OXFORD BULLETIN OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS, SPECIAL ISSUE (1999)

0305-9049

PANEL DATA UNIT ROOTS AND COINTEGRATION:

AN OVERVIEW
Anindya Banerjee
I. INTRODUCTION

The analysis of unit roots and cointegration in panel data has been a fruitful
area of study in recent years, with Levin and Lin (1992, 1993) and Quah
(1994) being the seminal contributions in this eld. The investigation of
integrated series in a panel data context is based on two separate but richly
developed elds of econometric investigation, the rst being unit roots and
cointegration in time series and panel data econometrics the other. Both
literatures have been surveyed in rich detail. For unit roots and cointegration
in time series, Banerjee et al. (1993), Hamilton (1994) and Phillips and
Xiao (1998) are useful sources. The book by Baltagi (1995) and the edited
collection by Matyas and Sevestre (1996) are important references for the
literature on panel data econometrics. The several volumes of papers edited
by Maddala (1994) are also relevant in this regard.
The emphasis of the literature on unit roots and cointegration in panel
data has been the attempt to combine information from the time series
dimension with that obtained from the cross-sectional, in the hope that
inference about the existence of unit roots and cointegration can be made
more straightforward and precise by taking account of the cross-section
dimension, especially in environments in which the time series for the data
may not be very long but very similar data may be available across a crosssection of units such as countries, regions, rms or industries.
The empirical motivations have therefore always been important. Furthermore, with increasingly larger quantities of panel data information becoming available, the investing of effort in this area of research has seemed
worthwhile, given the well-known power deciencies of pure time series Paper prepared as editorial introduction for the special issue of the Oxford Bulletin of
Economics and Statistics. I am obliged to the contributors to this volume for their comments and
to Wallace Lo for valuable research assistance. A substantial part of the work for this paper and
for putting together the special issue was undertaken by me during March and April 1999 in the
Department of Economics at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand, under
the auspices of a Visiting Erskine Fellowship. The generosity of the Erskine Foundation and the
Department of Economics in Canterbury is gratefully acknowledged. In particular, I thank Robin
Harrison and Alfred Haug for their hospitality. I also thank the ESRC for funding this research
under grant L116251015.

607

# Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 1999. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford
OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

608

BULLETIN

based tests for unit roots and cointegration. Panel data techniques have been
used to investigate, for example, wages in unionized and non-unionized
industries (Breitung and Mayer (1994)), purchasing power parity (Bernard
and Jones (1996), Coakley and Fuertes (1997), Frankel and Rose (1996),
MacDonald (1996), O'Connell (1998), Oh (1996), Pedroni (1995, 1997a),
Papell (1997), Wu (1996)) and issues of convergence (Cechetti et al.
(1999), Evans and Karras (1996), Lee, Pesaran and Smith (1997), Pedroni
(1998)). The papers by Suzanne McCoskey and Chihwa Kao and by Chihwa
Kao, Min-Hsien Chiang and Bangtian Chen in this Special Issue look at
urbanization and international R&D spillovers respectively and are described later in the introduction.
The literature that has emerged has liberally drawn many elements from
its parent literatures. The consideration of fully modied estimation techniques, to take account of endogeneity of the regressors and correlation and
heteroscedasticity properties of the residuals, on the one hand, and the use
of methods for xed or random effects estimation, developed in the
literature on panel data with stationary variables, on the other, are two
examples of where the clear links may be identied. Yet, as in other
instances where a new literature comes to be seen to be signicant, the
aggregate has turned out to be greater than the sum of its parts and the
theory and practice of integrated series in panel data have given rise to a set
of interesting and surprising results which are uniquely its own.
A few examples of the distinctive features will sufce to elaborate on the
point made in the previous paragraph. From the early papers which developed the asymptotic theory of unit root processes in time series (Phillips
(1987), Engle and Granger (1987)), many of the estimators and statistics of
interest have been shown to have limiting distributions which are complicated functionals of Wiener processes. In direct contrast, the asymptotics of
non-stationary panels, starting with Levin and Lin, have led to demonstrations of estimators having Gaussian distributions in the limit. These results
have been extended to allow for a wide degree of heterogeneity across the
units comprising the panel.
The limiting distributions have also required the development and use of
multivariate `panel' functional central limit theorems, since the limiting
behaviour has required consideration of processes indexed by not only time
but also by unit. The formal and general treatment of the asymptotic
behaviour of such double indexed integrated processes has begun only
recently (Phillips and Moon (1999a)), although various aspects had been
implicitly employed in the earlier literature. It has become clear that several
approaches are possible and the limit of the processes may depend on the
assumptions made about the manner in which N (the units) and T tend to
innity. For example, one may x N and let the other index pass to innity
and subsequently allow N to tend to innity. This is denoted by Phillips and
Moon (1999a) as (N , T ! 1) seq . Alternatively N and T may be allowed to
pass to innity at a controlled rate of the type T T (N ). A third possibility
# Blackwell Publishers 1999

PANEL DATA UNIT ROOTS AND COINTEGRATION

609

is for both indexes to pass to innity simultaneously without any restrictions

being placed on the divergence denoted by Phillips and Moon as
(N, T ! 1). These are termed sequential, diagonal path and joint limits
respectively. Examples of the use of all three forms of limiting behaviour
are available in the literature and one of the contributions of the new
asymptotics has been to develop wherever possible the equivalences or
relations between the various modes of convergence, possibly under the
specication of restrictions (see Phillips and Moon (1999a)).
Spurious regressions in panels have also been shown to have interesting
properties. Phillips and Moon (1999a) demonstrate how panel methods
allow for the estimation of a long-run relation among variables even in
cases where consideration of the time dimension alone would lead to the
regression being characterized as spurious. Thus in such cases the strong
noise in the time series regression is attenuated by pooling the cross-section
and time series observations. The meaning of this so-called long-run
relation is however open to some interpretation and, as noted in Theorem 1
of Kao (1999), the t-statistic of the estimator is divergent as in pure time
series models.
The case for the importance and distinctiveness of this literature is
therefore well established. The techniques will be developed and put to
many more varied and interesting uses in the future and this Special Issue
brings together contributions from some of the leading researchers in this
eld. The space available in the introduction does not allow for more than a
selective consideration of the literature. McCoskey and Kao (1998b) and
Phillips and Moon (1999b) are useful overviews. Our aim here is four-fold:
rst, to provide what might be called a catalogue raisonne of the main
techniques and papers and thereby to take stock of the literature; second, to
present a unied account of the main themes which link the research in this
area; third, to place the papers in this volume within the context of the
literature; and fourth, to put forward new areas for research. The discussion
is divided into two main sections consisting of testing for unit roots and
testing for cointegration. Among papers in the former category are Im,
Pesaran and Shin (1997), Kao (1999), Levin and Lin (1992, 1993), Quah
(1994) and the papers by G. S. Maddala and Shaowen Wu and by Hyungsik
Moon and Peter Phillips in the Special Issue, while in the latter belong Kao
and Chiang (1998), Pedroni (1995, 1996, 1997a), McCoskey and Kao
(1998a), Phillips and Moon (1999a) and the contributions by Peter Pedroni
and Stephen Hall, Stepana Lazarova and Giovanni Urga printed here.
Two further papers are worth mentioning here since they have an
important bearing on this literature and are the motivator of the Hall et al.
analysis in this volume. Robertson and Symons (1992) and Pesaran and
Smith (1995) (extended in Im, Pesaran and Smith (1996)) were very
inuential in demonstrating the inconsistency of estimators in dynamic
heterogeneous panels which use pooled or aggregated data and recommended the use of group-mean estimators. The latter is the basis of the unit
# Blackwell Publishers 1999

