Empirical Economics (2001) 26:357±366

EMPIRICAL
ECONOMICS
( Springer-Verlag 2001

Near unit root and the relationship between in¯ation

and interest rates: A reexamination of the Fisher e¨ect*
Markku Lanne
Research Unit on Economic Structures and Growth, Department of Economics, P.O. Box 54
(Unioninkatu 37), FIN-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland
(e-mail: markku.lanne@helsinki.®)

First version received: July 1999/Final version received: April 2000

Abstract. Tests of the Fisher e¨ect are plagued by high persistence in interest
rates. Instead of standard regression analysis and asymptotic results, methods
relying on local-to-unity asymptotics are employed in testing for the Fisher
e¨ect with monthly U.S. data covering the period 1953:1±1990:12. These
procedures are extensions of a recently presented method (Cavanagh, Elliott
and Stock (1995)) based on simultaneous con®dence intervals, and they have
the advantage of being asymptotically valid whether interest rates are integ-
rated of order one or zero, or near unit root processes. Taking appropriately
account of the near unit root problem the ®ndings in most of the previous
literature are recon®rmed. There is support for the Fisher e¨ect in the interest
rate targeting period (1953:1±1979:10) of the Federal Reserve but not in the
1979:11±1990:12 period.

Key words: Fisher e¨ect, near unit root, monetary policy

JEL classi®cation: E31, C32

1. Introduction

The question of whether changes in nominal interest rates mean changes

in real interest rates or in expected in¯ation is one of the central problems
in monetary economics. Proponents of the commonly held Fisher e¨ect view
claim that changes in short-term interest rates primarily re¯ect changes in ex-

* I am indebted to Graham Elliott, Seppo Honkapohja, Johan Knif, Erkki Koskela, Pentti
Saikkonen, Matti VireÂn, Anders Warne and the three anonymous referees for useful comments.
The usual disclaimer applies. Financial support from the YrjoÈ Jahnsson Foundation and SaÈaÈstoÈ-
pankkien tutkimussaÈaÈtioÈ is gratefully acknowledged.
358 M. Lanne

pected in¯ation. Although there is ample empirical evidence to support this

view, the results seem to depend considerably on the time period and country
being studied (for previous results see Mishkin (1992) and references therein).
Recently Mishkin (1992, 1995) has suggested that an explanation of this
lack of robustness of the Fisher e¨ect might stem from the use of inappro-
priate econometric methods. Typically empirical studies have involved re-
gressing the in¯ation rate over m periods on the m-period nominal interest rate
and testing the signi®cance of the slope coe½cient. However, there is a wealth
of results from unit root tests suggesting that both interest rates and in¯ation
are integrated (of order one) variables, and therefore standard statistical infer-
ence may be invalid in these regression models. Using critical values obtained
by Monte Carlo simulation under the assumption that both variables (one
and three month in¯ation and interest rates, respectively) are I …1† and not
cointegrated Mishkin (1992) found no support for the Fisher e¨ect in U.S.
monthly data spanning the period 1953±1990. In his 1995 paper Mishkin
generated the critical values under the assumptions of I …1† and cointegrated,
and stationary in¯ation and interest rates, respectively, but in both cases the
result was the same as in the his 1992 paper, except for some evidence for
positive correlation between real and nominal interest rates after 1979.
The main motivation for making the I …1† assumption for in¯ation and
interest rates lies in the idea that it is a better approximation than station-
arity. Moreover, it is well known that unit root test have low power against
close alternatives (see e.g. Elliott et al. (1996)), so that the null hypothesis
of a unit root can seldom be rejected for such highly autocorrelated vari-
ables. Recent results in the econometric literature (Elliott (1994), and Elliott
and Stock (1994), inter alia) suggest, however, that if the regressor is poten-
tially I …1†, but its order of integration is unknown, both standard inference
and the procedure of using a pretest for a unit root and then applying the
consequent distribution theory, can result in sizeable overrejection. As re-
cently pointed out by Stock (1997), standard parametric bootstrap is not
asymptotically valid in this case, either. These theoretical results thus cast
doubts on the use of the above mentioned inferential procedures based on
Monte Carlo simulation. Therefore, a reexamination of the Fisher hypothesis
that explicitly takes account of the potential near unit root problem, is re-
quired.
Applying an asymptotically valid inferential procedure to Mishkin's data,
we ®nd support for the Fisher e¨ect in the interest rate targeting period of the
Fed (1953:1±1979:10), whereas the e¨ect is absent in the post 1979 data. This
outcome is in con¯ict with Mishkin (1992, 1995), while it agrees with much of
the earlier literature.
The plan of the paper is as follows. In Section 2 we introduce the in¯a-
tion forecasting equation that has been used to test the Fisher e¨ect, and dis-
cuss the potential econometric problems caused by the high persistence in the
interest rates. Mishkin's (1992, 1995) simulation-based procedures are evalu-
ated from this point of view and an alternative inferential procedure is sug-
gested. Section 3 contains the econometric results using Mishkin's (1992,
1995) data1 along with some Monte Carlo simulation results to evaluate the

