May Reading List

Here's a selection of suggested reading for this month:

• Athey, S. & G. W. Imbens, 2019. Machine learning methods economists should know about. Mimeo.
• Bhagwat, P. & E. Marchand, 2019. On a proper Bayes but inadmissible estimator. American Statistician, online.
• Canals, C. & A. Canals, 2019. When is n large enough? Looking for the right sample size to estimate proportions. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation, 89, 1887-1898.
• Cavaliere, G. & A. Rahbek, 2019. A primer on bootstrap testing of hypotheses in time series models: With an application to double autoregressive models. Discussion Paper 19-03, Department of Economics, University of Copenhagen.
• Chudik, A. & G. Geogiardis, 2019. Estimation of impulse response functions when shocks are observed at a higher frequency than outcome variables. Globalization Institute Working Paper 356, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
• Reschenhofer, E., 2019. Heteroscedasticity-robust estimation of autocorrelation. Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation, 48, 1251-1263.

© 2019, David E. Giles

December Reading for Econometricians

My suggestions for papers to read during December:

• Askanazi, R., F. X. Diebold, F. Schorfheide, & M. Shin, 2018. On the comparison of interval forecasts. PIER Working Paper 18-013, Penn. Institute for Economic Research, University of Pennsylvania.
• Meintanis, S. G., J. Ngatchou-Wandji, & J. Allison, 2018. Testing for serial independence in vector autoregressive models, Statistical Papers, 59, 1379-1410.
• Milas, C., T. Panagiotidis, & T. Dergiades, 2018. Twitter versus traditional news media: Evidence for the sovereign bond markets. Mimeo., Management School, University of Liverpool.
• Ollech, D., 2018. Seasonal adjustment of daily time series. Discussion Paper No. 41/2018, Deutsche Bundesbank.
• Sickles, R. C., W. Song, & V. Zelenyuk, 2018. Econometric analysis of productivity: Theory and implementation in R. Working Paper WP08/2018, Centre for Efficiency and productivity Analysis, Department of Economics, University of Queensland.
• Skeels, C. L. & F. Windmeijer, 2018. On the Stock-Yogo tables. Econometrics, 6 (4), 44.

© 2018, David E. Giles

Econometrics Reading for November

In between raking leaves and dealing with some early snow, I've put together this list of suggested reading for you:

• Beckert, W., 2018. A note on specification testing in some structural regression models. Mimeo., Department of Economics, Mathematics and Statistics, Birkbeck College, University of London.
• Clarke, D., 2018. A convenient omitted bias formula for treatment effect models. Economics Letters, in press.
• Liu, Y. & Y. Rho, 2018. On the choice of instruments in mixed frequency specification tests. Mimeo., School of Business and Economics, Michigan Technological University.
• Lütkepohl, H., A. Staszewska-Bystrova, & P. Winker, 2018. Constructing joint confidence bands for impulse functions of VAR models - A review. Lodz Economic Working Paper 4/2018, Faculty of Economics and Sociology, University of Lodz.
• Richardson, A., T. van Florenstein Mulder, & T. Vehbi, 2018. Nowcasting New Zealand GDP using machine learning algorithms.
• Słoczyński, T., 2018. A general weighted average representation of the ordinary and two-stage least squares estimands. Mimeo., Department of Economics, Brandeis University.

© 2018, David E. Giles

March Reading List

• Annen, K. & S. Kosempel, 2018. Why aid-to-GDP ratios? Discussion Paper 2018-01, Department of Economics and Finance, University of Guelph.
• Conover, W. J., A. J. Guerrero-Serrano, & V. G. Tercero-Gomez, 2018. An update on 'a comparative study of tests for homogeneity of variance'. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation, online.
• Foroni, C., M. Marcellino, & D. Stevanović, 2018. Mixed frequency models with MA components. Discussion Paper  No. 02/2018, Deutsche Bundesbank.
• Sen, A., 2018. Lagrange multiplier unit root test in the presence of a break in the innovation variance. Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods, 47, 1580-1596.
• Stewart, K. G., 2018. Suits' watermelon model: The missing simultaneous equations empirical example. Mimeo., Department of Economics, University of Victoria.
• Weigt, T. & B. Wilfling, 2018. An approach to increasing forecast-combination accuracy through VAR error modeling. Paper 68/2018, Department of Economics, University of Münster.

© 2018, David E. Giles

Econometrics Reading for the New Year

Another year, and lots of exciting reading!

• Davidson, R. & V. Zinde-Walsh, 2017. Advances in specification testing. Canadian Journal of Economics, online.
• Dias, G. F. & G. Kapetanios, 2018. Estimation and forecasting in vector autoregressive moving average models for rich datasets. Journal of Econometrics, 202, 75-91.  
• González-Estrada, E. & J. A. Villaseñor, 2017. An R package for testing goodness of fit: goft. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation, 88, 726-751.
• Hajria, R. B., S. Khardani, & H. Raïssi, 2017. Testing the lag length of vector autoregressive models:  A power comparison between portmanteau and Lagrange multiplier tests. Working Paper 2017-03, Escuela de Negocios y EconomÍa. Pontificia Universidad Católica de ValaparaÍso.
• McNown, R., C. Y. Sam, & S. K. Goh, 2018. Bootstrapping the autoregressive distributed lag test for cointegration. Applied Economics, 50, 1509-1521.
• Pesaran, M. H. & R. P. Smith, 2017. Posterior means and precisions of the coefficients in linear models with highly collinear regressors. Working Paper BCAM 1707, Birkbeck, University of London.
• Yavuz, F. V. & M. D. Ward, 2017. Fostering undergraduate data science. American Statistician, online. 

© 2018, David E. Giles

Reading for the Holidays

Here are some suggestions for your Holiday reading:

• Athey, S. and G. Imbens, 2016. The state of econometrics - Causality and policy evaluation. Mimeo., Graduate School of Business, Stanford University.
• Cook, J. D., 2010. Testing a random number generator. Chapter 10, in T. Rily and A. Goucher (eds.), Beautiful Testing, O' Reilly Media, Sebastol, CA. 
• Ivanov, V. and L. Kilian, 2005. A practitioner's guide to lag order selection for VAR impulse response analysis. Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics and Econometrics, 9, article 2.
• Polanin, J. A., E. A. Hennessy, and E. E. Tanner-Smith, 2016. A review of meta-analysis packages in R. Journal of Educational and Behavioural Statistics, 42, 206-242.
• Young, A., 2017. Consistency without inference: Instrumental variables in practical application. Mimeo.,  London School of Economics.
• Zhang, L., 2017, Partial unit root and surplus-lag Granger causality testing: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods, 46, 12317-12323.

© 2017, David E. Giles

Quantitative Macroeconomic Modeling with Structural Vector Autoregressions

A terrific new book titled, Quantitative Macroeconomic Modeling with Structural Vector Autoregressions – An EViews Implementation, is now available for free downloading from the EViews site. The book is written by Sam Ouliaris, Adrian Pagan, and Jorge Restrepo.

The "blurb" about this important new book reads:

"Quantitative macroeconomic research is conducted in a number of ways. An important method has been the use of the technique known as Structural Vector Autoregressions (SVARs), which aims to gather information about dynamic processes in macroeconomic systems. This book sets out the theory underlying the SVAR methodology in a relatively simple way and discusses many of the problems that can arise when using the technique. It also proposes solutions that are relatively easy to implement using EViews 9.5. Its orientation is towards applied work and it does this by working with the data sets from some classic SVAR studies."

In my view, EViews is certainly the natural choice for this venture. As the authors note in their Preface:

"A choice had to be made about the computer package that would be used to perform the quantitative work and EViews was eventually selected because of its popularity amongst IMF staff and central bankers more generally."

Gareth Thomas (of EViews) has pointed out to me that: "much of the book is covered in the IMF's free online macroeconomic forecasting course.  The next iteration of which starts in February:
https://www.edx.org/course/macroeconometric-forecasting-imfx-mfx-0 "

I'm sure that this new resource will be very well received!

© 2017, David E. Giles

Some Suggested Reading for October

For your enjoyment:

• Diebold, F. X. & M. Shin, 2016. Assessing point forecast accuracy by stochastic error distance. NBER Working Paper No.2516.
• Franses, P.H., 2016. Yet another look at MIDAS regression. Econometric Institute Report 2016-32.
• Hillier, G. & F. Martellosio, 2016. Exact properties of the maximum likelihood estimator in spatial autoregressive models. Discussion Paper DP 07/16, Department of Economics, University of Surrey.
• Li, L., M.J. Holmes, & B.S. Lee, 2016. The asymmetric relationship between executive earnings management and compensation: A panel threshold regression approach. Applied Economics, 48, 5525-5545. 
• Lütkepohl, H., A. Staszewska-Bystrova, & P. Winker, 2016. Calculating joint confidence bands for impulse response functions using highest density regions. MAGKS Joint Discussion Paper 16-2016.
• Segnon, M., R. Gupta, S. Bekiros, & M.E. Wohar, 2016. Forecasting U.S. GNP growth: The role of uncertainty. Working Paper 2016-67, Department of Economics, University of Pretoria.