610

BULLETIN

root test proposed in Im et al. (1997). Hall et al. provide an interesting and
important counter-example to the analysis by Pesaran and his co-authors
while at the same time moving the literature on to a more general direction.
The Phillips and Moon long-run relation alluded to above is also another
example of how looking at integrated data in panels led to some widely held
beliefs being modied.
The next section describes testing for unit roots, using the analysis in
Levin and Lin (1992, 1993) as its starting point. Section 2.2 provides an
account of the Im et al. (1997) tests and Section 2.3 introduces the Maddala
and Wu paper in this volume. Section 3 moves on to the discussion of tests
for cointegration, with Section 3.1 presenting Pedroni's tests for cointegration. The construction of these tests is described in detail in Pedroni's paper.
Section 3.2 analyses the LM-test for cointegration developed by McCoskey
and Kao (1998a) and describes an empirical application of the method
contained in the Special-Issue paper by McCoskey and Kao. This section
also introduces the paper by Kao et al. Section 4 discusses new directions
for research. In particular, we discuss Phillips and Moon's formalization of
the asymptotic theory of integrated panel data. The topic of their contribution to the Special Issue is the estimation of local-to-unity parameters in the
presence of homogeneous or heterogeneous deterministic trends, and their
paper provides a new and important example of inconsistent maximumlikelihood-estimation in dynamic panels. Section 5 concludes. The notation
d
used throughout the volume is standard and self-explanatory. ) or )
denotes convergence in distribution while ! p or ! is used for convergence in probability The non-stochastic limit (innite or nite) of a
sequence is also denoted by ! and the context makes the usage clear. In
Wiener integrals of the form W (r)dr, the argument r is often suppressed.

II.

TESTING FOR UNIT ROOTS IN DYNAMIC PANELS

2.1. Levin and Lin

The structure of the Levin and Lin analysis may be summarized in the
following equation:
yi, t i i t t r i yi, t1 i, t , i 1, 2, . . . , N , t 1, 2, . . . , T :
(1)
It therefore allows for xed effects and unit-specic time trends in
addition to common time effects (which may in practice be concentrated
out of the equation). The unit-specic xed effects are an important source
of heterogeneity here since the coefcient of the lagged dependent variable
is restricted to be homogeneous across all units of the panel. The Levin and
Lin tests amount to testing for the null hypothesis H 0 : r i 0 for all i
against the alternative H A : r i r , 0 for all i, with auxiliary assumptions
# Blackwell Publishers 1999

PANEL DATA UNIT ROOTS AND COINTEGRATION

611

under the null also being required about the coefcients relating to the
deterministic components.
The main theorems in Levin and Lin relate to deriving the asymptotic
distributions of the panel estimator of r under different assumptions on the
existence of xed effects or heterogeneous time trends. The simplest cases
to consider are for i, t  IID(0, 2 ) for xed i. The errors are also assumed
to be independent across the units of the sample.1 For example, if
i i 0 for all i and there are no common time effects, then the
asymptotic distribution of the ordinary least squares (OLS) pooled panel
^ is given by
estimator r
p
^ ) N (0, 2), T, N ! 1
(2)
T Nr
tr0 ) N (0, 1):

(3)

Here the convergence rate to normality of the coefcient estimator is

faster as T ! 1 than as N ! 1. For a more general model, say with no
common time effects and i 0, the relevant distributional result is given
by,
p
p
p
^ 3 N ) N(0, 10:2), N =T ! 0, T , N ! 1
(4)
T Nr
p
p
p
1:25: tr0 1:875N ) N(0, 645=112), N =T ! 0, T, N ! 1: (5)
The null hypothesis for this second model is given by H 0 : r 0, i 0
for all i against the alternative H 0 : r , 0, i unrestricted. The signicance
of the Levin and Lin analysis was the rst formal demonstration of the
correction and standardization factors required in order for the unit root
estimators to have Gaussian distributions in the limit. Some of the results
were conditional upon
p a particular controlled rate of divergence of N and T
to innity, so that N =T ! 0 and hence the time dimension expands more
slowly than the cross-section. The scaling (by powers of both N and T ) is
also noteworthy in contrast with the scaling factor appropriate for the
analogous DickeyFuller estimator in time series, where a single power of
T would be sufcient.
p
p
The expressions such as 3 N or 1:875N are simple examples of
centring corrections needed in order for the statistics to have mean zero
asymptotically. The variance standardizations necessary are also easily
deduced. The important extension undertaken by Levin and Lin (1993) was
to look at the case where the error processes had more general correlated
and heteroscedastic structures, although the independence across crosssection units was retained. In the context of dynamic models such as those
given above, the introduction of, say, serial correlation in the residuals has
1
The condition that the individual processes are cross-sectionally independent is a critical
assumption in much of the literature. Later on we discuss relaxations of this condition but unless
otherwise stated it should be taken as given.