1 I am grateful to professor Mishkin for providing these data.

In¯ation and interest rates 359

small sample performance of the method. The empirical results are obtained
using extensions of the asymptotically valid method of Cavanagh, Elliott and
Stock (1995). The derivation of these extensions is deferred to the Appendix.
Section 4 concludes.

2. Econometric Methodology

In this section we discuss the problems that may be encountered in regression

models where the regressor is not exogenous and has a large, potentially unit
root. These characteristics describe well the following in¯ation forecasting
equation that has been used to test the Fisher e¨ect,

ptm ˆ a m ‡ b m itm ‡ vtm ; …1†

where ptm ˆ …12=m†…ln Pt‡m ln Pt † is the annualized m-month in¯ation rate

(when monthly observations of the price level P are used) and itm is the m-
month nominal interest rate. The test for the Fisher e¨ect involves testing the
signi®cance of bm ; if b m equals zero, then there is no Fisher e¨ect. Under
rational expectations a signi®cance test on bm in (1) can also be interpreted
as testing for the correlation between nominal interest rates and expected
in¯ation.
If itm is I …1†, standard inference (based on the normal distribution) may
not be valid as was noted by Mishkin (1992), who instead based inference
on simulated critical values under the I …1† assumption. In general, however,
the order of integration of the regressor in (1) cannot be assumed known. Al-
though a unit root test does not reject (see Table 1 below), it is plausible
that the interest rate variables have a root near but not necessarily equal to
unity. It has recently been shown by Elliott (1994), and Elliott and Stock
(1994) that substantial size distortions can prevail in t tests when the explan-
atory variable in a regression model has a large, possibly unit root.

Table 1. 95% con®dence intervals of the largest autoregressive roots of interest rates

k ADF t m 95% interval

1953:1±1990:12
i1 8 1.984 0.971, 1.007
i3 8 1.804 0.975, 1.008
1953:1±1979:10
i1 6 0.714 0.991, 1.015
i3 6 0.710 0.990, 1.015
1979:11±1982:10
i1 0 1.956 0.638, 1.094
i3 1 2.472 0.471, 1.065
1982:11±1990:12
i1 0 2.262 0.832, 1.029
i3 0 1.312 0.929, 1.044

The lag length k in the ADF tests was determined by step-down testing (Ng and Perron (1995)),
using a 5% level for each lag. The con®dence intervals were obtained by linear interpolation based
on the ®gures in Stock (1991, Table A.1).
360 M. Lanne

