Table VII. Im et al .’s panel LM unit...

Table VII.

Im et al.’s panel LM unit root test results with two structural breaks: Model C**

Urban area	Univariate LM unit root test statistics	Lags	Break points
Atlanta – GA	−6.338*	2	1976, 2001
Boston – Brockton	−7.032*	8	1993, 2000
Chicago	−7.693*	7	1982, 1999
Cincinnati	−6.144*	8	1979, 1999
Dallas – Fort Worth	−6.345*	2	1990, 1998
Detroit – Ann Arbor	−7.294*	8	1979, 1999
Houston – Galveston	−6.486*	1	1986, 1998
Kansas City, MO – KS	−6.069*	8	1982, 1990
Los Angeles – Riverside	−8.071*	8	1984, 1991
Milwaukee – Racine	−5.986*	5	1979, 1998
New York – N. New Jersey	−6.367*	1	1977, 1990
Philadelphia – Wilmington	−7.245*	8	1984, 1998
Pittsburgh – Pennsylvania	−6.121*	5	1976, 1994
Portland – Salem	−6.102*	6	1981, 2002
St. Louis – MO	−5.319*	6	1982, 1990
San Francisco – Oakland	−6.025*	8	1984, 1992
Seattle – Tacoma	−8.506*	7	1978, 1998
Panel LM Statistic −6.576*	7

Urban area	Univariate LM unit root test statistics	Lags	Break points
Atlanta – GA	−6.338*	2	1976, 2001
Boston – Brockton	−7.032*	8	1993, 2000
Chicago	−7.693*	7	1982, 1999
Cincinnati	−6.144*	8	1979, 1999
Dallas – Fort Worth	−6.345*	2	1990, 1998
Detroit – Ann Arbor	−7.294*	8	1979, 1999
Houston – Galveston	−6.486*	1	1986, 1998
Kansas City, MO – KS	−6.069*	8	1982, 1990
Los Angeles – Riverside	−8.071*	8	1984, 1991
Milwaukee – Racine	−5.986*	5	1979, 1998
New York – N. New Jersey	−6.367*	1	1977, 1990
Philadelphia – Wilmington	−7.245*	8	1984, 1998
Pittsburgh – Pennsylvania	−6.121*	5	1976, 1994
Portland – Salem	−6.102*	6	1981, 2002
St. Louis – MO	−5.319*	6	1982, 1990
San Francisco – Oakland	−6.025*	8	1984, 1992
Seattle – Tacoma	−8.506*	7	1978, 1998
Panel LM Statistic −6.576*	7

Notes:

The 5% critical value for the LM unit root with two breaks is −5.286. The 5% critical value for the panel unit root test with two breaks is −1.645;

denotes significance at the 5% level;

procedure allows for structural breaks both in level and trend

Sharing Unavailable