Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics & Econometrics

Ed. by Mizrach, Bruce

5 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 0.855

CiteScore 2017: 0.76

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.668
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.894

Mathematical Citation Quotient (MCQ) 2017: 0.02

Online
ISSN
1558-3708
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 18, Issue 2

Issues

Are income differences within the OECD diminishing? Evidence from Fourier unit root tests

Alan King / Carlyn Ramlogan-Dobson
Published Online: 2013-08-27 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/snde-2013-0008

Abstract

We investigate the income convergence hypothesis for 24 OECD countries using Fourier-type unit root tests that can account for structural breaks of unknown number, timing and functional form in a series’ data generating process. Our results indicate that all 24 countries have followed a nonlinear underlying growth path (relative to the US) over the post-war era. These growth paths indicate that as many as half of the countries sampled are systematically catching-up with the US. Only a handful show evidence of being in relative decline, but the fact that this group includes several G7 economies is of concern.

This article offers supplementary material which is provided at the end of the article.

Keywords: Fourier function; income convergence; nonlinear mean-reversion; nonlinear trend

References

  • Barro, R. 1991. “Economic Growth in a Cross Section of Countries.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 106: 407–443.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Baumol, W. 1986. “Productivity Growth, Convergence, and Welfare: What the Long-Run Data Show.” American Economic Review 76: 1072–1085.Google Scholar

  • Becker, R., W. Enders, and J. Lee. 2006. “A Stationarity Test in the Presence of an Unknown Number of Smooth Breaks.” Journal of Time Series Analysis 27: 381–409.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Beechey, M., and P. Österholm. 2008. “Revisiting the Uncertain Unit Root in GDP and CPI: Testing for Non-Linear Trend Reversion.” Economics Letters 100: 221–223.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Bernard, A. B., and S. N. Durlauf. 1995. “Convergence in International Output.” Journal of Applied Econometrics 10: 97–108.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bernard, A. B., and S. N. Durlauf. 1996. “Interpreting Tests of the Convergence Hypothesis.” Journal of Econometrics 71: 161–173.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Chong, T. T. L., M. J. Hinich, V. K. S. Liew, and K. P. Lim. 2008. “Time Series Test of Nonlinear Convergence and Transitional Dynamics.” Economics Letters 100: 337–339.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Chortareas, G. E., G. Kapetanios, and Y. Shin. 2002. “Nonlinear Mean Reversion in Real Exchange Rates.” Economics Letters 77: 411–417.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Christopoulos, D. K., and M. A. Leon-Ledesma. 2011. “International Output Convergence, Breaks and Asymmetric Adjustment.” Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics & Econometrics 15: 67–97.Google Scholar

  • Dawson, J. W., and A. Sen. 2007. “New Evidence on the Convergence of International Income from a Group of 29 Countries.” Empirical Economics 33: 199–230.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Dawson, J. W., and M. C. Strazicich. 2010. “Time-Series Tests of Income Convergence with Two Structural Breaks: Evidence from 29 Countries.” Applied Economics Letters 17: 909–912.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • DeLong, J. B. 1988. “Productivity Growth, Convergence, and Welfare: Comment.” American Economic Review 78: 1138–1154.Google Scholar

  • Durlauf, S. N., P. A. Johnson, and J. R. W. Temple. 2005. “Growth Econometrics.” In Handbook of Economic Growth, vol. 1A, edited by P. Aghion and S. N. Durlauf, 555–677. Amsterdam: Elsevier, Chapter 8.Google Scholar

  • Enders, W., and J. Lee. 2004. “Testing for a Unit Root with a Nonlinear Fourier Function.” Department of Economics, Finance & Legal Studies, University of Alabama Working Paper.Google Scholar

  • Enders, W., and J. Lee. 2012. “A Unit Root Test using a Fourier Series to Approximate Smooth Breaks.” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 74: 574–599.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Islam, N. 1995. “Growth Empirics: A Panel Data Approach.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 110: 1127–1170.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Islam, N. 2003. “What have we Learnt from the Convergence Debate?.” Journal of Economic Surveys 17: 309–362.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • King, A., and C. Ramlogan-Dobson. 2011. “Nonlinear Time-Series Convergence: The Role of Structural Breaks.” Economics Letters 110: 238–240.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Li, Q., and D. Papell. 1999. “Convergence of International Output. Time Series Evidence for 16 OECD Countries.” International Review of Economics and Finance 8: 267–280.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Maddison, A. 2010. “Background Note on “Historical Statistics”.” Mimeo, University of Groningen. (http://www.ggdc.net/MADDISON/oriindex.htm).