Elliott and Stock (1994) studied the properties of the t test statistic using
local-to-unity asymptotics, i.e. they parametrized the largest autoregressive
root of the regressor, r, as 1 ‡ c=T, where c is a constant and T is the sample
size. They reached two main conclusions. First, the asymptotic null distribu-
tion of the t statistic is nonstandard and depends on two nuisance parameters,
the local-to-unity parameter c and the long-run correlation between the error
terms of the regression model (1) and the autoregressive representation of the
regressor, i.e. on the simultaneity in the system. Of these the latter is con-
sistently estimable whereas the former is not. The overrejection in standard
inference is the worse the higher is the simultaneity. Second, the often applied
procedure of pretesting for a unit root in the spread and subsequently employ-
ing the consequent distribution theory also leads to overrejection. This is so
because asymptotically the rejection probability of the null hypothesis r ˆ 1 is
less than one, meaning that the pretest is not consistent in the local-to-unity
case. Hence the nonstandard critical values corresponding to the I …1† case are
too often selected and overrejection prevails.
Mishkin (1992) considered inference in the forecasting regression (1) as-
suming exactly I …1† in¯ation and interest rates and no cointegration. He ob-
tained the critical values of the t statistic under these assumptions, and found
no evidence for the Fisher e¨ect. The simulated distributions are, of course,
crucially dependent on the restrictive assumptions. If the largest autoregres-
sive roots of the series deviate from unity or are cointegrated contrary to these
assumptions, the estimated time series models used as DGPs are misspeci®ed.
In a related paper Mishkin (1995) considered di¨erent DGPs estimated with
the same data set. First, while still making the exact unit root assumption, he
assumed that the in¯ation and interest rates are cointegrated. Second, he esti-
mated the DGP without imposing the unit roots. In both cases the results
obtained using the consequent simulated critical values are similar to those
in his 1992 paper, with the exception of some evidence for positive
correlation between the real and nominal interest rates after 1979.2 The ®rst
DGP is, however, misspeci®ed, if the variables are not unit root processes,
and, as recently pointed out by Stock (1997), also the latter simulation proce-
dure (parametric bootstrap without imposing the exact unit root) is asymp-
totically invalid when the order of integration of the regressor is not known
(for a proof of this in the closely related case of the cointegration regression,
see Stock and Watson (1996)). Hence these procedures cannot be considered
satisfactory for testing the Fisher e¨ect in the framework of regression (1).
The list of asymptotically valid tests in models where the order of integr-
ation of the regressor is unknown, is still short (for a survey, see Stock (1997)),
and little is known about the relative merits of the di¨erent tests.3 A recently
presented contribution that looks promising, is due to Cavanagh, Elliott and
Stock (1995), who suggested basing inference on simultaneous con®dence in-

2 In Mishkin (1995) the regression model being studied instead of (1) has the ex post real rate as
the dependent variable.
3 It is worth noting that the lag augementation scheme of Toda and Yamamoto (1995) provides a
technically uncomplicated way of achieving asymptotically valid inference. The idea is to add to
the model one additional lag that is not restricted under the null hypothesis. However, as pointed
out by Stock (1997) the local asymptotic power of this procedure is lower than that of the alter-
native tests. Finite sample power is also likely to be low, especially in our model which involves
only one lag (see the simulation results of Dolado and LuÈtkepohl (1996)).
In¯ation and interest rates 361

tervals. The idea of one of their methods4 to be employed below, is to form a

Sche¨e type con®dence interval consisting of all the values of bm0 for which
there is at least one value of the local-to-unity parameter c0 such that the joint
null hypothesis …b m ; c† ˆ …bm0 ; c0 † is not rejected. These conservative con®-
dence intervals can be shown to be asymptotically valid when the regressor
has a root local to unity. Cavanagh et al. derived a Wald test that can be
inverted to compute the simultaneous con®dence interval. The critical values
of this test depend on c0 so that the con®dence interval must be solved nu-
merically for its di¨erent values.5 Cavanagh et al. considered rather a stylized
model that corresponds to model (1) with m ˆ 1 and no serial correlation in
the error term. In the Appendix it is shown, how their test can be modi®ed
when the error term is serially correlated and m ˆ 3.6 In all cases the proce-
dure is rather conservative with the asymptotic rejection rates varying between
2 and 7% when the nominal size is 10%. According to the calculations of
Cavanagh et al. local asymptotic power in the m ˆ 1 case is good. Finite
sample simulation results are presented at the end of Section 3.

