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. Lending to Agribusinesses in Zambia2. Job quality and labour market performance
3. The name is absent
4. The name is absent
5. Telecommuting and environmental policy - lessons from the Ecommute program
6. Testing Panel Data Regression Models with Spatial Error Correlation
7. The name is absent
8. Confusion and Reinforcement Learning in Experimental Public Goods Games
9. The name is absent
10. Skills, Partnerships and Tenancy in Sri Lankan Rice Farms