Simulation-Based Finite-Sample Tests for Heteroskedasticity and ARCH Effects.

A wide range of tests for heteroskedasticity have been proposed in the econometric and statistics literature. Although a few exact homoskedasticity tests are available, the commonly employed procedures are quite generally based on asymptotic approximations which may not provide good size control in finite samples. There has been a number of recent studies that seek to improve the reliability of common heteroskedasticity tests using Edgeworth, Bartlett, jackknife and bootstrap methods. Yet the latter remain approximate. In this paper, we describe a solution to the problem of controlling the size of homoskedasticity tests in linear regression contexts. We study procedures based on the standard test statistics [e.g., the Goldfeld-Quandt, Glejser, Bartlett, Cochran, Hartley, Breusch-Pagan-Godfrey, White and Szroeter criteria] as well as tests for autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity (ARCH-type models). We also suggest several extensions of the existing procedures (sup-type of combined test statistics) to allow for unknown breakpoints in the error variance. We exploit the technique of Monte Carlo tests to obtain provably exact p-values, for both the standard and the new tests suggested. We show that the MC test procedure conveniently solves the intractable null distribution problem, in particular those raised by the sup-type and combined test statistics as well as (when relevant) unidentified nuisance parameter problems under the null hypothesis. The method proposed works in exactly the same way with both Gaussian and non-Gaussian disturbance distributions [such as heavy-tailed or stable distributions]. The performance of the procedures is examined by simulation. The Monte Carlo experiments conducted focus on : (1) ARCH, GARCH, and ARCH-in-mean alternatives; (2) the case where the variance increases monotonically with : (i) one exogenous variable, and (ii) the mean of the dependent variable; (3) grouped heteroskedasticity; (4) breaks in variance at unknown points. We find that the proposed tests achieve perfect size control and have good power.

Logique et tests d'hypotheses: reflexions sur les problemes mal poses en econometrie

Dans ce texte, nous analysons les développements récents de l’économétrie à la lumière de la théorie des tests statistiques. Nous revoyons d’abord quelques principes fondamentaux de philosophie des sciences et de théorie statistique, en mettant l’accent sur la parcimonie et la falsifiabilité comme critères d’évaluation des modèles, sur le rôle de la théorie des tests comme formalisation du principe de falsification de modèles probabilistes, ainsi que sur la justification logique des notions de base de la théorie des tests (tel le niveau d’un test). Nous montrons ensuite que certaines des méthodes statistiques et économétriques les plus utilisées sont fondamentalement inappropriées pour les problèmes et modèles considérés, tandis que de nombreuses hypothèses, pour lesquelles des procédures de test sont communément proposées, ne sont en fait pas du tout testables. De telles situations conduisent à des problèmes statistiques mal posés. Nous analysons quelques cas particuliers de tels problèmes : (1) la construction d’intervalles de confiance dans le cadre de modèles structurels qui posent des problèmes d’identification; (2) la construction de tests pour des hypothèses non paramétriques, incluant la construction de procédures robustes à l’hétéroscédasticité, à la non-normalité ou à la spécification dynamique. Nous indiquons que ces difficultés proviennent souvent de l’ambition d’affaiblir les conditions de régularité nécessaires à toute analyse statistique ainsi que d’une utilisation inappropriée de résultats de théorie distributionnelle asymptotique. Enfin, nous soulignons l’importance de formuler des hypothèses et modèles testables, et de proposer des techniques économétriques dont les propriétés sont démontrables dans les échantillons finis.

Wage Policy of Firms: an Empirical Investigation.

This paper analyzes the dynamics of wages and workers' mobility within firms with a hierarchical structure of job levels. The theoretical model proposed by Gibbons and Waldman (1999), that combines the notions of human capital accumulation, job rank assignments based on comparative advantage and learning about workers' abilities, is implemented empirically to measure the importance of these elements in explaining the wage policy of firms. Survey data from the GSOEP (German Socio-Economic Panel) are used to draw conclusions on the common features characterizing the wage policy of firms from a large sample of firms. The GSOEP survey also provides information on the worker's rank within his firm which is usually not available in other surveys. The results are consistent with non-random selection of workers onto the rungs of a job ladder. There is no direct evidence of learning about workers' unobserved abilities but the analysis reveals that unmeasured ability is an important factor driving wage dynamics. Finally, job rank effects remain significant even after controlling for measured and unmeasured characteristics.