# Blackwell Publishers 1999

612

BULLETIN

important consequences by introducing correlation between the lagged

dependent variable and the error. Along with the introduction of heteroscedasticity, the use of corrections in order to obtain statistics free from
nuisance parameters is thereby necessitated.
Consider now the second of the two models discussed above where the
error process now follows a stationary invertible ARMA process for each
unit and is distributed independently across units. Thus,
1
X
i, t
ij i, t j i, t :
(6)
j0

For all i and t, i, t has nite non-zero fourth moments, the variance of the
innovation process i, t is bounded from below away from zero and the
variation at frequency zero (long-run variance) of i, t is bounded above.
Levin and Lin (1993) prescribe the use of augmented DickeyFuller
(ADF) test to each individual series as the starting point of their testing
procedure for unit roots. Thus, the regressions (for each i)
pi
X
yi, t r i yi, t1
ij yi, t j i i, t , t 1, 2, . . . , T
(7)
j1

is estimated by regressing rst yi, t and then yi, t1 on the remaining

^ i, t1 respectively. The
variables in (7), providing the residuals ^e i, t and V
^
regression of ^e i, t on V i, t1
^ i, t1 i, t
^e i, t r i V

(8)

^ i from the ith cross-section. The following

is then estimated to derive r
expressions are next required:
^ 2e i (T pi 1)1

T
X

^ i, t1 )2
^iV
(^e i, t r

t pi 2

~e i, t ^e i, t =^ e i
~ i, t1 V
^ i, t1 =^ e i
V
^ 2yi (T 1)1
S^ N ,T N 1

T
X
t2

y2i, t 2

K
X
L1

w K L (T 1)1

T
X

!2
yi, t yi, t L

t L2

N
X
(^ yi =^ e i ):
i1

2
This is an estimate of the long-run variance of yi . K is the lag truncation parameter and w K L is
the lag window.

# Blackwell Publishers 1999

PANEL DATA UNIT ROOTS AND COINTEGRATION

613

The nal step is to estimate the panel regression (making use of all i and t)
~ i, t1 ~ i, t
~e i, t r V

(9)

and compute the t-statistic

tr0
where

2
RSE(^
r) ^ 4

^
r
,
RSE(^
r)

N
T
X
X
i1 t pi 2

~ 1
^ 2 (N T)
p N 1

31=2
~2 5
V
i, t1

N
T
X
X

N
X

(10)

~ i, t1 )2
^V
(~e i, t r

i1 t pi 2

pi , T~ (T p 1):

i1

The Levin and Lin statistic is an adjusted version of (10) above. It is

given by
t r

tr0 N T~ S^ N ,T ^ 2
r) T~
RSE(^
,
T~

(11)

where T~ and T~ are mean and standard deviation adjustment terms which
are computed by Monte Carlo simulation and tabulated in their paper for
three separate specications of the deterministic terms in (1) above. The
adjustment terms are available for a given regression model, time series
dimension T~ ranging from 25 to 250 and lag truncation parameter K
varying from 9 to 20. N (the cross-section dimension) is set to 250 in all the
adjustment term simulations.3 The central theorem of the Levin and Lin
analysis showed that provided the ADF lag order pmax increased at some
rate T p where 0 , p < 1=4 and the lag truncation parameter K increased at
rate T q where 0 , q , 1, then under the null hypothesis that r 0, the
panel test statistic tr has the property that as T , N ! 1,
tr ) N(0, 1):

(12)

3
An element of the discussion in many of the papers where such corrections are proposed is to
present them for nite T , N and also for so-called asymptotic or large T , N and to see how well
the asymptotic values (since these are most easily usable) approximate the nite sample
corrections. We draw attention to this feature but do not enter into discussion of this important
area.

# Blackwell Publishers 1999

614

BULLETIN

Under the alternative hypothesis, tr diverges to negative innity at rate

p
NT , a property that can thereby be exploited to construct a consistent
one-tailed test of the null hypothesis against the alternative.
In summary, the Levin and Lin papers contained almost all the key
elements which continue to preoccupy the later discussions in the literature.
These included (a) the demonstration of asymptotic normality subject to
suitable scaling and corrections such as in (2)(5) above; (b) the necessity
of focusing on the rates at which T and N tend to innity; (c) the issue of
homogeneity versus heterogeneity (under the null and the alternative
hypotheses). The Levin and Lin framework was restrictive in this sense in
requiring r to be homogeneous across i; (d) the maintained assumption of
independence across cross-section units and (e) the corrections or modications required to allow for dependent and heteroscedastic error processes
and the resulting endogeneity of the regressors.
Generalizations of corrections of the form given above are a key part of
the tests for unit roots and cointegration discussed below and in the
construction of fully-modied estimators proposed by Pedroni (1996) and
Kao and Chiang (1998). Three of these elements, namely (c)(e), are thus
very important for what follows next in our discussion. Im et al. (1997) and
Maddala and Wu propose important relaxations of (c) and (d) while (e)
becomes very signicant in the context of testing for cointegration in panels
and is dealt with in more detail in Section 3. We return to (b) in Section 4 of
this paper when discussing the work of Phillips and his co-authors.
2.2. Im, Pesaran and Shin
The main extension by Im et al. (1997) of the Levin and Lin framework was
to allow for heterogeneity in the value of r i under the alternative hypothesis.
A small modication of (1) above makes the point clearly. Let:
yi, t i r i yi, t1 i, t , i 1, 2, . . . , N; t 1, 2, . . . , T :

(13)

The null and alternative hypotheses are dened as

H 0 : r i 0 for all i

(14)

against the alternatives

H A : r i , 0, i 1, 2, . . . , N1 , r i 0, i N1 1, N 1 2, . . . , N (15)
and the errors i, t are serially autocorrelated (as in (6)) with different serial
correlation (and variance) properties across units.
In view of the well-known objections of Pesaran and Smith (1995) on the
use of pooled panel estimators, such as those used by Levin and Lin (1992,
1993), for processes which display heterogeneity of the kind given in (13)
(15) above, Im et al. (1997) propose the use of a group-mean Lagrange
multiplier (LM) statistic to test for the null hypothesis in (14). The ADF
regressions
# Blackwell Publishers 1999

615

PANEL DATA UNIT ROOTS AND COINTEGRATION

yi, t r i yi, t1

pi
X

ij yi, t j i i, t , t 1, 2, . . . , T

(16)

j1

are estimated and the LM-statistic for testing r i 0 is computed. Dening

LM N ,T N 1

N
X

LM i,T ( pi , i ),

(17)

i1

where i (i1 , i2 , . . . , ipi )9 and LM i,T ( pi , i ) is the individual LM

statistic for testing r i 0, the standardized LM-bar statistic is given by
(
)
N
X
p
1
N LM N ,T N
E[LM i,T ( pi , 0)jr i 0]
LM

i1

s
N
X
1
Var[LM i,T ( pi , 0)jr i 0]
N

(18)

i1

The values of E[LM i,T ( pi , 0)jr i 0] and Var[LM i,T ( pi , 0)jr i 0] are
obtainable by stochastic simulation and are tabulated in their paper using
50,000 replications for different values of T and pi 's. It is shown that under
H 0 : r i 0 for all i,
LM ) N(0, 1)

(19)

as T, N ! 1 and N=T ! k where k is a nite positive constant. For the

test to be consistent under the alternative, it is also required that
lim N !1 (N1 =N ) 1 , 0 , 1 < 1. p
Under
this further assumption, LM

diverges to positive innity at rate T N under the alternative.

