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. 5th and 8th grade pupils’ and teachers’ perceptions of the relationships between teaching methods, classroom ethos, and positive affective attitudes towards learning mathematics in Japan2. The name is absent
3. The name is absent
4. Innovation Trajectories in Honduras’ Coffee Value Chain. Public and Private Influence on the Use of New Knowledge and Technology among Coffee Growers
5. Multimedia as a Cognitive Tool
6. Computational Batik Motif Generation Innovation of Traditi onal Heritage by Fracta l Computation
7. The name is absent
8. The name is absent
9. Education as a Moral Concept
10. The name is absent