© 2016, David E. Giles

Econometrics Reading List for June

Here's some suggested reading for the coming month:

• Backhouse, R. and B. Cherrier, 2016. 'It's  computerization, stupid!' The spread of computers and the changing roles of theoretical and applied economics.
• Castle, J. L., M. P. Clements, and D. F. Hendry, 2016. An overview of forecasting facing breaks. Discussion Paper No. 779, Department of Economics, University of Oxford.
• Constantini. M. and A. Sen, 2016. A simple testing procedure for unit root and model specification. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 102, 37-54.
• Lutkepohl, H., A. Staszewska-Bystrova, and P. Winker, 2016. Calculating joint confidence bands for impulse response functions using highest density regions. SFB 649 Discussion Paper 2016-017.
• Valadkhani, A., R. Smyth, and B. Mahoney, 2016. Asymmetric causality between Australian inbound and outbound migration tourism flows. Applied Economics, in press.
• Webel, K., 2016. A data-driven selection of an appropriate seasonal adjustment approach. Discussion Paper No. 07/2016, Deutsche Bundesbank.

© 2016, David E. Giles

March Reading List

Now is a good time to catch up on some Econometrics reading. Here are my suggestions for this month:

• Carrasco, M. and R. Kotchoni, 2016. Efficient estimation using the characteristic function. Econometric Theory, in press.
• Chambers, M. J., 2016. The estimation of continuous time models with mixed frequency data. Discussion Paper No. 777, Department of Economics, University of Essex.
• Cuaresma, J. C., M. Feldkircher, and F. Huber, 2016. Forecasting with global vector autoregressive models: A Bayesian approach. Journal of Applied Econometrics, in press.
• Hendry, D., 2016. Deciding between alternative approaches in macroeconomics. Discussion Paper No. 778, Department of Economics, University of Oxford.
• Reed, W. R., 2016. Univariate unit root tests perform poorly when data are cointegrated. Working Paper No. 1/2016, Department of Economics and Finance, University of Canterbury.

© 2016, David E. Giles

End-of-Year Reading

Wishing all readers a very special holiday season!

• Agiakloglou, C., and C. Agiropoulos, 2016. The balance between size and power in testing for linear association for two stationary AR(1) processes. Applied Economics Letters, 23, 230-234.
• Allen, D., M. McAleer, S. Peiris, and A. K. Singh, 2015. Nonlinear time series and neural-network models of exchange rates between the US dollar and major currencies. Discussion Paper No. 15-125/III, Tinbergen Institute.
• Basu, D., 2015. Asymptotic bias of OLS in the presence of reverse causality. Working Paper 2015-18, Department of Economics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
• Giles, D. E., 2005. Testing for a Santa Claus effect in growth cycles. Economics Letters, 87, 421-426.
• Kim, J., and I Choi, 2015. Unit roots in economic and financial time series: A re-evaluation based on enlightened judgement. MPRA Paper No. 68411.
• Triacca, U., 2015. A pitfall in using the characterization of Granger non-causality in vector autoregressive models. Econometrics, 3, 233-239.       

© 2015, David E. Giles

September Reading List

• Abeln, B. and J. P. A. M. Jacobs, 2015. Seasonal adjustment with and without revisions: A comparison of X-13ARIMA-SEATS and CAMPLET. CAMA Working Paper 25/2015, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University.
• Chan, J. C. C. and A. L. Grant, 2015. A Bayesian model comparison for trend-cycle decompositions of output. CAMA Working Paper 31/2015, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University.
• Chen, K. and K-S. Chan, 2015. A note on rank reduction in sparse multivariate regression. Journal of Statistical Theory and Practice, in press.
• Fan, Y., S. Pastorello, and E. Renault, 2015. Maximization by parts in extremum estimation. Econometrics Journal, 18, 147-171.
• Horowitz, J., 2014. Variable selection and estimation in high-dimensional models. Cemmap Working Paper CWP35/15, Institute of Fiscal Studies, Department of Economics, University College London.
• Larson, W., 2015. Forecasting an aggregate in the presence of structural breaks in the disaggregates. RPF Working Paper No. 2015-002, Research Program on Forecasting, Center of Economic Research, George Washington University.