  • Mankiw, N. G., D. Romer, and D. N. Weil. 1992. “A Contribution to the Empirics of Economic Growth.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 107: 407–437.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Oxley, L., and D. Greasley. 1995. “A Time-Series Perspective on Convergence: Australia, UK and USA since 1870.” Economic Record 71: 259–270.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Perron, P. 1989. “The Great Crash, the Oil Price Shock, and the Unit Root Hypothesis.” Econometrica 57: 1361–1401.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Schmidt, P., and P. C. B. Phillips. 1992. “LM Tests for a Unit Root in the Presence of Deterministic Trends.” Oxford Bulletin of Economic and Statistics 54: 257–287.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Solow, R. M. 1956. “A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 70: 65–94.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Strazicich, M. C., J. Lee, and E. Day. 2004. “Are Incomes Converging Among OECD Countries? Time Series Evidence with Two Structural Breaks.” Journal of Macroeconomics 26: 131–145.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Swan, T. 1956. “Economic Growth and Capital Accumulation.” Economic Record 32: 334–361.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Corresponding author: Alan King, Department of Economics, University of Otago, New Zealand, e-mail:


Published Online: 2013-08-27

Published in Print: 2014-04-01


It is worth noting that, although some studies use their findings to choose between the neoclassical and the endogenous growth models, developments in the theoretical literature mean that “it is now possible, generally speaking, to explain both convergence and non-convergence behavior by appropriately chosen models of growth theory of both these varieties” (Islam 2003, p. 311). Therefore, as Durlauf, Johnson, and Temple (2005, p. 586) also note, caution must be exercised when making such inferences regardless of the testing approach employed.

A distinction can be drawn between conditional (beta) convergence, which reflects the presence of the control variables in equations (1) and (2), and unconditional (beta) convergence, when these variables have been excluded from the regression equation.

Time-series convergence is equivalent to unconditional beta convergence.

However, E&L do show that, even when the true trend takes the form of linear segments separated by sharp breaks, the power of their unit root test is comparable to that of a standard discrete-break test.

It should be noted that, although this representation of the deterministic components for x is very flexible, it does have some restrictions of its own. In particular, the sinusoidal oscillations about the linear trend component of equation (8) are regular.

Chong et al. (2008), C&L and King and Ramlogan-Dobson (2011) have all investigated the convergence hypothesis for the OECD with unit-root tests incorporating nonlinear mean-reversion. However, C&L is the sole study, to our knowledge, to use a Fourier-type test with this feature.

In their nonlinear mean-reversion test C&L assume the DGP for x follows a logistic, rather than an exponential, STAR process in order to allow for the possibility that the mean-reversion process following especially large negative shocks (e.g., the Great Depression or World War II) may differ from that following a positive shock.

The importance of estimating each test statistic’s distribution in this way can be illustrated by the 10% critical value for the FLM test (for k^=1.0). The value E&L report for T=100 is −3.82. Reducing the sample size to T=59 raises the critical value to −4.31. The test statistic’s distribution is relatively insensitive to the presence of a large (+0.9) AR term in the first difference of the data series (10% CV=−4.42). However, it is sensitive to the presence of a quite small (+0.3) MA term (10% CV = −4.80).

The 10% (5%) [1%] critical values obtained in relation to equation (11) are 6.550 (8.194) [12.062] for T=59. The 10% (5%) [1%] critical values obtained in relation to equation (12) are 6.003 (7.460) [10.820] for T=59.

As C&L note, a standard F-test of the null that αk = βk = 0 may be used to assess the presence of breaks or nonlinearity in the trend, providing the null of a unit root can be rejected.

C&L state that only the sign of βk matters for determining the sign of the trend function’s slope for low and moderate values of k^ (given that γ=0) on the grounds that sin(z) tends to zero as z tends to zero. However, this overlooks the fact that, as z tends to zero, cos(z) tends to a constant (and so becomes part of the intercept term). Hence, as k^ tends to zero, the value of αk needed to offset the effect of a given value of βk on the sign of the trend’s slope becomes relatively small.

It will be noted that the trend functions for some countries do not fit the initial observations of yd very well. This largely reflects the fact that, in order to be consistent with the unit root tests (from which the trend’s value of k is obtained), the trend functions are estimated over the interval [m+1, T], where m is the number of augmentation lags, rather than the full sample period [1, T]. Closer fitting trend functions could be obtained by the use of a multiple-frequency Fourier function. This option is not pursued, however, as a single frequency has proved sufficient to identify a deterministic trend for all countries and increasing the number of frequencies risks over-fitting the data and treating short-run cyclical effects as structural breaks.

Rapid catching-up is defined as sustained (over at least 15 years) growth in yd’s trend of at least 0.5% per annum. All countries in this group comfortably exceed this standard.

Denmark’s alternative trend (for k=0.9) has a significant γ coefficient, but as both trends largely coincide from the late 1960s onwards, the estimate of γ for k=1.5 in effect captures the slope of both trends during the latter part of the sample period.

Germany’s estimate of γ implies a rate of relative decline of only 0.1% per annum. However (and bearing in mind the point made in footnote 12), the first half of its plotted trend appears to capture the winding-down of the country’s post-war reconstruction process and this has been followed by a sustained relative decline similar rate to that observed in the three other countries.


Citation Information: Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics & Econometrics, Volume 18, Issue 2, Pages 185–199, ISSN (Online) 1558-3708, ISSN (Print) 1081-1826, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/snde-2013-0008.

Export Citation

©2014 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Supplementary Article Materials

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in