The case for trend‐stationarity is stronger than we thought

David N. Dejong, Charles H. Whiteman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

27 Scopus citations


In DeJong and Whiteman (1991a), we concluded that 11 of the 14 macroeconomic time‐series originally studied by Nelson and Plosser (1982) supported trend‐stationarity. Phillips (1991) criticizes this inference, claiming that our procedure is biased against integration, and that our results are sensitive to model and prior specification. However, Phillips' alternative models and priors bias his results in favour of integration; despite these biases, Phillips' own findings indicate that the data provide the greatest relative support to trend‐stationarity. This result is similar to our own (1989, 1990, 1991b) findings concerning the sensitivity of our results; the trend‐stationarity inference is remarkably robust.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)413-421
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Applied Econometrics
Issue number4
StatePublished - 1991

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
  • Economics and Econometrics


Dive into the research topics of 'The case for trend‐stationarity is stronger than we thought'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this