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 217 Y i = Y i + Y i−1 W i = W i + W i−1 u i = Y i − 0.289613W i − 0.0036218t i . (19) It may be useful to note that there are three identities in the system and the only exogenous variable present in the system is the trend. We may obtain dynamic simulation results from the ECVAR specified in Eq. (19), in order to obtain predictions for Y i and W i and at the same time to verify the validity of the co-integration vector used. This can be achieved by first formulating the following deterministic system. K 0 y i = K 1 y i−1 + K 2 y i−2 + K 3 y i−3 + ˜Dq i (20) where y i = [ϒ i W i u i Y i W i ] ′ , q i = [t i 1] ′ ⎡ K 0 = ⎢ ⎣ 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 −1 0.289613 −1 0 0 1 0 0 −1 0 0 1 ⎤ ⎥ ⎦ , ⎡ ⎤ 0.2618 0.0273 −0.0879 0 0 0.0977 0.4864 −0.03852 0 0 K 1 = ⎢ 0 0 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎣ 0 0 0 1 0⎦ , 0 0 0 0 1 ⎡ ⎤ 0.161 0.0487 0 0 0 0.2256 0.0123 0 0 0 K 2 = ⎢ 0 0 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎣ 0 0 0 0 0⎦ , 0 0 0 0 0 ⎡ ⎤ −0.00432 0.076 0 0 0 0.199 −0.068 0 0 0 K 3 = ⎢ 0 0 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎣ 0 0 0 0 0⎦ , 0 0 0 0 0

218 Athanasios Athanasenas and ⎡ ˜D = ⎢ ⎣ ⎤ 0 0.5132 0 0.2241 ⎥ ⎦ . −0.003621 0 0 0 0 0 Pre-multiplying Eq. (20) by K0 −1 we get: y i = Q 1 y i−1 + Q 2 y i−2 + Q 3 y i−3 + Dq i (21) where Q 1 = K0 −1 K 1, Q 2 = K0 −1 K 2, Q 3 = K0 −1 K 3, and D = K0 −1 ˜D. The system given in Eq. (21) can be transformed to an equivalent firstorder dynamic system, in a similar way to the one already described earlier [see Eqs. (8) and (8a)]. It is noted that in this case matrix à is of dimension (15 × 15). It is important to mention again that we should avoid using a dynamic system, for simulation purposes, that is unstable. Thus, from this system, we can obtain dynamic simulation results for the variables Y i and W i . These results are graphically presented (Fig. 2). The very low value of Theil’s inequality coefficient U, for both cases is a pronounced evidence that, apart from computing the indicated cointegration vector, we have also formulated the suitable ECVAR so that the results obtained are undoubtfully robust. 5. Conclusions and Implications The purpose of this study is to contribute to the empirical investigation of the co-integration dynamics of the credit-income nexus, within the economic growth process of the post-war US economy, over the period from 1957 to 2007. Utilizing advanced and contemporary co-integration analysis and applying vector ECM estimation, we place special emphasis on forecasting and system stability analysis. I can say that to the best of my knowledge, similar system stability and forecasting analysis, as the one applied here, is very difficult to meet in the relevant literature, after taking into consideration similar research works. See for example, (Arestis and Demetriades, 1997; Arestis et al., 2001; Demetriades and Hussein, 1996; Friedman and Kuttner, 1992; 1993; Levine and Zervos, 1998; Rousseau and Wachtel, 1998; 2000). My results state clearly that there is no short-run causality effect from credit changes to income changes, but only in the levels, that is in the long

218 Athanasios Athanasenas<br />

and<br />

⎡<br />

˜D =<br />

⎢<br />

⎣<br />

⎤<br />

0 0.5132<br />

0 0.2241<br />

⎥<br />

⎦ .<br />

−0.003621 0<br />

0 0<br />

0 0<br />

Pre-multiplying Eq. (20) by K0 −1 we get:<br />

y i = Q 1 y i−1 + Q 2 y i−2 + Q 3 y i−3 + Dq i (21)<br />

where Q 1 = K0 −1 K 1, Q 2 = K0 −1 K 2, Q 3 = K0 −1 K 3, and D = K0<br />

−1 ˜D.<br />

The system given in Eq. (21) can be transformed to an equivalent firstorder<br />

dynamic system, in a similar way to the one already described earlier<br />

[see Eqs. (8) and (8a)]. It is noted that in this case matrix à is of dimension<br />

(15 × 15). It is important to mention again that we should avoid using<br />

a dynamic system, for simulation purposes, that is unstable. Thus, from<br />

this system, we can obtain dynamic simulation results for the variables Y i<br />

and W i . These results are graphically presented (Fig. 2).<br />

The very low value of Theil’s inequality coefficient U, for both cases<br />

is a pronounced evidence that, apart from computing the indicated cointegration<br />

vector, we have also formulated the suitable ECVAR so that the<br />

results obtained are undoubtfully robust.<br />

5. Conclusions and Implications<br />

The purpose of this study is to contribute to the empirical investigation of<br />

the co-integration dynamics of the credit-income nexus, within the economic<br />

growth process of the post-war US economy, over the period from<br />

1957 to 2007.<br />

Utilizing advanced and contemporary co-integration analysis and<br />

applying vector ECM estimation, we place special emphasis on forecasting<br />

and system stability analysis. I can say that to the best of my knowledge,<br />

similar system stability and forecasting analysis, as the one applied here,<br />

is very difficult to meet in the relevant literature, after taking into consideration<br />

similar research works. See for example, (Arestis and Demetriades,<br />

1997; Arestis et al., 2001; Demetriades and Hussein, 1996; Friedman and<br />

Kuttner, 1992; 1993; Levine and Zervos, 1998; Rousseau and Wachtel,<br />

1998; 2000).<br />

My results state clearly that there is no short-run causality effect from<br />

credit changes to income changes, but only in the levels, that is in the long

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!