Im et al. (1997) also propose the use of a group-mean t-bar statistic given
by
(
)
N
X
p
1
N t N ,T N
E[t i,T ( pi , 0)jr i 0]
t

i1

s
N
X
N 1
Var[t i,T ( pi , 0)jr i 0]

(20)

i1

where
t N ,T N

N
X

t i,T ( pi , i ),

(21)

i1

and t i,T ( pi , i ) is the individual t-statistic for testing r i 0 for all i.

E[t i,T ( pi , 0)jr i 0] and Var[t i,T ( pi , 0)jr i 0] are tabulated in the paper.
The convergence result stated for LM holds for t also and consistency is
guaranteed under the controlled rate of divergence of N and T to innity
such that N=T ! k.
# Blackwell Publishers 1999

616

BULLETIN

In a Monte Carlo Study, Im et al. (1997) demonstrate better nite sample

performances of the LM and t in relation to the Levin and Lin test given
by tp.
2.3. Maddala and Wu
The focus of the Maddala and Wu paper in this Special Issue is to
concentrate on the shortcomings of both the Levin and Lin and Im et al.
(1997) frameworks and to offer an alternative testing strategy. Maddala and
Wu argue that while the Im et al. (1997) tests relax the assumption of
homogeneity of the root across the units, several difculties still remain.
First, common with most other tests proposed both for unit roots and
cointegration in panels, Im et al. (1997) assume in their basic framework
that T is the same for all the cross-section units and hence
E[t i,T ( pi , 0)jr i 0] and Var[LM i,T ( pi , 0)jr i 0], for example, is the same
for all i conditional upon the lag length. Thus to consider the case of
unbalanced panels further simulations are required. Second, as with Levin
and Lin, the critical values are sensitive to the choice of lag lengths in the
ADF regressions. Third, the results in these papers apply to only a limited
class of tests of the unit root hypothesis in panels and do not apply to tests
such as those proposed by Elliott, Rothenberg and Stock (1996). Fourth,
and most importantly, while Im et al. (1997) allow for a limited amount of
cross-correlation across units by allowing for common time effects, so that
t in (1) is non-zero, Maddala and Wu suggest quite rightly that in many
real-world applications the cross-correlations are unlikely to take this
simple form (which can in any case be effectively eliminated by subtracting
out the cross-section mean from yi, t before applying the tests). Maddala and
Wu's analysis, using bootstrapping, represents the rst signicant step
towards allowing dependence of a more general form.
Maddala and Wu propose the use of a test due to Fisher (1932) which is
based on combining the p-values of the test-statistic for a unit root in each
cross-sectional unit. The Fisher test is non-parametric, and may be computed for any arbitrary choice of a test for the unit root. It is an exact test
and the statistic given by
2

N
X

ln( i )

(22)

i1

is distributed as a chi-squared variable with 2N degrees of freedom under

the assumption of cross-sectional independence. i is the p-value of the test
statistic in unit i. The obvious simplicity of this test and its robustness to
statistic choice, lag length and sample size make it extremely attractive. In
particular, one may use tests where either stationarity or integration is the
maintained hypothesis to compute the p-values. More signicantly, Maddala and Wu demonstrate the use of bootstrapping methods to extend the
# Blackwell Publishers 1999

PANEL DATA UNIT ROOTS AND COINTEGRATION

617

framework of testing for unit roots in panels to allow for cross-correlations.

The details are contained in their paper published here where the Fisher test
with bootstrap-based critical values is given as the preferred choice.
III. TESTING FOR COINTEGRATION IN DYNAMIC PANELS

The literature on testing for cointegration in panels has so far taken two
broad directions. The rst consists of taking as the null hypothesis that of
no cointegration and using residuals derived from the panel analogue of an
Engle and Granger (1987) static regression to construct the test statistics
and tabulate the distributions. The most general statement of this problem
may be taken from Pedroni's paper in this volume, which is based on earlier
work by him (Pedroni (1995, 1997a)). A related paper is by Kao (1999)
which contains very similar and related analysis. The second route is to take
as the null that of cointegration and is the basis of the test proposed by
McCoskey and Kao (1998a).4 This too is a residual-based test and has as its
analogue in the time series literature the tests of Harris and Inder (1994),
Shin (1994), Leybourne and McCabe (1994) and Kwiatowski et al. (1992).
We discuss both approaches in turn. As a preface, it should be noted that the
asymptotic analysis of both approaches involves the use of sequential limit
arguments. This involves allowing the time series dimension T to grow
large rst and then letting N ! 1.
3.1. Pedroni
The details of the Pedroni method are described in some detail in his paper
in this volume. We shall therefore discuss only the key features of the
analysis which are of importance in a more general context. The method
utilizes the residuals from the cointegrating regression given by
yi, t i i t x9i, t i e i, t , t 1, 2, . . . , T ; i 1, . . . , N ;

(23)

where i (1i , 2i , . . . , Mi )9, xi, t (x1i, t , x2i, t , . . . , x Mi, t )9. This formulation therefore allows for considerable heterogeneity in the panel, since
heterogeneous slope coefcients, xed effects and individual specic
deterministic trends are all permitted.
Under H 0, dening z i, t ( yi, t , x9i, t )9, 9i, t ( i,y t , x9
i, t ),
z i, t z i, t1 i, t ,

(24)

where the process 9i, t satises

1 X
p
i, t ) Bi ( i ) for each i as T ! 1:
T t1
[Tr]

4
In a similar vein, Hadri (1998) develops a test of the null of trend versus difference
stationarity.

# Blackwell Publishers 1999

618

BULLETIN

Bi ( i ) is a vector Brownian motion with asymptotic covariance given by i

(partitioned conformably) with 22i assumed to be positive denite (to rule
out cointegration amongst the regressors5 ). The Bi ( i ) are taken to be
dened on the same probability space for all i and moreover
E( i, t 9j,s ) 0 for all i 6 j and for all s, t.
The specication of the process for i, t therefore imposes cross-sectional
independence (excepting any common aggregate disturbances) but allows
for a wide range of temporal dependence in the data. In particular, no
exogeneity requirements are imposed on the regressors in (23).
Under these assumptions, Pedroni discusses the construction of seven
panel cointegration statistics, four based on what he describes as pooling
along the within-dimension and three based on pooling along the betweendimension. Within the rst category, three of the four tests involve the use
of non-parametric corrections familiar from the work of Phillips and Perron
(1988). The fourth is a parametric ADF-based test. In the second category,
two of the three tests use non-parametric corrections while the third is again
an ADF-based test. If we denote by i the autoregressive coefcient of the
residuals in the ith unit or cross-section, then the rst category of tests uses
the following specication of null and alternative hypotheses:
H 0 : i 1, for all i, H A : i , 1 for all i:

(25)

The second category uses

H 0 : i 1, for all i, H A : i , 1 for all i:

(26)

The analogy with the Levin and Lin (1993) and Im et al. (1997) papers is
evident, in terms of the heterogeneity permitted under the alternative
hypothesis, in the former case for the root of the raw time series, the
autoregressive coefcient in the estimated residuals for the latter.
We next describe the construction and use of the second of the withindimension tests, called the Panel r-Statistic, referring the reader to Pedroni's
paper for the remaining tests. The non-parametric tests require estimating
i and the long-run variance of ^u i, t , where
^ i ^e i, t1 ^u i, t
^e i, t

(27)

and ^e i, t are the residuals from the panel cointegrating regression (23). The
parametric tests estimate
^ i ^e i, t1
^e i, t

ki
X
k1

^ ik ^e i, t k ^ui, t

(28)

and use the residuals ^ui, t to estimate their (simple) variance since the ADF
procedure in (28) whitens the ^ui, t .
5
The interesting consequences of relaxing this assumption are an important part of the Hall et
al. paper.

