Abstract
All economists say that they want to take their models to the data. But with incomplete and highly imperfect data, doing so is difficult and requires carefully matching the assumptions of the model with the statistical properties of the data. The cointegrated VAR (CVAR) offers a way of doing so. In this paper we outline a method for translating the assumptions underlying a DSGE model into a set of testable assumptions on a cointegrated VAR model and illustrate the ideas with the RBC model in Ireland (2004). Accounting for unit roots (near unit roots) in the model is shown to provide a powerful robustification of the statistical and economic inference about persistent and less persistent movements in the data. We propose that all basic assumptions underlying the theory model should be formulated as a set of testable hypotheses on the long-run structure of a CVAR model, a so called ‘theory consistent hypothetical scenario’. The advantage of such a scenario is that it forces us to formulate all testable implications of the basic hypotheses underlying a theory model. We demonstrate that most assumptions underlying the DSGE model and, hence, the RBC model are rejected when properly tested. Leaving the RBC model aside, we then report a structured CVAR analysis that summarizes the main features of the data in terms of long-run relations and common stochastic trends. We argue that structuring the data in this way offers a number of ‘sophisticated’ stylized facts that a theory model should replicate in order to claim empirical relevance.
References
S. Altug. Time-to-build and aggregate fluctuations: some new evidence. International Economic review, 30:889−920, 1989. Further information in IDEAS/RePEcSearch in Google Scholar
V. Bencivenga. An econometric study of hours and output variation with preference shocks. International Economic Review, 33:449−471, 1992. Further information in IDEAS/RePEc10.2307/2526904Search in Google Scholar
D. Colander. Post Walrasian Macroeconomics: Beyond the Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium Model. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, Mass., 2006.10.1017/CBO9780511617751Search in Google Scholar
J. Davidson. Structural relations, cointegration and identification: Some simple results and their application. Journal of Econometrics, 87:87−113, 1998. Further information in IDEAS/RePEcSearch in Google Scholar
D. DeJong, B. Ingram, and C. Whiteman. A Bayesian approach to dynamic macroeconomics. Journal of Econometrics, 98:203−223, 2000. Further information in IDEAS/RePEc10.1016/S0304-4076(00)00019-1Search in Google Scholar
T. Haavelmo. The probability approach in econometrics. Econometrica, 12, supplement:1-15, 1944.10.2307/1906935Search in Google Scholar
G. Hall. Overtime, effort, and the propagation of business cycle shocks. Journal of Monetary Economics, 38:139−160, 1996. Further information in IDEAS/RePEc10.1016/0304-3932(96)01270-6Search in Google Scholar
G. Hansen. Indivisible labor and the business cycle. Journal of Monetary Economics, 16:309−327, 1985. Further information in IDEAS/RePEc10.1016/0304-3932(85)90039-XSearch in Google Scholar
D. Hendry and G. Mizon. Evaluating dynamic econometric models by encompassing the VAR. In Models, Methods and Applications of Econometrics, P.C.B. Phillips (Ed.), Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1993. Further information in IDEAS/RePEcSearch in Google Scholar
K. Hoover. The past as the future: The Marshallian approach to Post-Walrasian macro. In Post Walrasian Macroeconomics: Beyond the Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium Model, D. Colander (Ed.), Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, Mass., 2006.Search in Google Scholar
B. Ingram, N. Kocherlakota, and N. Savin. Explaining business cycles: a multiple-shock approach. Journal of Monetary Economics, 34:415−428, 1994. Further information in IDEAS/RePEcSearch in Google Scholar
P. Ireland. A method for taking models to the data. Journal of Economic Dynamics & Control, 28:1205-1226, 2004. Further information in IDEAS/RePEc10.1016/S0165-1889(03)00080-0Search in Google Scholar
S. Johansen. Likelihood-based Inference in Cointegrated Vector Autoregressive Models. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Further information10.1093/0198774508.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
S. Johansen. A small sample correction for tests of hypothesis on the cointegration vectors. Journal of Econometrics, 111:195−221, 2002. Further information in IDEAS/RePEc10.1016/S0304-4076(02)00104-5Search in Google Scholar
S. Johansen. Confronting the economic model with the data. In Post Walrasian Macroeconomics, D. Colander (Ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2006. Further information10.1017/CBO9780511617751.017Search in Google Scholar
K. Juselius. The Cointegrated VAR Model: Methodology and Applications. Oxford University Press, 2006. Further informationSearch in Google Scholar
J. Kim. Constructing and estimating a realistic optimizing model of monetary policy. Journal of Monetary Economics, 45:329−359, 2000. Further information in IDEAS/RePEc10.1016/S0304-3932(99)00054-9Search in Google Scholar
E. McGrattan. The macroeconomic effects of distortionally taxation. Journal of Monetary Economics, 33:573−601, 1994. Further information in IDEAS/RePEc10.1016/0304-3932(94)90044-2Search in Google Scholar
E. McGrattan, R. Rogerson, and R. Wright. An equilibrium model of the business cycle with household production and fiscal policy. International Economic review, 38:267−290, 1997. Further information in IDEAS/RePEc10.2307/2527375Search in Google Scholar
H. Nielsen. Cointegration analysis in the presence of outliers. The Econometrics Journal, 7:249−271, 2004. Further information in IDEAS/RePEc10.1111/j.1368-423X.2004.00130.xSearch in Google Scholar
A. Rahbek, E. Hansen, and J. Dennis. ARCH innovations and their impact on cointegration rank testing. Department of Theoretical Statistics Working Paper, 22, 2002. Further informationSearch in Google Scholar
© 2007 Katarina Juselius et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
