2008
DOI: 10.2202/1558-3708.1467
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cointegration with Structural Breaks: An Application to the Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
111
0
7

Year Published

2011
2011
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 46 publications
(119 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
1
111
0
7
Order By: Relevance
“…I estimate the number and positions of breakpoints using tests developed by Perron (1998, 2003) for a stationary context and extended by Kejriwal andPerron (2008b, 2010) can be found in Kejriwal (2008) and Kejriwal and Perron (2010), the latter of which has critical values. 22 .…”
Section: Detecting Structural Breaksmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…I estimate the number and positions of breakpoints using tests developed by Perron (1998, 2003) for a stationary context and extended by Kejriwal andPerron (2008b, 2010) can be found in Kejriwal (2008) and Kejriwal and Perron (2010), the latter of which has critical values. 22 .…”
Section: Detecting Structural Breaksmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The number of breaks corresponds to the value k at which the sequential test, F * T (k + 1|k), is no longer rejected at the 1% level. 24 In most cases, the number of breakpoints selected corresponds to the minimum of either the BIC or LWZ information criterion 25 mentioned by Perron (1998, 2003) and Kejriwal (2008). 26 Breakpoint test statistics are available in Tables 3, 4, and 5.…”
Section: Estimationmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…To determine the timing of breaks Perron (1998, 2003) Yet, the Kejriwal and Perron (2010) stability test may reject the null of coefficient stability when the regression is a spurious one, i.e., not cointegrated; hence, the Kejriwal (2008) cointegration test with multiple breaks is used to confirm the presence of cointegration, i.e., reject the possibility of a spurious relationship. That test considers the relation…”
Section: Optimal Timing Of Breaks and Cointegration Tests And Estimatmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Table 1 Again, to determine the number and timing of breaks, we consider two information/decision criteria, i.e., the sequential method of Kejriwal and Perron (2010) and the LWZ criterion. If the sequential method did not determine a break, we went with the number of breaks determined by the LWZ (as in Kejriwal 2008). If the two criteria suggest different, nonzero number of breaks, we consider both possibilities (a case that only occurred for Poland and UK).…”
Section: Optimal Timing Of Breaks and Cointegration Tests And Estimatmentioning
confidence: 99%