This article reflects on the relevance of the concept of unit roots in the spatial context. The initial introduction of this topic in the time-series literature caused significant changes in the mainstream econometric methodology. However, the literature specialized in spatial econometric modeling has not extensively dealt with this issue. The current article continues the discussion of the concept of unit roots employed in a spatial context and presents a series of peculiarities that should be noticed. Subsequently, attention focuses on the topic of deterministic trends associated with the scale factor that intervenes in autoregressive spatial processes. The incidence of this type of trend should not be neglected. It induces the risk of finding spurious correlation that should be taken into account.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anselin, L. 1988. Lagrange multiplier tests diagnostics for spatial dependence and spatial heterogeneity. Geographical Analysis20: 1-17.
2.
Anselin, L. 1994. Testing for spatial dependence in linear regression models: A review. Regional Research Institute Paper 94-16. Morgantown: West Virginia University Press.
3.
Anselin, L., A. K. Bera, R. J. G. M. Florax, and M. J. Yoon. 1996. Simple diagnostic tests for spatial dependence. Regional Science and Urban Economics26: 77-104.
4.
Anselin, L., and R. J. G. M. Florax. 1995. Small sample properties of tests for spatial dependence in regression models. In New directions in spatial econometrics, edited by L. Anselin and R. J. G. M. Florax, 21-74. Berlin: Springer.
5.
Bera, A. K., and M. J. Yoon. 1993. Specification testing with locally misspecified alternatives. Econometric Theory9: 649-658.
6.
Chatterjee, S., and A. S. Hadi. 1988. Sensitivity analysis in linear regression. New York: John Wiley.
7.
Fingleton, B. 1999. Spurious spatial regression: Some Monte Carlo results with a spatial unit root and spatial cointegration. Journal of Regional Science39: 1-19.
8.
Florax, R. J. G. M., and T. de Graaff. Forthcoming. The performance of diagnostics tests for spatial dependence in linear regression models: A meta-analysis of simulation studies. In Advances in spatial econometrics: Methodology, tools and applications, edited by L. Anselin, R. J. G. M. Florax, and S. J. Rey. Berlin: Springer.
9.
Granger, C. W. J., and P. Newbold. 1974: Spurious regressions in econometrics. Journal of Econometrics2: 111-120.
10.
Griffith, D. 1992. Simplifying the normalizing factor in spatial autoregressions for irregular lattices. Papers in Regional Science71: 71-86.
11.
Kelejian, H., and D. Robinson. 1995. Spatial correlation: A suggested alternative to autoregressive models. In New directions in spatial econometrics, edited by L. Anselin and R. J. G. M. Florax, 75-95. Berlin: Springer.
12.
Maddala, G. S., and I. M. Kim. 1998. Unit roots, cointegration and structural change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
13.
Nelson, C. R., and C. I. Plosser. 1982. Trends and random walks in macroeconomic time series: Some evidence and implications. Journal of Monetary Economics10: 139-162.
14.
Ripley, B. D. 1981. Spatial statistics. New York: John Wiley.
15.
Tiefelsdorf, M. 2000. Modelling spatial processes: The identification and analysis of spatial relationships in regression residuals by means of Moran's I. Berlin: Springer.
16.
Yule, G. U. 1926. Why do we sometimes get nonsense correlations between time series? A study in sampling and the nature of time series. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society89: 1-64.
