Advertisement

Quality & Quantity

, 42:835 | Cite as

Christmas cards, Easter bunnies, and Granger-causality

  • Erdal Atukeren
Research Note

Abstract

This paper takes a closer look at the conceptual grounds of the notion of causality in Granger’s sense. We start with the often jokingly made remark that ‘Christmas card sales Granger-cause Christmas’ Then, we extend the example to the more challenging case of chocolate Easter bunny sales and Easter. We show that any references to Granger-causality in these cases are due to the misinterpretation of the concept. Moving further on methodological grounds, we argue that the concept of Granger-causality calls for a multivariate framework of analysis. This is because taking all available relevant information into account is indeed required in Granger’s definition of causality. This is also in line with rational behaviour and learning under imperfect and incomplete information. The implications of employing a multivariate framework of analysis is discussed in terms of the additional insights it brings; namely, direct, indirect, and spurious cases of Granger-causality. Finally, we examine the semantics of the definition of causality in Granger’s sense.

Keywords

Semantics of Granger-causality Granger-Hsiao direct causality Econometric methodology 

JEL Codes

B40 C50 A20 

References

  1. Ahmed S.: Does money affect output?, Bus. Rev. (Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia) July/August, 13–8 (1993)Google Scholar
  2. Atukeren E. (2005). Measuring the strength of cointegration and granger-causality. Appl. Econ. 37: 1607–614 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bishop R.V. (1979). The Construction and use of causality tests. Agric. Econ. Res. 31: 1– Google Scholar
  4. Brittan S. (1998). Causation in economic affairs. Hume Pap. Public Policy 6(4): 81–5 Google Scholar
  5. Dee, P.: Quantitative modelling at the productivity commission, Productivity Commission (Australian Government), Melbourne. Accessed on March 15, 2006 at: http://www.pc.gov.au/research/consultancy/quantitativemodelling/quantitativemodelling.pdf (2005)Google Scholar
  6. Dethier, J-J.: Governance and economic performance: A survey, discussion papers on development policy, No. 5, Center for Development Research (ZEF), Bonn, Germany (1999)Google Scholar
  7. Drakopoulos S.A. and Torrance T.S. (1994). Causality and determinism in economics. Scott. J. Polit. Econ 41(2): 176–93 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Granger C.W.J. (1969). Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica 37: 424–28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Granger C.W.J. (1980). Testing for causality: a personal view point. J. Econ. Dyn. Control. 2: 329–52 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Granger C.W.J. (1988). Some recent developments in a concept of causality. J. Econ. 39: 199–11 Google Scholar
  11. Hall N. (2004). Philosophy of causation: blind alleys exposed; promising directions highlighted. Philos. Compass. 1(2): 1– Google Scholar
  12. Hoover K.D. (2001a). The Methodology of empirical macroeconomics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hoover K.D. (2001b). Causality in macroeconomics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge U.K Google Scholar
  14. Hsiao C. (1982). Autoregressive modelling and causal ordering of economic variables. J. Econo. Dyn. Control. 4: 243–59 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kennedy P. (2003). A Practical guide to econometrics. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford UK Google Scholar
  16. Kreft S.F. and Sobel R. S. (2005). Public policy, entrepreneurship and economic freedom. Cato J. 25(3): 595–16 Google Scholar
  17. Lütkepohl H. (1982). Non-causality due to omitted variables. J. Econometrics 19(2/3): 367–78 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Matthews P.H. (2005). Paradise lost and found? the econometric contributions of clive W.J. Granger and Robert F. Engle, Rev. Polit. Econ. 17(1): 1–8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Moneta A. (2005). Causality in macroeconomics: Some considerations about reductionism and realism. J. Econ. Methodol. 12(3): 433–53 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pearl J. (2000). Causality: Models, reasoning and inference. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK Google Scholar
  21. Sargent T.J. (1976). A classical macroeconometric model for the United States. J. Polit. Econ. 84: 207–37 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sprites P., Glymour C. and Scheines R. (2000). Causation, prediction, and search. The MIT Press, Cambridge MA Google Scholar
  23. Stiroh, L.: Proving causation in damage analyses, Antitrust insights (National Economic research associates –NERA), March/April, 1–. Accessed on March 15, 2006 at http://www.nera.com/ NewsletterIssue/AT%20Insights_Mar-Apr%202004.pdf (2004)Google Scholar
  24. Studenmund A.H. (2006). Using econometrics: A practical guide. Pearson, Boston Google Scholar
  25. Thompson G.F. (1993). Causality in economics: rhetorical ethic or positivist empiric?. Qual. Quant. 27: 47–1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Thurman W.N. and Fisher M.E. (1988). Chickens, eggs and causality, or which came first. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 70(2): 237–38 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ETH ZurichKOF-Swiss Institute for Business Cycle ResearchZürichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations