RDP 2022-04: The Unit-effect Normalisation in Set-identified Structural Vector Autoregressions Appendix B: Proofs of Propositions

Proof of Proposition 4.1. Assume 0 η 1,1,0 ( ϕ| S,F ), so there exists δ>0 such that η 1,1,0 ( ϕ,Q )>δ for all QQ( ϕ| S,F ). Given that the impulse response horizon h is fixed and finite, | η i,1,h ( ϕ,Q ) |< for all QQ( ϕ| S,F ) .[26] There thus exists κ< such that | η i,1,h ( ϕ,Q ) |<κ for all QQ( ϕ| S,F ). It follows that | η ˜ i,1,h ( ϕ,Q ) |< κ δ < for all QQ( ϕ| S,F ) , so η ˜ i,1,h ( ϕ| S,F ) is bounded.

Proof of Proposition 4.2. Assume that the sign restrictions are ordered such that the first row of S( ϕ ) corresponds to the sign restriction η 1,1,0 = e 1,n Σ tr q 1 0. Let G( ϕ )= ( S ( ϕ ) ,F ( ϕ ) ) collect the coefficient vectors of the sign and zero restrictions.

First, consider the case where rank( G( ϕ ) )<n and let N( G( ϕ ) ) represent an orthonormal basis for the null space of G( ϕ ) . By the rank-nullity theorem, N( G( ϕ ) ) has dimension nrank( G( ϕ ) )1. Thus, it is always possible to construct q 1 n satisfying G( ϕ ) q 1 = 0 ( s+f )×1 by taking any column of N( G( ϕ ) ) . Such a vector clearly satisfies the identifying restrictions with η 1,1,0 =0 , so 0 η 1,1,0 ( ϕ| S,F ) .

Now, consider the case where rank( G( ϕ ) )=n. Let F ˜ ( ϕ )= ( ( e 1,n Σ tr ) ,F ( ϕ ) ) represent the coefficients of the zero restrictions augmented with a ‘binding’ version of the sign restriction on η 1,1,0 ( i.e. e 1,n Σ tr q 1 =0 ) , and let S ˜ ( ϕ ) represent the coefficients of the remaining sign restrictions (i.e. the last s – 1 rows of S( ϕ ) ). Since rank( G( ϕ ) )=n,rank( F ˜ ( ϕ ) )=f+1. Proposition 4.1 in Read (2022) states that the system of zero and sign restrictions, F ˜ ( ϕ ) q ˜ 1 = 0 ( f+1 )×1 and S ˜ ( ϕ ) q ˜ 1 = 0 ( s1 )×1 , can be transformed into a set of sign restrictions in nf1 . Let S ( ϕ ) q 1 0 ( s1 )×1 represent the transformed sign restrictions, where q 1 nf1 and S ( ϕ ) is obtained from S ( ϕ ) using the transformation described in Read. Corollary 4.1 of Read states that the set { q ˜ 1 n : F ˜ ( ϕ ) q ˜ 1 = 0 ( f+1 )×1 , S ˜ ( ϕ ) q ˜ 1 0 ( s1 )×1 } will be non-empty if and only if the set { q 1 nf1 : S ( ϕ ) q 1 0 ( s1 )×1 } is non-empty, in which case 0 η 1,1,0 ( ϕ| S,F ). I proceed by showing that the set { q 1 nf1 : S ( ϕ ) q 1 0 ( s1 )×1 } is always non-empty.

If rank( S ( ϕ ) )<s1=nf1, then N( S ( ϕ ) ) has dimension nf1rank( S ( ϕ ) )1, so it is always possible to construct q 1 nf1 satisfying S ( ϕ ) q 1 = 0 ( s1 )×1 by taking any column of N( S ( ϕ ) ) , and the set { q 1 nf1 : S ( ϕ ) q 1 0 ( s1 )×1 } is non-empty. If rank( S ( ϕ ) )=s1=nf1, there cannot exist x> 0 ( nf1 )×1 such that S ( ϕ ) x= 0 ( nf1 )×1 (since S ( ϕ ) has full rank), so by Gordan's Theorem (e.g. Mangasarian 1994; Border 2020) there must exist q 1 nf1 such that S ( ϕ ) q 1 > 0 ( s1 )×1 , so the set { q 1 nf1 : S ( ϕ ) q 1 0 ( s1 )×1 } is non-empty.

Footnote

Allowing for arbitrarily large impulse response horizons h would require restricting the support of the reduced-form parameter space Φ such that the infinite-order vector moving average representation of the VAR exists; this will be the case if the eigenvalues of the companion matrix lie inside the unit circle (e.g. Hamilton 1994; Kilian and Lütkepohl 2017). By avoiding this assumption I allow for mildly explosive processes. [26]