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. Bargaining Power and Equilibrium Consumption2. ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY: THE LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY AGENDA
3. National curriculum assessment: how to make it better
4. The name is absent
5. A parametric approach to the estimation of cointegration vectors in panel data
6. The name is absent
7. The name is absent
8. Using Surveys Effectively: What are Impact Surveys?
9. CAN CREDIT DEFAULT SWAPS PREDICT FINANCIAL CRISES? EMPIRICAL STUDY ON EMERGING MARKETS
10. The mental map of Dutch entrepreneurs. Changes in the subjective rating of locations in the Netherlands, 1983-1993-2003