Testing Hypotheses in an I(2) Model with Applications to the Persistent Long Swings in the Dmk/$ Rate



variables in differences. The intuition is that the differenced process also contains unit
roots when data are
I(2).

There is, however, an important difference between the first and the second condi-
tion. The former is formulated as a reduced rank condition directly on ∏
, whereas the
latter is on a transformed Γ
. Below we shall show that this is the basic reason why the
ML estimation procedure needs a different parameterization than the one in (1) .

The intuition behind (7) can be seen by pre-multiplying (1) with aβ. This makes
the levels component
'xt~1 disappear and reduces the model to a (p r)-dimensional
system of equations in first- and second order differences. In this system the hypothesis
of reduced rank of the matrix
o, Γβ' is tested in the usual way. Thus, the second
condition is similar to the first except that the second reduced rank is formulated on
the
p r common driving trends, rather than on the p variables.

Using (7) it is possible to decompose о and βɪ into the I(1) and I(2) directions
α = [αχ1χ2] and βɪ = [βx1±2] . The matrices ɑɪɪ and β11 of dimension p × sɪ,
and α 2 and β±2 of p × s2 are defined by ɑɪɪ = α±ξ, βɪ 1 = β1η, a 2 = aχξx and
β 2 = β±L±, where ζ±± are the orthogonal complements of ξ and η, respectively5
and
a = о ('o, о ) 1 denotes a shorthand notation used all through the chapter.

The moving average representation of the I(2) model was derived in Johansen
(1992). The baseline VAR model (1) contains a constant, a trend and several dummy
variables that will have to be restricted in certain ways to avoid undesirable effects.
Without such restrictions the MA model can be given in its completely unrestricted
form:

t j

Xt =  C2 ∑2 ∑(εi + Lo + L1i + ΦsDs,i + ΦpDpji + Φ/.,.Dtr,i)

j=1 i=1
t

(8)


+ C1 ^ (£j + Lo + L1J + ®sDs,j + ΦpDp,j + $trDtr,j)
j=1

+ C *(L)(£t + Lo + L1t + ®sDs,t + ®pDp,t + Φtr Dtr,t) + A + Bt

where A and B are functions of the initial values Xo, x~1, ...,x~k+1, and the coefficient
matrices satisfy:

C2 = β n(⅛2Φβ 2     2,

β'C1 = U'ΓC2,  β!1 C1 = ⅛1(I ΦC2),

(9)


Φ = ΓβαT + r1

To facilitate the interpretation of the I(2) trends and how they load into the variables,
j £D             £D (                      1 1

we denote ɔ' 2 = βx2(α,h2Φβ±2) 1, so that

_ ~ , .

C2 = β 2   ,.                                    (10)

5Note that the matrices a±1, a±2, βɪo and β±2 are called a1, a2. β 1 and β2 in the many papers
on
I(2) by Johansen. The reason why we deviate here from the simpler notation is that we need
to distinguish between different
β and a vectors in the empirical analysis and, hence, use the latter
notation for this purpose.



More intriguing information

1. The name is absent
2. The name is absent
3. AN ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROGRAM
4. TLRP: academic challenges for moral purposes
5. CAPACITAÇÃO GERENCIAL DE AGRICULTORES FAMILIARES: UMA PROPOSTA METODOLÓGICA DE EXTENSÃO RURAL
6. Spousal Labor Market Effects from Government Health Insurance: Evidence from a Veterans Affairs Expansion
7. NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN FARM PRICE AND INCOME POLICY PROGRAMS: PART I. SITUATION AND PROBLEM
8. The name is absent
9. Computational Experiments with the Fuzzy Love and Romance
10. The name is absent
11. The name is absent
12. TOWARD CULTURAL ONCOLOGY: THE EVOLUTIONARY INFORMATION DYNAMICS OF CANCER
13. Yield curve analysis
14. Improving the Impact of Market Reform on Agricultural Productivity in Africa: How Institutional Design Makes a Difference
15. The name is absent
16. Self-Help Groups and Income Generation in the Informal Settlements of Nairobi
17. National curriculum assessment: how to make it better
18. Intertemporal Risk Management Decisions of Farmers under Preference, Market, and Policy Dynamics
19. Announcement effects of convertible bond loans versus warrant-bond loans: An empirical analysis for the Dutch market
20. The Shepherd Sinfonia