3. Empirical results

In this section we apply the Sche¨e type procedure of Cavanagh et al. (1995)
to test the Fisher e¨ect. The data set consists of monthly observations of U.S.
one and three month Treasury bill rates and in¯ation rates computed from the
consumer price index from the period 1953:1±1990:12 (456 observations). The
same data were also studied by Mishkin (1992, 1995). Following Mishkin,
three subsample periods are considered in addition to the entire sample. There
is some empirical evidence suggesting that there were structural changes in the
relationship between in¯ation and interest rates when the Federal Reserve
System ceased targeting interest rates in 1979 and again when the targeting
was partially resumed in 1982 (see e.g. Huizinga and Mishkin (1986)). To be
able to compare our empirical results with those of Mishkin we have chosen
to take his subsample division as given. Whether such structural changes
really occurred and which the exact dates may have been, is of course, an in-
teresting question in its own right but it will not be studied here. The three
subsample periods are 1953:1±1979:10 (322 observations), 1979:11±1982:10
(36 observations) and 1982:11±1990:12 (98 observations).
To assess the severity of the near unit root problem let us ®rst take a look
at the estimates of the largest autoregressive roots of the interest rate process
and the simultaneity in the system. The 95% con®dence intervals of the largest

4 Cavanagh et al. considered three di¨erent methods based on simultaneous con®dence

intervals. For sup-bound and Bonferroni intervals they also considered size-adjustments, and the
size-adjusted tests seemed to have somewhat better power properties than the Sche¨e type proce-
dure. However, the Sche¨e type procedure allows for a rather straightforward extension to the
case where the error terms are autocorrelated or there is a longer lag of the explanatory variable
while it is hard to see how the other procedures could be extended in those directions. Therefore,
we have chosen to employ that procedure in this paper.
5 For the empirical results in Section 3 a grid consisting of 160 values of c0 ranging from 40:0
to 9.5 was considered. I am grateful to Graham Elliott for providing the critical values needed in
the computations.
6 The case of a general m > 1 is straightforward, but only the case m ˆ 3 is needed in the em-
pirical part of the paper.
362 M. Lanne

autoregressive roots of the interest rates are presented in Table 1. At the 5%

level the null of a unit root cannot be rejected for any of the interest rate
variables. The very wide intervals for the period of the `new operating proce-
dures' of the Federal Reserve System 1979:11±1982:10 re¯ect most likely the
small number of observations. The con®dence intervals include in all cases
values that are liable to cause size distortions in t tests on bm in (1) as dis-
cussed in Section 2. In particular, unity is included in all the intervals, and the
lower limits vary between 0.832 and 0.991 in the entire sample and the ®rst
and last subsample periods. In the 1979:11±1982:10 period the intervals are
considerably wider which is probably due to the small number of observations
in this subsample. The values of the local-to-unity parameter c corresponding
to the lower limits of these con®dence intervals range from about 3 to 19.
Whether overrejection really is a substantial problem depends on the magni-
tude of simultaneity between the residuals of the in¯ation forecasting equa-
tion (1) and the univariate autoregressive representation of the interest rate
variable in question. The estimates of the long-run correlation between the
residuals, are presented in Table 2. With the exception of the interest rate
targeting period 1953:1±1979:10, the estimates are high implying that size
distortions are in general to be expected if standard inference or pretesting is
used.
The 95% con®dence intervals for b m in Table 3 accord with our expecta-
tions based on the estimates of the long-run correlation. The null of b m ˆ 0 is
rejected in the entire sample period, and the absence of the Fisher e¨ect in the

Table 2. Estimates of the long run correlation between the residuals of the ADF regression for the
m month interest rate and the in¯ation forecasting equation (1)

m 1 3

Sample period

1953:1±1990:12 0.574 0.715

1953:1±1979:10 0.082 0.181
1979:11±1982:10 0.677 0.824
1982:11±1990:12 0.347 0.342

The estimates are obtained by autoregressive approximation. AIC with a maximum of 10 lags was
used to select the lag length.

