Table 6
Forecast accuracy of alternative Phillips curves, Germany
|
____________________________________West Germany, 1985:1 - 1998:4__________________________________ | ||||||||||
|
x = GDP |
x = unemployment rate | |||||||||
|
h |
Med |
Diff |
Mom |
WMed tr20 |
Med |
Diff |
Mom |
WMed |
tr20 | |
|
s |
s ff |
s |
s s |
s |
s ff |
s |
s |
s | ||
|
1 |
RMSFE |
0.85 |
0.85 |
0.94 |
0.94 0.97 |
0.99 |
1.00 |
1.01 |
1.05 |
1.06 |
|
DM |
-0.55 |
-0.55 |
-0.25 |
-0.21 -0.10 |
-0.05 |
-0.02 |
0.05 |
0.22 |
0.29 | |
|
MDM |
-0.54 |
-0.54 |
-0.25 |
-0.21 -0.10 |
-0.05 |
-0.02 |
0.05 |
0.22 |
0.28 | |
|
2 |
RMSFE |
0.77 |
0.70 |
0.94 |
0.98 0.95 |
0.96 |
0.89 |
1.00 |
1.01 |
1.05 |
|
DM |
-1.20 |
-1.10 |
-0.35 |
-0.11 -0.23 |
-0.20 |
-0.36 |
0.02 |
0.02 |
0.17 | |
|
MDM |
-1.13 |
-1.04 |
-0.33 |
-0.10 -0.22 |
-0.19 |
-0.34 |
0.02 |
0.02 |
0.16 | |
|
3 |
RMSFE |
0.77 |
0.70 |
0.86 |
0.85 0.82 |
0.90 |
0.88 |
0.89 |
0.90 |
0.93 |
|
DM |
-1.88** |
-1.75** |
-2.98*** |
-3.17*** -1.69** |
-0.51 |
-0.55 |
-0.83 |
-0.59 |
-0.32 | |
|
MDM |
-1.70* |
-1.58* |
-2.69*** |
-2.86*** -1.53* |
-0.46 |
-0.50 |
-0.75 |
-0.53 |
-0.29 | |
|
4 |
RMSFE |
0.52 |
0.50 |
0.85 |
0.82 0.63 |
0.98 |
0.75 |
0.78 |
0.77 |
0.84 |
|
DM |
-2.23** |
-1.78** |
-0.83 |
-1.23 -2.23** |
NA |
-1.50* |
-1.58* |
-1.79** |
-1.40* | |
|
MDM |
-1.92** |
-1.53* |
-0.71 |
-1.06 -1.92** |
0.00 |
-1.29 |
-1.36* |
-1.54* |
-1.20 | |
|
Germany, 1993:1 |
- 2007:4 | |||||||||
|
x = GDP |
x = unemployment rate | |||||||||
|
h |
Med |
Diff |
Mom |
WMed tr20 |
Med |
Diff |
Mom |
WMed |
tr20 | |
|
s |
s ff |
s |
s s |
s |
s ff |
s |
s |
s | ||
|
1 |
RMSFE |
0.95 |
1.01 |
1.18 |
1.02 1.02 |
1.06 |
1.19 |
1.24 |
1.16 |
1.09 |
|
DM |
-0.65 |
0.05 |
1.89** |
0.22 0.25 |
0.73 |
1.93** |
2.60*** |
1.63* |
0.96 | |
|
MDM |
-0.64 |
0.05 |
1.86** |
0.22 0.25 |
0.72 |
1.90** |
2.56*** |
1.61* |
0.95 | |
|
2 |
RMSFE |
0.86 |
1.05 |
1.21 |
1.01 1.01 |
1.06 |
1.16 |
1.27 |
1.26 |
1.14 |
|
DM |
-1.05 |
0.51 |
1.37* |
0.05 0.08 |
0.53 |
2.97*** |
1.87** |
3.05*** |
1.20 | |
|
MDM |
-1.00 |
0.49 |
1.31* |
0.05 0.08 |
0.51 |
2.84*** |
1.79** |
2.92*** |
1.15 | |
|
3 |
RMSFE |
0.85 |
1.04 |
1.20 |
0.96 1.00 |
1.06 |
1.21 |
1.18 |
1.22 |
1.13 |
|
DM |
-0.85 |
0.28 |
1.70** |
-0.24 0.02 |
0.34 |
1.45* |
1.28 |
1.26 |
0.74 | |
|
MDM |
-0.79 |
0.26 |
1.57* |
-0.22 0.02 |
0.31 |
1.34* |
1.19 |
1.17 |
0.69 | |
|
4 |
RMSFE |
0.84 |
0.97 |
1.23 |
0.95 1.04 |
1.12 |
1.24 |
1.28 |
1.29 |
1.18 |
|
DM |
-0.80 |
-0.15 |
2.60*** |
-0.25 0.28 |
0.63 |
1.47* |
2.39*** |
1.50* |
1.17 | |
|
MDM |
-0.72 |
-0.13 |
2.32** |
-0.22 0.25 |
0.56 |
1.31* |
2.14** |
1.34* |
1.05 | |
Notes: The Table reports the RMSFE relative to the Phillips curve benchmark model. Relative RMSFEs
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. Endogenous Heterogeneity in Strategic Models: Symmetry-breaking via Strategic Substitutes and Nonconcavities2. Skills, Partnerships and Tenancy in Sri Lankan Rice Farms
3. Gianluigi Zenti, President, Academia Barilla SpA - The Changing Consumer: Demanding but Predictable
4. Distribution of aggregate income in Portugal from 1995 to 2000 within a SAM (Social Accounting Matrix) framework. Modeling the household sector
5. Types of Tax Concessions for Promoting Investment in Free Economic and Trade Areas
6. The name is absent
7. The name is absent
8. The name is absent
9. Washington Irving and the Knickerbocker Group
10. The name is absent