Testing Mean-Variance Efficiency in CAPM with Possibly Non-Gaussian Errors : An Exact Simulation-Based Approach

In this paper we propose exact likelihood-based mean-variance efficiency tests of the market portfolio in the context of Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM), allowing for a wide class of error distributions which include normality as a special case. These tests are developed in the frame-work of multivariate linear regressions (MLR). It is well known however that despite their simple statistical structure, standard asymptotically justified MLR-based tests are unreliable. In financial econometrics, exact tests have been proposed for a few specific hypotheses [Jobson and Korkie (Journal of Financial Economics, 1982), MacKinlay (Journal of Financial Economics, 1987), Gib-bons, Ross and Shanken (Econometrica, 1989), Zhou (Journal of Finance 1993)], most of which depend on normality. For the gaussian model, our tests correspond to Gibbons, Ross and Shanken’s mean-variance efficiency tests. In non-gaussian contexts, we reconsider mean-variance efficiency tests allowing for multivariate Student-t and gaussian mixture errors. Our framework allows to cast more evidence on whether the normality assumption is too restrictive when testing the CAPM. We also propose exact multivariate diagnostic checks (including tests for multivariate GARCH and mul-tivariate generalization of the well known variance ratio tests) and goodness of fit tests as well as a set estimate for the intervening nuisance parameters. Our results [over five-year subperiods] show the following: (i) multivariate normality is rejected in most subperiods, (ii) residual checks reveal no significant departures from the multivariate i.i.d. assumption, and (iii) mean-variance efficiency tests of the market portfolio is not rejected as frequently once it is allowed for the possibility of non-normal errors.

Finite-Sample Diagnostics for Multivariate Regressions with Applications to Linear Asset Pricing Models

In this paper, we propose several finite-sample specification tests for multivariate linear regressions (MLR) with applications to asset pricing models. We focus on departures from the assumption of i.i.d. errors assumption, at univariate and multivariate levels, with Gaussian and non-Gaussian (including Student t) errors. The univariate tests studied extend existing exact procedures by allowing for unspecified parameters in the error distributions (e.g., the degrees of freedom in the case of the Student t distribution). The multivariate tests are based on properly standardized multivariate residuals to ensure invariance to MLR coefficients and error covariances. We consider tests for serial correlation, tests for multivariate GARCH and sign-type tests against general dependencies and asymmetries. The procedures proposed provide exact versions of those applied in Shanken (1990) which consist in combining univariate specification tests. Specifically, we combine tests across equations using the MC test procedure to avoid Bonferroni-type bounds. Since non-Gaussian based tests are not pivotal, we apply the “maximized MC” (MMC) test method [Dufour (2002)], where the MC p-value for the tested hypothesis (which depends on nuisance parameters) is maximized (with respect to these nuisance parameters) to control the test’s significance level. The tests proposed are applied to an asset pricing model with observable risk-free rates, using monthly returns on New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) portfolios over five-year subperiods from 1926-1995. Our empirical results reveal the following. Whereas univariate exact tests indicate significant serial correlation, asymmetries and GARCH in some equations, such effects are much less prevalent once error cross-equation covariances are accounted for. In addition, significant departures from the i.i.d. hypothesis are less evident once we allow for non-Gaussian errors.

Exact Skewness-Kurtosis Tests for Multivariate Normality and Goodness-of-fit in Multivariate Regressions with Application to Asset Pricing Models

We study the problem of testing the error distribution in a multivariate linear regression (MLR) model. The tests are functions of appropriately standardized multivariate least squares residuals whose distribution is invariant to the unknown cross-equation error covariance matrix. Empirical multivariate skewness and kurtosis criteria are then compared to simulation-based estimate of their expected value under the hypothesized distribution. Special cases considered include testing multivariate normal, Student t; normal mixtures and stable error models. In the Gaussian case, finite-sample versions of the standard multivariate skewness and kurtosis tests are derived. To do this, we exploit simple, double and multi-stage Monte Carlo test methods. For non-Gaussian distribution families involving nuisance parameters, confidence sets are derived for the the nuisance parameters and the error distribution. The procedures considered are evaluated in a small simulation experi-ment. Finally, the tests are applied to an asset pricing model with observable risk-free rates, using monthly returns on New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) portfolios over five-year subperiods from 1926-1995.

