Testing for Cointegration in a Double-LSTR Framework

  • Claudia Grote
  • Philipp SibbertsenEmail author
Part of the Advanced Studies in Theoretical and Applied Econometrics book series (ASTA, volume 48)


This paper investigates the finite-sample properties of the smooth transition-based cointegration test proposed by Kapetanios et al. (Econ Theory 22:279–303, 2006) when the data generating process under the alternative hypothesis is a globally stationary second order LSTR model. The provided procedure describes an application to long-run equilibrium relations involving real exchange rates with symmetric behaviour. We utilise the properties of the double LSTR transition function that features unit root behaviour within the inner regime and symmetric behaviour in the outer regimes. Hence, under the null hypothesis we imply no cointegration and globally stationary D-LSTR cointegration under the alternative. As a result of the identification problem the limiting distribution derived under the null hypothesis is non-standard. The Double LSTR is capable of producing three-regime TAR nonlinearity when the transition parameter tends to infinity as well as generating exponential-type nonlinearity that closely approximates ESTR nonlinearity. Therefore, we find that the Double LSTR error correction model has power against both of these alternatives.


Cointegration Test Error Correction Model Error Correction Term Cointegration Relation Auxiliary Regression 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Abadir, K., & Distaso, W. (2007). Testing joint hypotheses when one of the alternatives is one-sided. Journal of Econometrics, 140, 695–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balke, N., & Fomby, T. (1997). Threshold cointegration. International Economic Review, 38, 627–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bierens, H., & Martins, L. (2010). Time-varying cointegration. Econometric Theory, 26, 1453–1490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen, L.-H., Finney, M., & Lai, K. (2005). A threshold cointegration analysis of asymmetric price transmission from crude oil to gasoline prices. Economic Letters, 89, 233–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davies, R. (1987). Hypothesis testing when a nuisance parameter is present only under the alternative. Biometrika, 74, 33–43.Google Scholar
  6. Dufrénot, G., Mathieu, L., Mignon, V., & Péguin-Feissolle, A. (2006). Persistent misalignments of the European exchange rates: Some evidence from non-linear cointegration. Applied Econometrics, 38, 203–229.Google Scholar
  7. Enders, W., & Granger, C. (1998). Unit-root tests and asymmetric adjustment with an example using the term structure of interest rates. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 16, 304–311.Google Scholar
  8. Engle, R., & Granger, C. (1987). Co-integration and error correction: Representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica, 55, 251–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Granger, C. (1981). Some properties of time series datat and their use in econometric model specification. Journal of Econometrics, 16, 121–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hansen, H., & Seo, B. (2002). Testing for two-regime threshold co-integration in vector error-correction models. Journal of Econometrics, 110, 293–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jansen, E., & Teräsvirta, T. (1996). Testing parameter constancy and super exogeneity in econometric equations. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 58, 735–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Johansen, S. (1988). Statistical analysis of cointegration vectors. Journal of Economic Dynamics und Control, 12, 231–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Johansen, S. (1991). Estimation and hypothesis testing of cointegration vectors in gaussian vector autoregressive models. Econometrica, 59, 1551–1580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kapetanios, G., Shin, Y., & Snell, A. (2006). Testing for cointegration in nonlinear smooth transition error correction models. Econometric Theory, 22, 279–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kaufmann, H., Kruse, R., & Sibbertsen, P. (2012). A simple specification procedure for the transition function in persistent nonlinear time series models. Discussion Paper, Leibniz University Hannover.Google Scholar
  16. Kiliç, R. (2011). Testing for co-integration and nonlinear adjustment in a smooth transition error correction model. Journal of Time Series Analysis, 32, 647–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lo, M., & Zivot, E. (2001). Threshold co-integration and non-linear adjustment to the law of one price. Macroeconomic Dynamics, 5, 533–576.Google Scholar
  18. Maki, D. (2013). Detecting cointegration relationships under nonlinear models: Monte carlo analysis and some applications. Empirical Economics, 45(1), 605–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nedeljkovic, M. (2011). Testing for smooth transition nonlinearity adjustments of cointegrating systems. Department of Economics, Warwick Economic Research Paper No. 876.Google Scholar
  20. Seo, M. (2004). Cointegration test in the threshold cointegration model. Manuscript, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Economics.Google Scholar
  21. Shi, X., & Phillips, P. (2012). Nonlinear cointegrating regression under weak identification. Econometric Theory, 28, 509–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Siklos, P., & Granger, C. (1997). Regime sensitive cointegration with an application to interest-rate parity. Macroeconomic Dynamics, 1, 640–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sollis, R. (2011). Testing the unit root hypothesis against TAR nonlinearity using STAR-based tests. Economic Letters, 112, 19–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Taylor, A. (2001). Potential pitfalls for the purchasing power parity puzzle? Sampling and specification biases in mean reversion tests of the law of one price. Econometrica, 69, 473–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Taylor, A., & Peel, D. (2000). Nonlinear adjustment, long-run equilibrium and exchange rate fundamentals. Journal of International Money and Finance, 19, 33–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Taylor, M., Peel, D., & Sarno, L. (2001). Nonlinear mean reversion in real exchange rates: Toward a solution to the purchasing power parity puzzles. International Economic Review, 42, 1015–1042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Teräsvirta, T. (1994). Specification, estimation, and evaluation of smooth transition autoregressive models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 89, 208–218.Google Scholar
  28. van Dijk, D., & Franses, P. (2000). Nonlinear error-correction models for interest rates in the Netherlands. In W. Barnett, D. F. Hendry, S. Hylleberg, T. Teräsvirta, D. Tjøstheim, & A. W. Würtz (Eds.), Non-linear econometric modelling in time series analysis (pp. 203–227). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. van Dijk, D., Teräsvirta, T., & Franses, P. (2002). Smooth transition autoregressive models - A survey of recent developments. Econometric Reviews, 21, 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zhang, L. (2013). Revisiting the empirics of inflation: A smooth transition error correction approach. Economics Letters, 119, 68–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Economics and Management, Institute of StatisticsLeibniz University HannoverHannoverGermany

Personalised recommendations