Economic Models - Convex Optimization

Economic Models - Convex Optimization Economic Models - Convex Optimization

convexoptimization.com
from convexoptimization.com More from this publisher
10.03.2015 Views

Credit and Income 213 4.4. Essential Remarks In seminal works about money and income (as for instance in Tobin, 1970), the analysis is restricted in a pure theoretical consideration. Some authors (see for instance, Friedman and Kuttner, 1992) write many explanations about co-integration, co-integrating vectors, and error-correction models, but I did not trace any attempt to compute either. In a later paper by the same authors (Friedman and Kuttner, 1993), I read (p. 200) the phrase, “vector autoregression system,” which in fact is understood as a VAR. The point is that no VAR model is specified in this work. Besides, the lag length is determined by simply applying the F-test (p. 191). In this context, the validity of the results is questionable. In other applications (see for instance, Arestis and Demetriades, 1997), where a VAR model has been formulated, nothing is mentioned about the test applied to determine the maximum lag length. Also, in this paper, the authors are restricted to the use of trace statistic (l (trace) ) to test for co-integration (p. 787), although this is the necessary but not the sufficient condition, as pointed out above. From other research works (see for instance, Arestis et al., 2001), I get the impression that there is not a clear notion regarding stationarity and/or integration, since the authors state [p. 22 immediately after Eq. (1)], that “D isaset of I(0) deterministic variables such as constant, trend and dummies. . . ”. It is clear that this verification is false. How can a trend, for instance, be a stationary, I(0), variable? 10 The authors declare (p. 24) that “We then perform co-integration analysis. . . ”. The point is that apart from some theoretical issues, I did not trace such an analysis in the way it is applied here. Besides, nothing is mentioned about any ECVAR, analogous to the one that is formulated and used in this study. Most essentially, I have not traced, In case that the disequilibrium errors are computed from: then the co-integration vector will have the form: u i = Ŷ i − Y i (13) [−10.289613 0.003621]. (14) It is noted also that hat (ˆ) is omitted from the disequilibrium errors u i , for avoiding any confusion with the OLS disturbances. It should be emphasized that in such a case, i.e., using the disequilibrium errors computed from Eq. (13), then the sign of the coefficient of adjustment, as will be seen later, will be changed. 10 It should be re-called at this point, that if t i is a common trend, then t i = 1(∀ i).

214 Athanasios Athanasenas in relevant works, the stability analysis applied for the system presented in Eq. (8). 4.5. The ECM Formulation The lagged values of the disequilibrium errors, that is u i−1 , serve as an error correction mechanism in a short-run dynamic relationship, where the additional explanatory variables may appear in lagged first differences. All variables in this equation, also known as ECM, are stationary so that, from the econometric point of view, it is a standard single equation model, where all the classical tests are applicable. It should be noted, that the lag structure and the details of the ECM, should be in line with the formulation as seen in Eq. (6a). Hence, I started from this relation considering the errors u i and estimated the following model, given that the maximum lag length is p − 1 i.e., 3. Y i = α 0 + 3∑ α j Y i−j + j=1 3∑ β j W i−j − a Y u i−1 + Y v i . (15) j=1 Note that Y v i are the model disturbances. If the adjustment coefficient a Y is significant, then we may conclude that in the long run, W causes Y. If a Y = 0, then no such a causality effect exists. In case that all β j are significant, then there is a causality effect in the short run, from W to Y. Ifallβ j = 0, then no such causality effect exists. The estimation results are presented below. Y i = 0.5132+ 0.2618Y i−1 + 0.161Y i−2 − 0.00432Y i−3 + 0.0273W i−1 (0.125) (0.074) (0.073) (0.0738) (0.075) p value 0.0001 0.0005 0.0276 0.953 0.719 Hansen 0.0370 0.1380 0.2380 0.234 0.128 + 0.0487W i−2 − 0.076W i−3 − 0.0879u i−1 + Y ˆv i (0.075) (0.065) (0.022) p value 0.519 0.242 0.0001 Hansen 0.065 0.098 0.025 (for all coefficients 2.316) (16) ¯R 2 = 0.167,s= 0.009, DWd = 1.98,F (7,189) = 6.65, Condition number (CN) = 635.34. (p value = 0.0)

Credit and Income 213<br />

4.4. Essential Remarks<br />

In seminal works about money and income (as for instance in Tobin, 1970),<br />

the analysis is restricted in a pure theoretical consideration. Some authors<br />

(see for instance, Friedman and Kuttner, 1992) write many explanations<br />

about co-integration, co-integrating vectors, and error-correction models,<br />

but I did not trace any attempt to compute either. In a later paper by the<br />

same authors (Friedman and Kuttner, 1993), I read (p. 200) the phrase,<br />

“vector autoregression system,” which in fact is understood as a VAR. The<br />

point is that no VAR model is specified in this work. Besides, the lag length<br />

is determined by simply applying the F-test (p. 191). In this context, the<br />

validity of the results is questionable. In other applications (see for instance,<br />

Arestis and Demetriades, 1997), where a VAR model has been formulated,<br />

nothing is mentioned about the test applied to determine the maximum lag<br />

length. Also, in this paper, the authors are restricted to the use of trace<br />

statistic (l (trace) ) to test for co-integration (p. 787), although this is the<br />

necessary but not the sufficient condition, as pointed out above. From other<br />

research works (see for instance, Arestis et al., 2001), I get the impression<br />

that there is not a clear notion regarding stationarity and/or integration,<br />

since the authors state [p. 22 immediately after Eq. (1)], that “D isaset<br />

of I(0) deterministic variables such as constant, trend and dummies. . . ”.<br />

It is clear that this verification is false. How can a trend, for instance, be<br />

a stationary, I(0), variable? 10 The authors declare (p. 24) that “We then<br />

perform co-integration analysis. . . ”. The point is that apart from some<br />

theoretical issues, I did not trace such an analysis in the way it is applied<br />

here. Besides, nothing is mentioned about any ECVAR, analogous to the one<br />

that is formulated and used in this study. Most essentially, I have not traced,<br />

In case that the disequilibrium errors are computed from:<br />

then the co-integration vector will have the form:<br />

u i = Ŷ i − Y i (13)<br />

[−10.289613 0.003621]. (14)<br />

It is noted also that hat (ˆ) is omitted from the disequilibrium errors u i , for avoiding any<br />

confusion with the OLS disturbances.<br />

It should be emphasized that in such a case, i.e., using the disequilibrium errors computed<br />

from Eq. (13), then the sign of the coefficient of adjustment, as will be seen later, will be<br />

changed.<br />

10 It should be re-called at this point, that if t i is a common trend, then t i = 1(∀ i).

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!