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. The name is absent2. A Pure Test for the Elasticity of Yield Spreads
3. Estimating the Economic Value of Specific Characteristics Associated with Angus Bulls Sold at Auction
4. The name is absent
5. Developing vocational practice in the jewelry sector through the incubation of a new ‘project-object’
6. Luce Irigaray and divine matter
7. The constitution and evolution of the stars
8. QUEST II. A Multi-Country Business Cycle and Growth Model
9. Announcement effects of convertible bond loans versus warrant-bond loans: An empirical analysis for the Dutch market
10. Natural hazard mitigation in Southern California