Introduction:

As students of econometrics we are required to use theory and data from economics
along with statistics tool and techniques to build a model that express the relationship
between various economic variables . in this project we apply these techniques we
have learned during this semester to build a model that express the relationship
between Gross domestic product (GDP) of Bahrain and the factors that affect it which
we can use to estimate Bahrains future Gross domestic product (GDP) . the model
then goes through a set of econometrics tests in order to evaluate the goodness of this
model in expressing the relationship between these factors and GDP.
To estimate this model we will use four variables :
1-

Gross domestic product of Bahrain as the dependent variable (Y)

2- Oil prices ( oil is the largest contributor to Bahrain GDP) as an independent

variable (X2).
3- Real interest rate ( the second contributor to Bahrains GDP is the financial
sector) as an independent variable (X3)
4- Money supply (M2 is a major economic indicator) as an independent variable
(X4)

the model will comes as follows:

1- The population regression function:

2- The sample regression function (the estimator of PRF):

To estimate this model we will use various statistics techniques:

1- Multiple linear regression .
2- Multiple log- linear regression.
3- Semi log regression model.
4- The linear trend model.
5- Reciprocal models (inverse).
we use certain statistical tests to test the model for the following:
1- MULTICOLLINEARITY.
2- HETEROSCEDASTICITY
3-

AUTOCORRELATION.

1. THE DATA:
We collected a 20 years data about Bahrain GDP, oil prices, Real interest Rate
and Money supply (M2).

year
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005

GDP
1558
1539
1630
1702
1826
1858
1982
2237
2231
2319
2414
2490
2610
2723
2865
2997
3153
3381
3572
3853

oil prices
5.44
6.95
5.63
6.87
8.95
7.54
7.29
6.40
5.96
6.42
7.79
7.20
4.79
6.78
10.74
9.22
9.44
10.87
14.43
20.56

I (%)
31.9
6.8
5.68
4.35
3.5
11.58
15.95
14.41
3.26
10.62
12.23
11.29
20.42
8.96
-2.27
16.51
7.18
1.2
0.25
-1.64

M2
885
968
1008
1052
955.7
1146.7
1202.5
1271.6
1347.4
1447.5
1492.4
1609.5
1876.1
1956.7
2156.7
2356
2599.6
2764.9
2879.6
3512.8

2. MODEL ESTIMATION:

2.1 Multiple linear regression Model:

After regressing GDP (dependent variable, Y) on oil prices (X2), Real

interest rate (X3) and Money supply (X4) , we obtained the following results:

Regression Statistics
Multiple R

0.984766

R Square

0.969764

Adjusted R Square

0.964095

Standard Error

131.0592

Observations

df
Regression

20

SS

MS

Significance
F

8814562

2938187

Residual

16

274824.2

17176.51

Total

19

9089386

171.0584

2.3E-12

Coefficients

Standard
Error

t Stat

P-value

Lower
95%

Upper
95%

Lower
95.0%

Upper
95.0%

Intercept

980.5217

118.6452

8.264316

3.63E-07

729.005

1232.038

729.005

1232.038

oil prices

-22.6263

15.66402

-1.44448

0.167902

-55.8326

10.57989

-55.8326

10.57989

I (%)

-2.09049

4.479062

-0.46673

0.646988

-11.5857

7.404694

-11.5857

7.404694

M2

0.972495

0.067965

14.30868

1.55E-10

0.828415

1.116575

0.828415

1.116575

From the result above we obtained the following estimate of the model :

Interpretation of the regression results:

1. Intercept : 980.5217 is the average value of GDP when oil prices, I (%)
and M2 equal to zero.
2. Slopes:
A. Oil prices coefficient : is the partial rate of change of average GDP,
when Oil prices increases by 1 BD GDP will decrease by -22.6263
holding other factors ( I%, M2 ) constant.
B. I(%) coefficient : is the partial rate of change of average GDP ,when
I(%) increases by one unit GDP will decrease by -2.09049 holding
other factors(oil prices, M2) constant.
C. M2 coefficient: is the partial rate of change of average GDP, when
M2 increases by one unit GDP will increase by 0.972495 holding
other factors (oil prices , I(%)) constant.

3.

: equal to 0.969764 which means that 96.9764% of the variation in

GDP is explained by the variation in oil prices, I(%) and money supply.

4.

: we use this for multiple regression and its equal to

0.964095 which means that 96.4095 % of the variation in GDP is

explained by the variation in oil prices, I(%) and Money supply (M2).

HYPOTHESIS TESTING:

1. Testing the joint Hypothesis :

(the model is insignificant )

( the model is significant )

Since F stat=171.0584 is > F critical =0.0000000000023,then we

reject null hypothesis that

and accept the alternative

hypothesis, the entire model is significant.

2. Testing Hypothesis about the individual partial regression coefficients:

A- oil prices coefficient:

At 95% confidence , t critical is 2.120

Since |t| stat is 1.44448 is less than t critical of 2.120, we accept

the null hypothesis that b2=0 which means that oil prices has no
effect on GDP(insignificant ).

B- I(%) coefficient:

At 95% confidence t critical is 2.120.

Since |t| stat is 0.46673 is less than critical t of 2.120, then we

accept the null hypothesis that b3=0 which means that I(%) has
no effect on GDP (insignificant).

C- M2 coefficient :

At 95% confidence t critical is 2.120

Since |t| stat is 14.30868 greater than t critical of 2.120 , then we

reject the null hypothesis of b4=0 which means that M2 has an

effect of GDP (significant).