# Blackwell Publishers 1999

PANEL DATA UNIT ROOTS AND COINTEGRATION

619

The following steps are implemented for the construction of the Panel rStatistic. The panel cointegrating regression (23) is estimated and the
residuals extracted. Next, the differenced regression given by
yi, t 9i xi, t i, t , t 1, 2, . . . , T ; i 1, . . . , N

(29)

^ i, t are used to compute a consistent estimator of

is estimated. The residuals
^ i, such as the Newey-West estimator. From
^ i extract
i , denoted
^ 1 9
^
^ 11i
^ 21i
^L2
11i
22i 21i :

(30)

Use ^u i, t in (27) to compute its long-run variance ^ 2i and ^ i 12(^ 2i ^s2i ),

where s2i is the simple variance (i.e. ignoring cross-correlations) of ^u i, t . The
Panel r-Statistic is then given by
!1
N X
T
N X
T
X
p
p X
2
2
^
^L2 (^e i, t1 ^e i, t1 ^ i ):
L ^e
T N Z r^ 1  T N
N,T

i1 t1

11i i, t1

i1 t1

11i

(31)
In order to dene the statistic suitable for making inference, a standardization based on the moments of the vector of Brownian motion functionals is
again required. Letting V and W to be mutually independent standard
Brownian motion processes of dimension 1 and M respectively, dene

1
~

WW 9
WV ;
(32)
~ :
Q  V 9W

(33)

The vector of Brownian motion functionals is then given by




2
~
~
9 
Q , Q dQ, 9 :

(34)

Let denote the vector of means of these functionals, given by

9  (1 , 2 , 3 ):

(35)

is the variancecovariance matrix of , such that ( j) , j 1, 2, 3 refers

2
to the j 3 j upper sub-matrix of and dene 9(2) (1
1 , 2 1 ).
Pedroni shows that under H 0,
p
p
(36)
T N Z r^ N,T 1 2 1
N ) N (0, 9(2) (2) (2) )
1
and a nal standardization provides the standard normal form. The statistic
diverges to negative innity under the alternative hypothesis, thereby
providing a consistent test. Large negative values lead to the rejection of the
null hypothesis of no cointegration.
The logic of this exercise, rst encountered in the consideration of the
# Blackwell Publishers 1999

620

BULLETIN

Levin and Lin estimators, generalizes to all seven of the Pedroni estimators,
so that
p
N ,T N
p
) N (0, 1)
(37)

for the appropriately standardized statistic and corrections for mean and
variance. The correction factors and depend on (a) the statistic considered; (b) the dimension of M; and (c) whether or not unit-specic constants
and/or trends are included in the regression. They are computed by Monte
Carlo simulation and are tabulated in easily readable form by Pedroni in
Table 2 of his paper.
We turn now to considering the LM-test for the null of cointegration, due
to McCoskey and Kao (1998a).

3.2. McCoskey and Kao

In order to understand this test, consider (23) with i set to 0.6 The
formulation adopted by McCoskey and Kao (1998a) is to consider e i, t to be
composed of two separate terms,
e i, t

t
X

u i, j u i, t :

(38)

j1

The regressors are generated as

xi, t xi, t1 i, t ,

(39)

where xi, t is M-dimensional as before. Under the null hypothesis

H 0 : 0, (23) is a system of cointegrated regressors. Independence across
cross-sectional units is maintained, as is the assumption of no cointegration
amongst the regressors. The long-run variance-covariance matrix7 of
w i, t (u i, t , 9i, t )9 is next dened as
6
The framework can be generalized to include unit-specic trend terms i . It involves
computing mean and variance correction terms appropriate to this case. These corrections are
used by McCoskey and Kao in their contribution to this volume but only for the specications
relevant to their empirical exercise.
7
A critical assumption, in contrast with the Pedroni analysis, is of a constant variance
covariance matrix across the cross-sectional units, so that

1 X
p
w i, t ) B():
T t1
[Tr]

As noted by McCoskey and Kao (1998a) the analysis can be generalized to allow for this specic form
of heterogeneity also but, allied to the assumption of independence across i, the relaxation of this
restriction will imply that the method will be equivalent to equation-by-equation estimation of the
system.
# Blackwell Publishers 1999

PANEL DATA UNIT ROOTS AND COINTEGRATION

$21
$21

$12
:
22

621
(40)

The LM-statistic is given by

1
N

LM

N
X
i1

1
T2

T
X
t1

S y2
i, t
(41)

$
^ 21:2

where $
^ 21:2 is a consistent estimator of
y
^ 1 i, k
$21:2 $21 $12 1
^ 12
22 $21 , y i,k yi,k $
22

and
S

i, t

t
X
y 9x ):

( yy i,k i c
i i,k
k1

y is the fully-modied estimator (FM) of .

c
i
i
The construction of this statistic therefore requires a consistent estimate
of in order to implement the non-parametric corrections. By implementing these corrections, the FM-estimator is able to take account of serial
correlation of the residuals in (23) and the endogeneity of the regressors and
provides an estimator which is asymptotically unbiased. A description of
the method for constructing the FM-estimator, when i for all i, is
given by Kao et al. in this volume and is therefore not repeated here. The
generalization to heterogeneous i 's requires construction of these FMestimators unit by unit (which may be successfully achieved for large
enough T ) but the principles involved are the same.
The development of the FM-estimator, for the case of homogeneous
slope coefcients, is due to Pedroni (1996) and later by Kao and Chiang
(1998) and Phillips and Moon (1999). In the time series context, FMestimators were rst developed by Phillips and Hansen (1990). Kao and
Chiang (1998) also develop results for the Stock and Watson (1992) class of
dynamic ordinary least squares (DOLS) estimators for panels, where leads
of xi, t are included in the cointegrating regressions to achieve the same
effect as that of full modication in providing asymptotically unbiased
estimators. Since the estimators are asymptotically equivalent, the relative
merits of these two methods therefore boil down to a comparison of their
performance in nite samples. Kao and Chiang (1998) investigate the nite
sample properties of these estimators and Kao et al. use both methods to
investigate international R&D spillovers.
To implement their test, McCoskey and Kao dene the adjusted LMstatistic as
# Blackwell Publishers 1999

