4. The Relationship between Inflation and Steady-State Inflation Uncertainty in
a Bivariate VAR Framework
Next, we estimate a bivariate VAR for inflation and steady-state inflation uncertainty
to test for causality and for the presence of structural breaks related to EMU. As a first
step, the order of integration of the variables needs to be established. Standard ADF
tests reject the null hypothesis of a unit root in levels in both cases. We then carry out
the unit root tests proposed by Saikkonen and Lütkepohl (2002) and Lanne et al.
(2002). These are based on first estimating the deterministic term by a generalized
least squares (GLS) procedure under the unit root null hypothesis and subtracting it
from the original series. Then an ADF-type test is performed on the adjusted series
which also includes terms to correct for estimation errors in the parameters of the
deterministic part. As in the case of the ADF statistic, the asymptotic null distribution
is non-standard. Critical values are tabulated in Lanne et al. (2002). The test results
when allowing for exogenous breaks indicate that steady-state uncertainty might not
be stationary, but those including endogenously determined breaks again support
stationarity of both series (see Table 2).
Tabl |
e 2. Unit root tests on inflation and steady-state inflation uncertainty | ||||
INFLATION |
SS_UNC | ||||
Test |
Lag |
Test statistic |
Det. Comp. |
Test statistic |
Det. Comp. |
ADF |
3 |
-6.80 ** |
C, T, SD |
-4.45 ** |
C, T, SD |
REC |
-3.50 *(5) |
C, T, SD |
-4.45 ** (3) |
C, T, SD | |
EXO_SB |
3 |
-5.14** |
C, T, SD |
-2.74 |
C, T, SD |
REC |
-3.03 * (5) |
C, T, SD |
-1.58 (5) |
C, T, SD | |
END_SB |
3 |
-8.14 ** |
C, T, SD 2008 M5 |
-3.58 ** |
C, T, SD 2001 M3 |
REC |
-1.52 (11) |
C, T, SD 2008 M7 |
-3.58 ** (3) |
C, T, SD 2001 M3 |
Table 3. Johansen Trace Test for: [infl, infl ss var]
Test 1: includ |
ed lags (levels): 3, trend and |
intercept, seasonal dummies included | |||
Coint rank |
Test stat. |
p val |
90% |
95% |
99% |
r0 = 0 |
91.11 |
0 .0000 |
23.32 |
25.73 |
30.67 |
r0 = 1 |
19.71 |
0.0020 |
10.68 |
12.45 |
16.22 |
Test 2: includ |
ed lags (levels): 1, trend and |
intercept, seasonal dummies included | |||
r0 = 0 |
137.26 |
0.0000 |
23.32 |
25.73 |
30.67 |
r1 = 1 |
21.37 |
0.0009 |
10.68 |
12.45 |
16.22 |
Test 3: includ |
ed lags (levels): 8, trend and |
intercept, seasonal dummies included | |||
r0 = 0 |
67.20 |
0.0000 |
23.32 |
25.73 |
30.67 |
r1 = 1 |
16.20 |
0.0101 |
10.68 |
12.45 |
16.22 |
13
More intriguing information
1. The Tangible Contribution of R&D Spending Foreign-Owned Plants to a Host Region: a Plant Level Study of the Irish Manufacturing Sector (1980-1996)2. Momentum in Australian Stock Returns: An Update
3. The name is absent
4. New issues in Indian macro policy.
5. Political Rents, Promotion Incentives, and Support for a Non-Democratic Regime
6. Land Police in Mozambique: Future Perspectives
7. The name is absent
8. THE ANDEAN PRICE BAND SYSTEM: EFFECTS ON PRICES, PROTECTION AND PRODUCER WELFARE
9. Text of a letter
10. The Values and Character Dispositions of 14-16 Year Olds in the Hodge Hill Constituency