Table 3. 95% Sche¨e con®dence intervals of the slope coe½ents b m in the in¯ation forecasting
equation (1)

m 1 3

Sample period Con®dence interval k Con®dence interval k

1953:1±1990:12 0.401, 1.019 4 0.362, 0.797 3

1953:1±1979:10 0.993, 1.496 1 1.136, 1.514 3
1979:11±1982:10 2.135, 3.441 1 0.817, 0.591 2
1982:11±1990:12 0.893, 0.753 1 1.044, 0.914 1

The con®dence intervals were solved on a grid with the values of c ranging from 40.0 to 9.5. The
lag length k was selected by AIC.
In¯ation and interest rates 363

post 1979 subperiods is also recon®rmed. Contrary to the ®ndings of Mishkin

(1992, 1995) but in accordance with several previous results relying on stan-
dard inference there is support for the Fisher e¨ect in the interest rate target-
ing period. As implied by the low estimated simultaneity for this period, in-
ference using critical values from the standard normal distribution or applying
pretests is not likely to lead to size distortions, i.e. they are asymptotically
valid procedures.
The conclusion from the entire sample period is that nominal interest rates
have information about future in¯ation. Closer inspection, however, reveals
that changes in monetary policy seem to have had an e¨ect on this relation-
ship. Recently SoÈderlind (1999) has argued that stronger in¯ation targeting
by the central bank leads to large ¯uctuations of the real interest rate and, if
successful, decreases the Fisher e¨ect by stabilizing in¯ation expectations such
that nominal interest rates primarily re¯ect the real rate. The period of the
new operating procedures was indeed characterized by aggressive disin¯ation
policy while the most recent subsample can be described as a period of estab-
lishing and maintaining central bank credibility with emphasis on the in¯ation
target (see e.g. Goodfriend (1995)). Also, recently Fuhrer (1996) concluded
that in the post 1979 period the relative weight of the in¯ation target in the
Fed's reaction function was higher and the in¯ation target itself lower than
in the 1966±1979 period. Combined with these observations, our results thus
lend support to the conjecture of SoÈderlind.
The results of Table 3 also give information concerning the (near) station-
arity of the real interest rate. Note that under rational expectations the sta-
tionarity of p m i m implies the stationarity of the ex ante real rate. In terms
of model (1) this hypothesis can be expressed as b m ˆ 1, and its interpretation
is, of course, that in¯ation and interest rates move one-for-one in the long run.
Mishkin (1992) called this the full Fisher e¨ect. In the entire sample unity is
included in the 95% Sche¨e type con®dence interval in the m ˆ 1 case but not
in the m ˆ 3 case. In the interest rate targeting period the situation is similar
with the lower bounds of the interval in the m ˆ 3 case just above unity. In
the 1982:11±1990:12 period the hypothesis that nominal interest rates and
in¯ation move one-for-one in the long run, is clearly rejected at the 5% level.
The outcome that the hypothesis of common serial correlation properties
between nominal interest rates and in¯ation is clearly rejected only in the
period where the in¯ation target was emphasized, is of course, also consistent
with the results of SoÈderlind (1999).
To evaluate how well our procedures control size in ®nite samples some
Monte Carlo experiments were conducted with models estimated from the
data.7 The rejection rates for the at most 5% nominal level test are presented
in Table 4. In these cases the procedures are not as conservative as the
asymptotic results may lead one to believe. They control size relatively well in
all samples except the one corresponding to the period of the new operating
procedures. In that sample large overrejections prevail presumably due to the
small sample size. Also in the last subsample period especially the test in the
m ˆ 3 case tends to overreject.

7 Speci®cally, the in¯ation forecasting equation (1) and an autoregression for the interest rate
with a VAR model for the residuals were estimated for each of the sample periods. The error
^ distribution, where S^ is the estimated covariance matrix of the
terms were generated from N…0; S†
®nal residuals.
364 M. Lanne

Table 4. Rejection rates of tests of the Sche¨e type test with nominal size U5%

Period T Rejection rate

mˆ1 mˆ3

1953:1±1990:12 456 0.059 0.045

1953:1±1979:10 322 0.055 0.054
1979:11±1982:10 36 0.381 0.882
1982:11±1990:12 98 0.064 0.125

The entries are based on 2,000 Monte Carlo replications of models for interest rates and in¯ation
(for details see footnote 7) estimated with data on the m-period in¯ation and interest rates from
the indicated sample period. T is the sample size.