622

BULLETIN

p
N (LM v )
LM
:
v

(42)

LM y ) N (0, 1)

(43)

Under H 0 : 0,
and since the statistic diverges under the alternative hypothesis, large values
of LM y imply rejections of the null hypothesis. The correction factors v
and 2v are the mean and variance of a complex functional of a Brownian
motion process dened in Harris and Inder (1994) but depend only on the
dimension of M and on whether or not unit-specic constants or trends are
included in (23).
All this is of course very much in line with the general principles for
constructing such tests that we have tried to describe in this paper. For
example, the McCoskey and Kao (1998a) test is in the spirit of the Im et al.
(1997) analysis, since it involves the averaging of the individual LMstatistics across the cross-sections. They also involve the use of nonparametric corrections (common to the spirit of the Pedroni tests) and mean
and variance correction factors (common to all the testing and estimation
procedures described here, except for the Maddala and Wu tests). Thus it is
possible to see many unifying strategic features in this already quite diverse
literature and this is helpful for an understanding of the issues resolved and
where the important extensions may lie.
Before proceeding to a discussion of these extensions, it is necessary to
note briey the results of McCoskey and Kao and by Kao et al. in this
volume since both papers make extensive use of the techniques discussed in
this section. McCoskey and Kao use their LM-test to investigate the
relationship between urbanization, output per worker and capital per worker
in a sample of 30 developing countries and 22 developed countries. They
nd that the existence of a long-run relationship can be sustained, although
the sign and magnitude of the impact of urbanization varies widely across
countries. Their results are sensitive to whether or not a trend is included in
the cointegrating regressions, to proxy for the growth rate in gross domestic
product per worker caused by factors other than urbanization and capital per
worker. An interesting interpretation of the signicant interaction between
urbanization and time trend is suggested. Under this interpretation, there
appears to be some evidence for urbanization acting as a potential leveller
of growth rates across countries. For example, the results show that
urbanization acts as a draining inuence on otherwise positive growth while
propping up growth rates in struggling economies.
Kao et al. return to a proposition put forward by Coe and Helpman
(1995), using a sample of 21 OECD countries and Israel, to show that both
domestic and foreign R&D capital stocks have important effects on the total
factor productivity (TFP) of countries. Using FM and DOLS methods, Kao
et al. conclude that while evidence of the linkage between domestic capital
# Blackwell Publishers 1999

PANEL DATA UNIT ROOTS AND COINTEGRATION

623

stock and TFP is strong, the link between international capital stock and
TFP appears to be considerably weaker. They therefore reject an important
conclusion of the Coe and Helpman analysis, namely that international
R&D spillovers are trade related.
IV. NEW DIRECTIONS

The most comprehensive formalization of the asymptotic theory of nonstationary panel data is due to Phillips and Moon (1999a). The signicant
aspects of this research are rst summarized below. We then move on to
discuss some issues which remain largely unresolved.
4.1. Phillips and Moon
Several important areas have been covered by Phillips and Moon in their
recent papers to which reference should be made for the details. The rst set
of signicant results is their formalization of the multi-indexed asymptotic
theory relevant to panel data. This is based upon distinguishing among three
kinds of limiting behaviour of N and T, as described in the introduction
above, and upon deriving conditions where sequential limits are equivalent
to joint limits, both for convergence in probability and convergence in
distribution. The essential condition is one of uniform convergence (that is
convergence of the random variable is uniform in the N dimension as
T ! 1) for which Phillips and Moon (1999a) present generalized conditions applicable to multi-indexed asymptotics.
The second set of important ndings relates to looking at the asymptotic
behaviour of estimators in (a) panel-spurious regressions where there is no
time series cointegration; (b) heterogeneous panel cointegration, where each
unit has its own cointegrating relation (as in (23) above); (c) homogeneous
panel cointegration ( i for all i); and (d) near homogeneous panel
cointegration, where the divergence from homogeneity across units is small
and is caused by the value of a so-called localizing parameter. They show
in
p
particular that both for cases (a) and (b) above, it is possible to obtain N
consistent estimates for the long-run average coefcient using pooled data.8
The limit distributions are demonstrated to be Gaussian. This is a very
notable departure from the analysis of Pesaran and Smith (1995) who
established that average effects would not be consistently estimated from
pooled data if the panel were characterized by heterogeneous cointegrating
relationships across the different units. This departure arises from a somewhat different and `robust' denition of the long-run average coefcient in
terms of the long-run average variance of the panel which can exist even in
the absence of any cointegration.
For cases (c) and (d), Phillips and Moon derive pooled fully-modied
8

See also Kao (1999).

# Blackwell Publishers 1999

624

BULLETIN

p
estimators which are T N consistent and also have Gaussian limiting
distributions. Use can be made of these results to formulate hypothesis tests
about the long-run average parameters between subsets of the sample.
In their contribution to this volume, Moon and Phillips develop some
local-to-unity asymptotics for maximum likelihood estimation in dynamic
panels. While the local-to-unity parameter can be estimated consistently in
the absence of deterministic trends or in their presence but in homogeneous
form, heterogeneous deterministic trends lead to the maximum likelihood
estimator being inconsistent. The inconsistency arises from the number of
incidental parameters (namely the deterministic trends) going to innity as
N ! 1. In a range of panel data contexts, such as in the estimation of
dynamic models with xed effects, the inconsistency disappears as T ! 1.
Moon and Phillips show that the incidental parameter problem persists in
their framework even when both N ! 1 and T ! 1.
4.2. Unresolved Issues and Extensions
Several issues remain which are worthy of further investigation. A substantial part of both the theory and the practice in this area has been based on
considering and using the asymptotic properties of estimators and tests. It is
clear that a substantial amount of simulation work is necessary to establish
systemtatically the role of asymptotic theory in estimates and tests derived
from nite samples.
More signicantly, a formal study of the relaxation of the pervasive
cross-sectional independence assumption is necessary in order to make
the asymptotic theory relevant to empirical examples. This is because in
many multi-country contexts, with dependence on common global
shocks, the independence assumption is very likely to be violated. In the
conclusion to their paper, Phillips and Moon (1999a) discuss the considerable difculties involved not only in incorporating dependence into the
analysis but also of characterizing it appropriately. However, the authors
of three of the papers published in this volume have made an important
start in this direction, and two of these papers appear here. Maddala and
Wu use bootstrapping methods to allow for cross-section dependence.
Pedroni (1997b), in his study of purchasing power parity, proposes the
use of GLS-based corrections to allow for feedback across individual
members of the panels. In his study of violations of purchasing power
parity relations, the corrections for cross-sectional dependence do not
appear to play a signicant role but this should not be to deny the
potential of this strand of the research agenda. Finally, the paper by Hall
et al. introduces a range of ideas which should lead to interesting new
research.
Building on earlier work by Hall and Urga (1998), the Hall et al. paper
provides another counter-example to the Pesaran and Smith (1995) analysis.
Focusing on the structure of the regressors in the panel cointegrating
# Blackwell Publishers 1999