© 2015, David E. Giles

July Reading

Now that the (Northern) summer is here, you should have plenty of time for reading. Here are some recommendations:

• Ahelegbey, D. F., 2015. The econometrics of networks: A review. Working Paper 13/WP/2015, Department of Economics, University of Venice.
• Camba-Mendez, G., G. Kapetanios, F. Papailias, and M. R. Weale, 2015. An automatic leading indicator, variable reduction and variable selection methods using small and large datasets: Forecasting the industrial production growth for Euro area economies. Working Paper No. 1773, European Central Bank.
• Cho, J. S., T-H. Kim, and Y. Shin, 2015. Quantile cointegration in the autoregressive distributed-lag modeling framework. Journal of Econometrics, 188, 281-300.
• De Luca, G., J. R. Magnus, and F. Peracchi, 2015. On the ambiguous consequences of omitting variables. EIEF Working Paper 05/15.
• Gozgor, G., 2015. Causal relation between economic growth and domestic credit in the economic globalization: Evidence from the Hatemi-J's test. Journal of International Trade and Economic Development,  24, 395-408.
• Panhans, M. T. and J. D. Singleton, 2015. The empirical economist's toolkit: From models to methods. Working Paper 2015-03, Center for the History of Political Economy.
• Sanderson. E and F. Windmeijer, 2015. A weak instrument F-test in linear IV models with multiple endogenous variables. Discussion Paper 15/644, Department of Economics, University of Bristol.

© 2015, David E. Giles

June Reading List

• Andrews, I. and T. B. Armstrong, 2015. Unbiased instrumental variables estimation under known first-stage sign. Cowles Foundation Discussion Paper No. 1984R, Yale University,
• Bajari, P., D. Nekipelov, S. P. Ryan, and M. Yang. 2015. Demand estimation with machine learning and model combination. NBER Working Paper 20955.
• Chambers, M. J., 2015. A jackknife correction to a test for cointegration rank. Econometrics, 3, 355-375.
• Mazeu, J. H. G., E. Ruiz and H. Veiga, 2015. Model uncertainty and the forecast accuracy of ARMA models: A survey. UC3M Working Paper 15-08, Statistics and Econometrics, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. 
• Paldam, M., 2015. Meta-analysis in a nutshell: Techniques and general findings. Economics, 9, 2015-11.
• Triacca, U., 2015. A pitfall in using the characterization of Granger non-causality in vector autoregressive models. Econometrics, 3, 233-239.

© 2015, David E. Giles

April Reading

April 1 already - time to update your reading list. Here are some suggestions:

• Baek, Y. I., J. S. Cho, and P. C. B. Phillips, 2015. Testing linearity using power transforms of regressors. 2015-RWP79, Economic Research Institute, Yonsei University.
• Gol, A. and D. E. Giles, 2015. HotGimmer: Random information. Working paper.
• Herwartz, H., N. Klein, and C. Strumann, 2015. Modelling hospital admission and length of stay by means of generalized count data models. Journal of Applied Econometrics, in press.
• Kabaila, P., R. Mainzer, and D. Farchione, 2015. The impact of a Hausman pretest, applied to panel data, on the coverage probability of confidence intervals. Economics Letters, in press.
• Lyhagen, J. and S. Ekberg, 2015. Beating the VAR: Improving Swedish GDP forecasts using error and intercept corrections. Journal of Forecasting, in press.
• Nadarajah, S., 2015. On the computation of Gauss hypergeometric functions. The American Statistician, in press.\
• Zhang, X. and A. Ullah, 2015. Group model averaging for finite sample size. Working Paper, Department of Economics, University of California, Riverside.

© 2015, David E. Giles

Some Suggested Reading

• Bahoc, F., H. Leeb, and B. M. Potscher, 2014. Valid confidence intervals for post-model-selection predictors. Working Paper, Department of Statistics, University of Vienna.
• Baumeister, C. and J. D. Hamilton, 2014. Sign restrictions, structural vector autoregressions, and useful prior information. NBER Working Paper No. 20741.
• Bjerkholt, O., 2015. Fellowship elections in the Econometric Society 1933-1948. Working Paper, Department of Economics, University of Oslo.
• Deuchert, E. and M. Huber, 2014. A cautionary tale about control variables in IV estimation. Discussion Paper No. 2014-39, School of Economics and Political Science, University of St. Gallen.
• Doornik, J. A. and D. F. Hendry, 2014. Statistical model selection with 'Big Data'. Discussion Paper 735, Department of Economics, University of Oxford.
• Duendack, M., R. W. Palmer-Jones, and W. R. Reed, 2014. Replications in economics: A progress report. Working Paper No. 26/2014, Department of Economics and Finance, University of Canterbury.

