 |
-1.48* |
-1.71** |
-1.75** |
2.35** |
-1.16 |
-1.70** |
|
3 RMSFE |
0.85 |
0.85 |
1.16 |
0.93 |
0.84 |
0.83 |
0.83 |
1.15 |
0.91 |
0.85 |
|
DM |
-1.67** |
-1.69** |
2.56*** |
-1.09 |
-1.82** |
-1.99** |
-1.98** |
2.47*** |
-1.37* |
-2.31** |
|
MDM |
-1.62* |
-1.64* |
2.49*** |
-1.06 |
-1.77** |
-1.93** |
-1.92** |
2.40*** |
-1.33* |
-2.24** |
|
4 RMSFE |
0.83 |
0.84 |
1.18 |
0.86 |
0.82 |
0.86 |
0.86 |
1.24 |
0.89 |
0.85 |
|
DM |
-2.01** |
-2.07** |
3.35*** |
-1.67** |
-2.02** |
-1.61* |
-1.66** |
2.95*** |
-1.35* |
-1.62* |
|
MDM |
-1.93** |
-1.98** |
3.21*** |
-1.60* |
-1.94** |
-1.54* |
-1.59* |
2.83*** |
-1.29 |
-1.55* |
|
5 RMSFE |
0.82 |
0.82 |
1.18 |
0.82 |
0.78 |
0.81 |
0.81 |
1.19 |
0.81 |
0.77 |
|
DM |
-1.99** |
-2.25** |
2.63*** |
-2.02** |
-2.18** |
-2.25** |
-2.53*** |
2.65*** |
-2.36*** |
-2.41*** |
|
MDM |
-1.88** |
-2.13** |
2.49*** |
-1.91** |
-2.06** |
-2.13** |
-2.39*** |
2.51*** |
-2.23** |
-2.28** |
|
6 RMSFE |
0.84 |
0.83 |
1.18 |
0.83 |
0.79 |
0.81 |
0.80 |
1.18 |
0.79 |
0.74 |
|
DM |
-2.37*** |
-2.85*** |
3.11*** |
-1.89** |
-2.32** |
-2.20** |
-2.46*** |
2.33*** |
-2.16** |
-2.40*** |
|
MDM |
-2.21** |
-2.66*** |
2.90*** |
-1.76** |
-2.17** |
-2.05** |
-2.30** |
2.18** |
-2.02** |
-2.24** |
|
7 RMSFE |
0.83 |
0.81 |
1.17 |
0.81 |
0.77 |
0.76 |
0.75 |
1.12 |
0.73 |
0.69 |
|
DM |
-2.66*** |
-3.83*** |
3.46*** |
-1.92** |
-2.21** |
-2.49*** |
-2.73*** |
1.97** |
-2.42*** |
-2.61*** |
|
MDM |
-2.45*** |
-3.53*** |
3.19*** |
-1.77** |
-2.03** |
-2.29** |
-2.51*** |
1.81** |
-2.23** |
-2.40*** |
|
8 RMSFE |
0.80 |
0.79 |
1.13 |
0.76 |
0.75 |
0.74 |
0.72 |
1.09 |
0.68 |
0.65 |
|
DM |
-2.56*** |
-2.95*** |
2.10** |
-2.18** |
-1.95** |
-2.61*** |
-2.75*** |
1.24 |
-2.92*** |
-2.76*** |
|
MDM |
-2.32** |
-2.68*** |
1.91** |
-1.98** |
-1.77** |
-2.37** |
-2.50*** |
1.13 |
-2.65*** |
-2.50*** |
Notes: The Table reports the RMSFE relative to the Phillips curve benchmark model. Relative RMFSEs
smaller than 1 are documented in bold print. The lag length is set to minimize the Schwarz-information
criteria. (M)DM indicates the (modified) Diebold-Mariano test statistic. *** (**) (*) denotes significance at
the 0.99 (0.95) (0.90) level.
More intriguing information
1. Fertility in Developing Countries2. Needing to be ‘in the know’: strategies of subordination used by 10-11 year old school boys
3. EMU's Decentralized System of Fiscal Policy
4. The Mathematical Components of Engineering
5. Bargaining Power and Equilibrium Consumption
6. The name is absent
7. Barriers and Limitations in the Development of Industrial Innovation in the Region
8. The name is absent
9. Imitation in location choice
10. Evaluation of the Development Potential of Russian Cities