4. Conclusion

In this paper we test the Fisher e¨ect according to which changes in short-
term interest rates primarily re¯ect changes in expected in¯ation. It has been
suggested that both in¯ation and nominal interest rates have unit roots, and
therefore the results obtained in much of the earlier empirical work relying
on standard inference are questionable. Since there is no theoretical reason
to assume these variables to be I …1†, we apply the Sche¨e type approach of
Cavanagh et al. (1995) which is asymptotically valid under uncertainty about
the order of integration. The data set consists of U.S. short-term in¯ation and
interest rates covering the period from 1953 to 1990. The general conclusion is
that the Fisher e¨ect is absent in the post 1979 subsample periods but there is
support for it in the interest rate targeting period 1953:1±1979:10. A potential
explanation for the presence of the Fisher e¨ect in the former and absence in
the latter period is o¨ered by a change in the emphasis on in¯ation targeting
(see SoÈderlind (1999)).
There is some support for the one-for-one movement of in¯ation and
nominal interest rates in the entire sample and potentially in the interest rate
targeting period. In contrast, this hypothesis is clearly rejected in the post 1982
period. Also, the recent results of Evans and Lewis (1995) and Crowder and
Ho¨man (1996) lend support to the (full) Fisher e¨ect in the U.S. Using data
from 1947 to 1987 Evans and Lewis argue that taking account of changes
in the process of in¯ation it cannot be rejected that in the long run nominal
interest rates re¯ect expected in¯ation one-for-one. Crowder and Ho¨man, on
the other hand, reconcile data from 1952 to 1991 with the Fisher hypothesis
by explicitly adjusting the interest rate for time varying taxes. Neither paper
has subsample results.

Econometric appendix

In this Appendix we derive the extensions of the Sche¨e type method of

Cavanagh, Elliott and Stock (1995) needed in the empirical part of the paper.
Throughout, generic notation is used, i.e. the regressor is denoted by x, the
regressand by y etc.
In¯ation and interest rates 365

Consider the following model

xt ˆ rxt 1 ‡ v1t

yt ˆ my ‡ gxt 1 ‡ v2t ; t ˆ 1; 2; . . . ; T …2†

where r ˆ 1 ‡ c=T, vt ˆ …v1t ; v2t † 0 ˆ F…L† 1 et , F…L† is a kth order lag poly-
nomial matrix having all roots outside the unit circle, with typical element
Fij …L† (‰Fij Š0 ˆ I2 ) and et ˆ …e1t ; e2t † 0 is a martingale di¨erence sequence with
constant conditional covariance matrix S, and supt Eeit4 < y, i ˆ 1; 2 and
2
Ex10 < y. Hence serial correlation in the error terms is assumed to be well
described by an autoregressive process. As far as the empirical application
of the paper is concerned, the latter equation corresponds to the in¯ation
forecasting equation (1), and the ®rst equation can be seen as the generating
mechanism of the interest rate.
Model (2) can be written in the following error-correction form, where the
error-correction term ut ˆ g0 xt yt is known under the null hypothesis
…g; c† ˆ …g0 ; c0 †:

X
k X
k 1
Dxt ˆ c10 ‡ c11 xt 1 ‡ c12 ut 1 ‡ a1i Dxt i ‡ b1i Dyt i ‡ e1t
iˆ1 iˆ1

X
k X
k 1
Dyt ˆ c20 ‡ c21 xt 1 ‡ c22 ut 1 ‡ a2i Dxt i ‡ b2i Dyt i ‡ e2t : …3†
iˆ1 iˆ1