Identification, Weak Instruments and Statistical Inference in Econometrics

We discuss statistical inference problems associated with identification and testability in econometrics, and we emphasize the common nature of the two issues. After reviewing the relevant statistical notions, we consider in turn inference in nonparametric models and recent developments on weakly identified models (or weak instruments). We point out that many hypotheses, for which test procedures are commonly proposed, are not testable at all, while some frequently used econometric methods are fundamentally inappropriate for the models considered. Such situations lead to ill-defined statistical problems and are often associated with a misguided use of asymptotic distributional results. Concerning nonparametric hypotheses, we discuss three basic problems for which such difficulties occur: (1) testing a mean (or a moment) under (too) weak distributional assumptions; (2) inference under heteroskedasticity of unknown form; (3) inference in dynamic models with an unlimited number of parameters. Concerning weakly identified models, we stress that valid inference should be based on proper pivotal functions —a condition not satisfied by standard Wald-type methods based on standard errors — and we discuss recent developments in this field, mainly from the viewpoint of building valid tests and confidence sets. The techniques discussed include alternative proposed statistics, bounds, projection, split-sampling, conditioning, Monte Carlo tests. The possibility of deriving a finite-sample distributional theory, robustness to the presence of weak instruments, and robustness to the specification of a model for endogenous explanatory variables are stressed as important criteria assessing alternative procedures.

Methods to Estimate Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium Models

This paper employs the one-sector Real Business Cycle model as a testing ground for four different procedures to estimate Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE) models. The procedures are: 1 ) Maximum Likelihood, with and without measurement errors and incorporating Bayesian priors, 2) Generalized Method of Moments, 3) Simulated Method of Moments, and 4) Indirect Inference. Monte Carlo analysis indicates that all procedures deliver reasonably good estimates under the null hypothesis. However, there are substantial differences in statistical and computational efficiency in the small samples currently available to estimate DSGE models. GMM and SMM appear to be more robust to misspecification than the alternative procedures. The implications of the stochastic singularity of DSGE models for each estimation method are fully discussed.

La zone fictive de l'infra-droit : l'intégration des règles administratives dans la catégories des textes réglementaires

Un résumé en anglais est également disponible.

Évolution des normes juridiques et nouvelles formes de régulation de la famille : regards croisés sur le couple et l'enfant - Introduction

Ce texte est également disponible en ligne au http://www.erudit.org/revue/efg/2006/v/n5/index.html

L’apprentissage du caring dans l’approche par compétences

Rapport de stage présenté à la Faculté des sciences infirmières en vue de l'obtention du grade de Maîtrise ès sciences (M. Sc.) en Sciences infirmières option formation

WebCT : une panacée pour l’enseignement de la traduction médicale?

Département de linguistique et de traduction

Sociologie et histoire. À la recherche des fondements d'une distinction disciplinaire.

La ligne directrice de notre recherche est de questionner l'évidence d'une distinction disciplinaire entre la sociologie et l'histoire. Vue l'étendue du sujet, nous avons adopté une posture exploratoire en suivant deux pistes. La première consiste à interroger un critère de distinction courant et selon lequel la sociologie serait davantage explicative alors que l'histoire serait essentiellement descriptive. À la lumière d'une mise en débat des positions de Durkheim et Weber pour la sociologie et de celles de l'histoire traditionnelle et des Annales pour l'histoire, nous avons noté une tendance à la diversité des conceptions disciplinaires qui semblent confirmée par certains travaux de recherche des auteurs discutés. Constatant un décalage entre les discours de définition disciplinaire et les recherches à proprement parler, la seconde piste d'exploration s'attarde à l'analyse des disciplines à l'oeuvre. À travers une sélection de trois études d'histoire et trois études de sociologie, nous avons cherché à identifier ce qui pourrait être considéré comme des fondements d'une distinction disciplinaire. Loin de fournir une ligne de démarcation claire, les oeuvres analysées semblent plutôt indiquer que l'histoire et la sociologie participent à une pratique analytique commune guidée par un processus d'interrogation complexe. Nous avançons que l'analyse des distinctions disciplinaires devrait se poursuivre par la recherche de postures interrogatives propres à chacune de l'histoire et de la sociologie.

Interopérabilité et normalisation des systèmes de cyberjustice : Orientations

Un résumé en anglais est également disponible.