© 2015, David E. Giles

Recent Reading

From my "Recently Read" list:

• Born, B. and J. Breitung, 2014. Testing for serial correlation in fixed-effects panel data models. Econometric Reviews, in press.
• Enders, W. and Lee. J., 2011. A unit root test using a Fourier series to approximate smooth breaks, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 74, 574-599.
• Götz, T. B. and A. W. Hecq, 2014. Testing for Granger causality in large mixed-frequency VARs. RM/14/028, Maastricht University, SBE, Department of Quantitative Economics.
• Kass, R. E., 2011. Statistical inference: The big picture. Statistical Science, 26, 1-9.
• Qian, J. and L. Su, 2014. Structural change estimation in time series regressions with endogenous variables. Economics Letters, in press.
• Wickens, M., 2014. How did we get to where we are now? Reflections on 50 years of macroeconomic and financial econometrics. Discussion Paper No. 14/17, Department of Economics and Related Studies, University of York.

© 2014, David E. Giles

September Reading List

In North America, Labo(u)r Day weekend is upon us. The end of summer. Back to school. Last chance to get some pre-class reading done!

• Blackburn, M. L., 2014. The relative performance of Poisson and negative binomial regression estimators. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, in press.
• Giannone, D., M. Lenza, and G. E. Primiceri, 2014. Prior selection for vector autoregressions. Review of Economics and Statistics, in press.
• Gulesserian, S. G. and M. Kejriwal, 2014. On the power of bootstrap tests for stationarity: A Monte Carlo comparison. Empirical Economics, 46, 973-998.
• Elliot, G. and A. Timmerman, 2008. Economic forecasting. Journal of Economic Literature, 46, 3-56.
• Kiviet, J. F., 1986, On the rigour of some misspecification tests for modelling dynamic relationships. Review of Economic Studies, 53, 241-261.
• Otto, G. D. and G. M. Voss, 2014. Flexible inflation forecast targeting: Evidence from Canada. Canadian Journal of Economics, 47, 398-421. 

© 2014, David E. Giles

More on Celebrating Trygve Haavelmo

In a recent post I drew attention to the special issue of Econometric Theory that is being devoted to the contributions that Trygve Haavelmo made to econometrics, and to the founding of the Econometric Society. In fact, there will be two issues of the journal that will be dealing with this topic.

Most of the papers that will appear in the first issue (to be published next year) are now available on the ET website. One paper that isn't there yet is one that I mentioned in an earlier post. It's titled, "Trygve Haavelmo at the Cowles Commission", by Olav Bjerkholt. You can download this paper here.

Olav wrote to me recently, saying: "My own paper will appear in ET with some pictures and also an unusual illustration, a page from Haavelmo's notebook showing the list of persons who received his 1941 early version of Probability Approach." Olav is referring to Haavelmo's seminal paper, "The Probability Approach in Econometrics", which was published in Econometrica in 1944. That paper is available in its entirety, here.

Olav has kindly given me permission to reproduce Haavelmo's list, so here it is:

Questions About Granger Causality Testing - The Fine Print

Judging by the number of hits, comments, and questions that I've had in relation to my various posts on testing for Granger (Non-) Causality, this seems to be a topic that a lot of followers find interesting. For instance, see the posts here, here, here, and especially here.

In the comments, and in a large number of related emails that I've received, several questions seem to recur, and I thought it would be worth addressing them in one place - right here, to be specific!

The following discussion relates to the (usual) case where there is the possibility that one or more of the time-series variables under consideration may be non-stationary, and some of the variables may be cointegrated. In such cases we have to be especially careful when we apply tests for Granger causality. The reasons for this, and for adopting a modified testing procedure, such as that proposed by Toda and Yamamoto (1995), or that of Dolado and Lütkepohl  (1996) and Saikkonen and Lütkepohl (1996), are laid out in this earlier post, and I won't repeat them here. I'll make the bold assumption that you've done your homework.