The null hypothesis implies two restrictions on the coe½cients of model (3):
Tc11 ˆ c0 F11 …1† and Tc21 ˆ c0 F21 …1†. The coe½cients of the lag polyno-
mials are, of course, unknown, but in the test statistics F11 …1† and F21 …1† can
be replaced by their consistent estimators under the null hypothesis, F ^ …1† ˆ
Pk Pk 1 ^ ^ Pk P11k 1 ^
1 a^ g b g c and ^
F …1† ˆ g ^
a g
iˆ1 1i 0 iˆ1 1i 0 12 21 0 iˆ1 2i 0 iˆ1 b2i
^
g0 c22 . We obtain the statistic
!
1 0 ^ 1 2X T
m2
W 1 ˆ rT S T xt 1 rT ; …4†
2 tˆ2
P
where rT ˆ …T c^11 c0 F ^11 …1†; T c^21 c0 F
^21 …1†† 0 , S^ ˆ ‰1=…T k†Š T ^t e^t0 ,
tˆk‡1 e
0 m
and e^t ˆ …^ e1t ; e^2t † are the OLS residuals from (3), xt 1 ˆ xt 1 ‰1=
PT
…T 1†Š tˆ2 xt 1 . It is easy to see that under the null hypothesis …g; c† ˆ
…g0 ; c0 †, W1 converges to the same limiting distribution as Cavanagh et al.
obtained in the simpler case with no error autocorrelation since the only dif-
ference between the models is in the dynamics and only the coe½cients of the
lagged level are involved in the test.
If xt 3 is the regressor in (2) instead of xt 1 the error-correction form of
the model corresponding to (3) has lags of Dxt up to k ‡ 2 while the longest
lag of Dyt is still k 1. In this case the joint null hypothesis g ˆ g0 and c ˆ
c0 implies additional restrictions on the coe½cients of the subsequent error-
correction model. The test statistic, W3 , can be written as the sum of W1 and
366 M. Lanne

a Wald statistic embodying the restrictions on the error-correction term and

lagged di¨erences. It can be shown that the asymptotic null distribution of
W3 is the same as that of W1 except for an additional w42 =2 part stemming
from the additional restrictions.

References

Cavanagh CL, Elliott G, Stock JH (1995) Inference in models with nearly integrated regressors.
Econometric Theory 11:1131±1147
Crowder WJ, Ho¨man DL (1996) The long-run relationship between nominal interest rates and
in¯ation: The Fisher equation revisited. Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking 28:102±118
Dolado JJ, LuÈtkepohl H (1996) Making Wald tests work for cointegrated VAR systems. Econo-
metric Reviews 15:369±386.
Elliott G (1994) Application of local to unity asymptotic theory to time series regression. Un-
published Ph.D. dissertation (Harvard University)
Elliott G, Rothenberg TJ, Stock JH (1996) E½cient tests for an autoregressive unit root. Econo-
metrica 64:813±836
Elliott G, Stock JH (1994) Inference in time series regression when the order of integration of a
regressor is unknown. Econometric Theory 10:672±700
Evans MDD, Lewis KK (1995) Do expected shifts in in¯ation a¨ect estimates of the long-run
Fisher relation? Journal of Finance 50:225±253
Fuhrer JC (1996) Monetary policy shifts and long-term interest rates. Quarterly Journal of
Economics 111:1183±1209
Goodfriend M (1995) Acquiring and maintaining credibility for low in¯ation: The US experience.
In: Leiderman L, Svensson LEO (eds.), In¯ation Targets. CEPR, London, pp. 122±141
Huizinga J, Mishkin FS (1986) Monetary policy regime shifts and the unusual behavior of real
interest rates. Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy 24:231±274
Mishkin FS (1992) Is the Fisher e¨ect for real? A reexamination of the relationship between
in¯ation and interest rates. Journal of Monetary Economics 30:195±215
Mishkin FS (1995) Nonstationarity of regressors and tests on real-interest-rate behavior. Journal
of Business & Economic Statistics 13:47±51.
Ng S, Perron P (1995) Unit root tests in ARMA models with data-dependent methods for the
selection of the truncation lag. Journal of the American Statistical Association 90:268±281
Stock JH (1991), Con®dence intervals for the largest autoregressive root in US macroeconomic
time series. Journal of Monetary Economics 28:435±459
Stock JH (1997) Cointegration, long-run comovements, and long-horizon forecasting. In: Kreps
DM, Wallis KF (eds.) Advances in economics and econometrics: theory and applications,
Seventh World Congress, volume III. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K, pp. 34±
60
Stock JH, Watson MW (1996) Con®dence sets in regressions with highly serially correlated
regressors. Manuscript (Harvard University)
SoÈderlind P (1999) Monetary policy and the Fisher e¨ect. Journal of Policy Modeling (forth-
coming)
Toda HY, Yamamoto T (1995) Statistical inference in vector autoregressions with possibly
integrated processes. Journal of Econometrics 66:225±250