PANEL DATA UNIT ROOTS AND COINTEGRATION

625

regressions, Hall et al. demonstrate that if the regressors in each unit of the
panel are driven by common stochastic trends, and each unit cointegrates,
then a standard panel data estimator which imposes homogeneous parameters across the panel will provide consistent estimates of the average
long-run effects even if the true model has heterogeneous parameters. The
paper then goes on to develop a new principal-components-based test for
common stochastic trends and presents size and power properties of these
tests in nite samples. The testing methods are consistent even in the
presence of a mixture of I(0) and I(1) variables, thereby obviating the need
to pre-test the panel for unit roots.
Two signicant features of this work should be noted, particularly
because they throw light on the tensions in the literature and the developments required. First, by working with common driving trends across the
units of the panel, cross-sectional dependence is introduced explicitly.
However, except for proving consistency, the asymptotic theory of the
principal-component estimators is not developed and the analysis of the
properties relies heavily on the simulations conducted. This may prove to
be a difcult task, but the analysis represents an important step in the right
direction.
The second feature is to allow for multiple cointegrating vectors, albeit
only in the regressor set. This too is a necessary extension of the
estimation and inference framework which nevertheless remains very
incomplete in this respect. The cointegrating vector (in each unit of the
panel) is usually taken to be unique and issues of normalization (i.e. to do
with the choice of the regressand) are not addressed. Only Larsson,
Lyhagen and Lothgren (1998), by proposing the panel data analogue of the
Johansen maximum likelihood method, study the case of multiple cointegrating vectors in panels. The price they pay is their need to maintain the
assumption of cross-sectional independence. Their suggested statistic,
inspired by the Im et al. (1997) test for unit roots, is the average (across
units) of the Johansen likelihood ratio statistic. This is asserted to have a
standard normal density once the mean and variance corrections have been
implemented, where these moments are derived as usual by stochastic
simulations.
The status of the results in Larsson et al. (1998) is unclear since the main
theorem is asserted and not proved. Nevertheless, if correct, it would mark
important progress. An overarching analysis which combines the relaxation
of the independence condition by Hall et al. with a consideration of multiple
cointegrating vectors due to Larsson et al. (1998) would denote a huge step
forward in the study of integrated dynamic panels.
V.

CONCLUSION

This volume contains descriptions and the use of all the major testing and
estimation procedures for unit roots and cointegration in heterogeneous
# Blackwell Publishers 1999

626

BULLETIN

integrated dynamic panels. It is in that sense self-contained.9 The overview

has drawn attention to many of the important ideas and techniques which
have emerged in the literature. In particular, we have considered (i) the
asymptotic behaviour of panel estimators in the presence of integrated
series, including their rates of convergence, modes of convergence (sequential, limited or uncontrolled) and the forms of the limiting distibutions; (ii)
the construction of pooled panel and group-mean tests for unit roots; (iii)
the role of ADF regressions vis-a-vis non-parametric corrections, as a way
of allowing for serially dependent and heteroscedastic residual processes;
(iv) the construction of tests for cointegration under both specications of
the null (i.e. no cointegration and cointegration); (v) the use of mean and
variance corrections using moments of Brownian motion functionals computed by stochastic simulation; and (vi) full modication to take account of
endogeneity of the regressors. Several important issues remain to be developed in future research in an area which is proving to be richly productive.
A better understanding of these issues and generalizations of the techniques
will help to address the many interesting empirical questions in areas as
diverse as growth, international nance and industrial structure. It is in this
hope that this collection has been compiled.
Institute of Economics and Statistics, Oxford
Date of Receipt of Final Manuscript: July 1999

REFERENCES

Baltagi, B. H. (1995). Econometric Analysis of Panel Data, Wiley, Chichester.

Banerjee, A., Dolado, J., Galbraith, J. W. and Hendry, D. F. (1993). Co-integration,
Error Correction and the Econometric Analysis of Non-Stationary Data, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Bernard, A. and Jones, C. (1996). `Productivity Across Industries and Countries:
Time Series Theory and Evidence', Review of Economics and Statistics, 78,
135146.
Breitung, J. and Mayer, W. (1994). `Testing for Unit Roots in Panel Data: Are
Wages on Different Bargaining Levels Cointegrated?', Applied Economics, 26,
353361.
Cechetti, S. G., Mark, N. C. and Sonora, R. (1999). `Price Level Convergence
Among United States Cities: Lessons for the European Central Bank', Mimeo.
Coakley, J. and Fuertes, A. (1997). `New Panel Unit Root Tests of PPP', Economics
Letters, 57, 1722.
9
The only class of tests not discussed here is due to Harris and Tzavalis (1999) who derive
asymptotic unit root tests for rst-order autoregressive panel data models, assuming that the time
dimension of the panel is xed. They show that when xed effects or individual trends are
included in the regressors, the least squares estimator is inconsistent and the test statistic must be
adjusted appropriately.

