Empirical Economics

, Volume 54, Issue 3, pp 887–911 | Cite as

More powerful threshold cointegration tests

  • Dong-Yop Oh
  • Hyejin Lee
  • Ming Meng


Threshold cointegration tests have made a big splash in the literature by allowing for asymmetric adjustment in linear cointegration tests. This paper contributes to this literature by proposing new tests to improve the power of the conventional threshold cointegration tests. The new tests intuitively resolve one of the possible reasons that attribute to the low power of existing threshold cointegration tests and are easy to implement since they do not require any additional information outside of the system. Our simulation results show that the proposed tests improve the power of the existing threshold cointegration tests, especially as the signal-to-noise ratio increases, in contrast to other considered procedures. The efficiency gains are achieved regardless of sample size, the number of cointegrated variables, and the types of threshold specifications. The newly developed tests are applied to examine long-run purchasing power parity in the Pacific nations. In contrast to conventional cointegration tests, the proposed tests found long-run PPP holds in 5 out of 7 countries with appropriate asymmetric adjustments.


Cointegration Efficient estimation Stationary covariates Asymmetric adjustment PPP 

JEL Classification

C12 C15 C22 


  1. Bec F, Salem MB, Carrasco M (2004) Tests for unit root versus threshold specification with an application to the purchasing power parity relationship. J Bus Econ Stat 22:382–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bec F, Guay A, Guerre E (2008) Adaptive consistent unit-root tests based on auto-regressive threshold model. J Econom 142(1):94–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chen LH, Finney M, Lai K (2005) A threshold cointegration analysis of asymmetric price transmission from crude oil to gasoline prices. Econ Lett 89(2):233–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cook S (2007) A threshold cointegration test with increased power. Math Comput Simulat 73:386–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cook S (2008) Finite-sample power properties of threshold cointegration tests. Appl Econ Lett 15(1):27–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Enders W, Siklos PL (2001) Cointegration and threshold adjustment. J Bus Econ Stat 19(2):166–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Enders W, Chumrusphonlert K (2004) Threshold cointegration and purchasing power parity in the Pacific nations. Appl Econ 36:889–896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Engle R, Granger C (1987) Co-integration and error correction: representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica 55(2):251–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ericsson NR, MacKinnon JG (2002) Distributions of error correction tests for cointegration. Econom J 5:285–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gouveia P, Rodrigues P (2004) Threshold cointegration and the PPP hypothesis. J Appl Stat 31(1):115–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hansen B (1995) Rethinking the univariate approach to unit root testing. Econom Theory 11:1148–1171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harbo I, Johansen S, Nielsen B, Rahbek A (1998) Asymptotic inference on cointegrating rank in partial systems. J Bus Econ Stat 16(4):388–399Google Scholar
  13. Heimonen K (2006) Nonlinear adjustment in PPP evidence from threshold cointegration. Empir Econ 31(2):479–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Krishnakumar J, Neto D (2009) Estimation and testing for the cointegration rank in a threshold cointegrated system. Working papers, Econometrics Department, University of GenevaGoogle Scholar
  15. Kremers JJM, Ericsson NR, Dolado JJ (1992) The power of cointegration tests. Oxford B Econ Stat 54(3):325–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lee H, Lee J (2015) More powerful Engle-Granger cointegration tests. J Stat Comput Simul 85(15):3154–3171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Li J, Lee J (2010) ADL tests for threshold cointegration. J Time Ser Anal 31(4):241–254Google Scholar
  18. Lo MC, Zivot E (2001) Threshold cointegration and nonlinear adjustment to the law of one price. Macroecon Dyn 5:533–576Google Scholar
  19. McMillan DG (2005) Threshold adjustment in spot futures metals prices. Applied Financ Lett 1(1):5–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Million N (2004) Central Bank’s interventions and the Fisher hypothesis: a threshold cointegration investigation. Econ Model 21(6):1051–1064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Siklos P (2002) Asymmetric adjustment from structural booms and slumps. Econ Lett 77(3):329–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information SystemsUniversity of Texas Rio Grande ValleyEdinburgUSA
  2. 2.Model Risk Management DepartmentFifth Third BankCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations