Performance of the ADF test in stationary series within structural breaks
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X75150Keywords:
ADF test, Time series, Structural breaks, Level shiftAbstract
The study of time series has been developed constantly, given the large volume of observed and measured data over the years. An important characteristic of time series is stationarity, which is mostly analyzed by unit root tests. It is a consensus in the literature that structural breaks, when present in the data series, can bias the result of the Augmented Dickey Fuller Test (ADF), the best known and most widely used method of stationarity investigation. So far, however, there is no consensus regarding the intensity that structural breaks can affect the power of the ADF Test, making the decision about using it difficult and possibly leading researchers to errors under those changes. Thus, this article analyzed the influence of level shift (LS) structural breaks in the stationarity analysis in annual time series using the ADF test through the rejection proportion of the null hypothesis. It was observed that this procedure tends to reject the null hypothesis in the presence of structural breaks in a possible confusion with the presence of a unit root. Furthermore, it was noted that, as the initial perturbation ω, increased, the power of the test was rapidly reduced, mainly with level change breaks imputed in positions closer to the origin of the data series.
Downloads
References
Bai, J. (1994). Least squares estimation of a shift in linear processes. Journal of Time Series Analysis, 15(5), 453–472.
Bueno, R. D. L. d. S. (2012). Econometria de séries temporais. Cengage Learning.
Chen, C., Liu, L. M. (1993). Forecasting time series with outliers. Journal of forecasting, 12(1), 13–35.
Chow, G. C. (1960). Tests of equality between sets of coefficients in two linear regressions. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 28(3), 591–605.
Dickey, D. A., Fuller, W. A. (1979). Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Journal of the American statistical association, 74(366a), 427–431.
Gujarati, D. N., Porter, D. C. (2011). Econometria básica-5. Amgh Editora.
Hansen, B. E. (2001). The new econometrics of structural change: Dating breaks in us labor productivity. Journal of Economic perspectives, 15(4), 117–128.
Hyndman, R. J., Athanasopoulos, G. (2018). Forecasting: principles and practice. OTexts.
Kaiser, R., Maravall Herrero, A. (1999). Seasonal outliers in time series. Documentos de trabajo/Banco de España, 9915.
Kwiatkowski, D., Phillips, P. C., Schmidt, P., Shin, Y. (1992). Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root: How sure are we that economic time series have a unit root? Journal of econometrics, 54(1-3), 159–178.
Perron, P. (1989). The great crash, the oil price shock, and the unit root hypothesis. Econometrica: journal of the Econometric Society, pp. 1361–1401.
Phillips, P. C., Perron, P. (1988). Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika, 75(2), 335–346.
R Core Team, R., et al. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. URL https://www.R-project. org/..
Said, S. E., Dickey, D. A. (1984). Testing for unit roots in autoregressive-moving average models of unknown order. Biometrika, 71(3), 599–607.
Shikida, C., Paiva, G. L., Junior, A. F. A. (2016). Análise de quebras estruturais na série do preço do boi gordo no estado de são paulo. Economia Aplicada, 20(2), 265.
Silveira, A. G. (2017). Estudo da demanda de energia elétrica no brasil. Dissertação de mestrado (modelagem computacional). Trívez, F.
J. (1995). Level shifts, temporary changes and forecasting. Journal of Forecasting, 14(6), 543–550.
Tsay, R. S. (1988). Outliers, level shifts, and variance changes in time series. Journal of forecasting, 7(1), 1–20.
Zivot, E., Andrews, D. W. K. (2002). Further evidence on the great crash, the oil-price shock, and the unit-root hypothesis. Journal of business & economic statistics, 20(1), 25–44.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Ciência e Natura
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.