# Blackwell Publishers 1999

PANEL DATA UNIT ROOTS AND COINTEGRATION

627

Coe, D. and Helpman, E. (1995). `International R&D Spillovers', European

Economic Review, 39, 859887.
Elliott, G., Rothenberg, T. J. and Stock, J. H. (1996). `Efcient Tests for an
Autoregressive Unit Root', Econometrica, 64, 813836.
Engle, R. F. and Granger, C. W. J. (1987).`Cointegration and Error-Correction:
Representation, Estimation and Testing', Econometrica, 55, 251276.
Evans, P. and Karras, G. (1996). `Convergence Revisited', Journal of Monetary
Economics, 37, 249265.
Fisher, R. A. (1932). Statistical Methods for Research Workers, Oliver & Boyd,
Edinburgh, 4th Edition.
Frankel, J. A. and Rose, A. K. (1996). `A Panel Project on Purchasing Power Parity:
Mean Reversion Between and Within Countries', Journal of International
Economics, 40, 209224.
Hadri, K. (1998). `Testing for Stationarity in Heterogeneous Panel Data', Mimeo.
Hall, S. G. and Urga, G. (1998). `Stochastic Common Trends and Long-Run
Relationships in Heterogeneous Panels', Centre for Economic Forecasting,
London Business School.
Hamilton, J. D. (1994). Time Series Analysis, Princeton University Press, Princeton,
NJ.
Harris, D. and Inder, B. (1994). `A Test of the Null Hypothesis of Cointegration', in
Non-Stationary Time Series Analysis and Cointegration, ed. C. Hargreaves,
Oxford University Press, New York.
Harris, R. D. F. and Tzavalis, E. (1999). `Inference for Unit Roots in Dynamic
Panels where the Time Dimension is Fixed', Journal of Econometrics, 91, 201
226.
Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H. and Smith, R. (1996). `Dynamic Linear Models for
Heterogeneous Panels', in Matyas, L. and Sevestre, P. eds., The Econometrics of
Panel Data: A Handbook of the Theory with Applications, Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Boston, MA, 145195.
Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H. and Shin, Y. (1997). `Testing for Unit Roots in
Heterogeneous Panels', Mimeo, Department of Applied Economics, University
of Cambridge.
Kao, C. (1999). `Spurious Regression and Residual-Based Tests for Cointegration
in Panel Data', Journal of Econometrics, 90, 144.
Kao, C. and Chiang, M. (1998). `On the Estimation and Inference of a Cointegrated
Regression in Panel Data', Mimeo, Center for Policy Research, Syracuse
University, January.
Kwiatowski, D., Phillips, P. C. B., Schmidt, P. and Shin, Y. (1992). `Testing the Null
Hypothesis of Stationarity against the Alternative of a Unit Root', Journal of
Econometrics, 54, 91115.
Larsson, R., Lyhagen, J. and Lothgren, M. (1998). `Likelihood-based Cointegration
Tests in Heterogeneous Panels', Mimeo.
Lee, K. E., Pesaran, M. H. and Smith, R. (1997). `Growth and Convergence in a
Multi-Country Empirical Stochastic Solow Model', Journal of Applied Econometrics, 12, 357392.
Levin, A. and Lin, C. F. (1992). `Unit Root Tests in Panel Data: Asymptotic and
Finite Sample Properties', Department of Economics, University of California at
San Diego, Discussion Paper No. 92-93 (revised 1993).
Levin, A. and Lin, C. F. (1993). `Unit Root Tests in Panel Data: New Results',
# Blackwell Publishers 1999

628

BULLETIN

Department of Economics, University of California at San Diego, Discussion

Paper No. 9356.
Leybourne, S. J. and McCabe, B. P. M. (1994). `A Consistent Test for a Unit Root',
Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 12, 157166.
McCoskey, S. and Kao, C. (1998a), `A Residual-based Test for the Null of
Cointegration in Panel Data', Econometric Reviews, 17, 5784.
McCoskey, S. and Kao, C. (1998b), `A Monte Carlo Comparison of Tests for
Cointegration in Panel Data', Mimeo, Center for Policy Research, Syracuse
University, February.
MacDonald, R. (1996). `Panel Unit Root Tests and Real Exchange Rates',
Economics Letters, 50, 711.
Maddala, G. S. (ed.) (1994). The Econometrics of Panel Data, 2 vols. Edward
Elgar, Aldershot.
Matyas, L. and Sevestre, P. (1996). The Econometrics of Panel Data, Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Boston, MA.
O'Connell, P. (1998). `The Overvaluation of Purchasing Power Parity', Journal of
International Economics, 44, 119.
Oh, K. Y. (1996). `Purchasing Power Parity and Unit Root Tests Using Panel Data',
Journal of International Money and Finance, 15, 405418.
Papell, D. H. (1997). `Searching for Stationarity: Purchasing Power Parity Under
the Current Float', Journal of International Economics, 43, 313332.
Pedroni, P. (1995). `Panel Cointegration: Asymptotic and Finite Sample Properties
of Pooled Time Series Tests with an Application to the PPP Hypothesis', Indiana
University Working Papers in Economics No. 95-013.
Pedroni, P. (1996). `Fully Modied OLS for Heterogeneous Cointegrated Panels
and the Case of Purchasing Power Parity', Indiana University Working Papers in
Economics No. 96-020.
Pedroni, P. (1997a), `Panel Cointegration: Asymptotic and Finite Sample Properties
of Pooled Time Series Tests with an Application to the PPP Hypothesis, New
Results', Indiana University Working Paper in Economics.
Pedroni, P. (1997b), `On the Role of Cross Sectional Dependency in Dynamic Panel
Unit Root and Panel Cointegration Exchange Rate Studies', Indiana University
Working Paper in Economics.
Pedroni, P. (1998). `Testing for Convergence to Common Steady States in Nonstationary Heterogeneous Panels', Indiana University Working Paper in Economics.
Pesaran, M. H. and Smith, R. (1995). `Estimating Long-Run Relationships from
Dynamic Heterogeneous Panels', Journal of Econometrics, 68, 79113.
Phillips, P. C. B. (1987). `Time Series Regression with a Unit Root', Econometrica,
55, 277301.
Phillips, P. C. B. and Hansen, B. E. (1990). `Statistical Inference in Instrumental
Variables Regression with I(1) Processes', Review of Economic Studies, 53,
473495.
Phillips, P. C. B. and Moon, H. R. (1999a), `Linear Regression Limit Theory for
Nonstationary Panel Data', Econometrica, 67, 10571111.
Phillips, P. C. B. and Moon, H. R. (1999b), `Nonstationary Panel Data Analysis: An
Overview of Some Recent Developments', forthcoming in Econometric Reviews.
Phillips, P. C. B. and Perron, P. (1988). `Testing for a Unit Root in Time Series
Regressions', Biometrika, 75, 335346.
# Blackwell Publishers 1999

PANEL DATA UNIT ROOTS AND COINTEGRATION

629

Phillips, P. C. B. and Xiao, Z. (1998). `A Primer on Unit Root Testing', Journal of

Economic Surveys, 12, 423469.
Quah, D. (1994). `Exploiting Cross-Section Variations for Unit Root Inference in
Dynamic Data', Economics Letters, 44, 919.
Robertson, D. and Symons, J. (1992). `Some Strange Properties of Panel Data
Estimators', Journal of Applied Econometrics, 7, 175189.
Shin, Y. (1994). `A Residual-Based Test of the Null of Cointegration Against the
Alternative of No Cointegration', Econometric Theory, 19, 91115.
Stock, J. H. and Watson, M. W. (1992). `A Simple Estimator of Cointegrating
Vectors in Higher-Order Integrated Systems', Econometrica, 61, 783820.
Wu, Y. (1996). `Are Real Exchange Rates Stationary? Evidence from a Panel Data
Test', Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 28, 5463.

# Blackwell Publishers 1999