2.2

Multiple log-linear regression model (double log):

This model is used to measure elasticity. in order to apply this model we took
the (ln) of all dependent and independent variables and regress them.

The following results were obtained:

Regression Statistics
Multiple R

0.983842

R Square

0.967945

Adjusted R Square

0.961934

Standard Error

0.055051

Observations

20

df

SS

MS

Significance
F

Regression

1.464217

0.488072

161.0449

3.67E-12

Residual

16

0.048491

0.003031

Total

19

1.512708

Coefficients

Standard
Error

P-value

Lower
95%

Upper
95%

Lower
95.0%

Upper
95.0%

t Stat

Intercept
ln oil
prices

2.870689

0.272394

10.53873

1.32E-08

2.293239

3.448139

2.293239

3.448139

-0.01701

0.064962

-0.2619

0.79674

-0.15473

0.120699

-0.15473

0.120699

ln I(%)

-0.00137

0.015746

-0.08679

0.931918

-0.03475

0.032014

-0.03475

0.032014

ln M 2

0.669496

0.043531

15.37981

5.25E-11

0.577214

0.761777

0.577214

0.761777

From the result above we obtained the following estimate of the model :

Interpretation of the regression results:

1. Intercept: 2.870689 is the average value of ln GDP when ln oil

prices, ln I(%) and ln M2 equal to zero.

2. Slopes:
A. ln oil prices coefficient : is the partial elasticity of GDP with
respect to oil prices, when oil prices increases by 1%, GDP will
decrease by 0.01701%. holding other factors (ln I(%),ln M2)
constant. (Inelastic).

B. ln I(%) coefficient :is the partial elasticity of GDP with respect

to I(%) , when I(%) increases by 1% GDP will decrease by
0.00137. holding other factors( ln oil prices, ln M2) constant.
(inelastic).

C. ln M2 coefficient : is the partial elasticity of GDP with respect to M2.

When M2 increase by 1% GDP will increase by 0.669496%. holding
other factors (ln oil prices, ln I(%)) constant. (inelastic).

3.

: equal to 0.967945 which means that 96.7945% of the variation if ln

GDP is explained by the variation in ln oil prices, ln I(%) and ln M2.

4.

: we use this for the multiple regression , its equal to

0.961934 which mean that 96.1934% of the variation in ln GDP is
explained by the variation in ln oil prices, ln I(%) and ln M2.

Hypothesis testing:-

1. Testing the joint hypothesis :

(the model is insignificant )

( the model is significant )

Since F stat =161.0449 is greater than F critical of

0.00000000000367. , then we reject the null hypothesis and accept

the alternative hypothesis . which means that the entire model is
significant.
2. Testing Hypothesis about the individual partial regression coefficients:

Coefficient
s

P-value

Significanc
e at = 0.05

oil prices

-0.01701

0.79674

no

I(%)

-0.00137

0.931918

no

M2

0.669496

5.25E-11

yes

Accept the following:

, which means that ln oil prices has no effect on ln

GDP, insignificant.

, which means that ln I(%) has no effect on ln GDP,

insignificant .

Reject the following:

which means that ln M2 has an effect on ln GDP,

significant .

Return to scale:
It is the sum of all slopes of ln model except the intercept
Which equals to 0.651116 and its less than one which it means
that it is a decreasing return to scale , if input (ln oil prices, ln I
(%), ln M2 ) increases by 1% output (ln GDP) by less than 1%.

2.3

semi log model ( Growth rate):-

This model is used to measure the Growth rate. We regressed ln GDP on time. This
will measure GDP Growth rate over this period.

ln GDP
time
7.351158
7.338888
7.396335
7.439559
7.509883
7.527256
7.591862
7.712891
7.710205
7.748891
7.78904
7.820038
7.867106
7.909489
7.960324
8.005367
8.05611
8.125927
8.180881
8.256607

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

The results of this regression are:

Regression Statistics
Multiple R

0.996138

R Square

0.992291

Adjusted R Square

0.991863

Standard Error

0.025452

Observations

df
Regression

Intercept
time

SS

20

MS

1.501047

1.501047

Residual

18

0.011661

0.000648

Total

19

1.512708

Coefficients

Standar
d Error

7.266034

0.011823

0.04751

0.000987

Significance
F

2317.063

1.79E-20

t Stat

Pvalue

Lower
95%

Upper
95%

Lower
95.0%

Upper
95.0%

614.5456

2.35E40

7.241194

7.290875

7.241194

7.290875

48.13588

1.79E20

0.045437

0.049584

0.045437

0.049584

The estimated model:

0.04751 means that on the average ln GDP has been increasing by

0.04751 (or 4.751 percent ) per year.

Instantaneous and Compound rate of growth:

1. Instantaneous rate of growth: it is the same as the coefficient of time

, so we can say than on average ln GDP has been increasing by 4.751
percent per year.

2. Compound rate of growth:

The compound rate of growth of Bahrains GDP had been at the rate
of 4.87 percent per year.

2.4

the linear trend model :

In this model we regress Y on time itself (trend variable).the regression results are as
follows:

Regression Statistics
Multiple R
R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Standard Error
Observations

df
Regression

SS

0.985015
0.970255
0.968602
122.557
20

MS

8819022

8819022

Residual

18

270364.1

15020.23

Total

19

9089386

F
587.143

Significance
F
3.43E-15

Coefficients

Standard
Error

Intercept

1237.826

56.9316

21.74234

time

115.1594

4.752558

24.23103

2.5

t Stat

Pvalue
2.27E14
3.43E15

Lower
95%

Upper
95%

Lower
95.0%

Upper
95.0%

1118.217

1357.435

1118.217

1357.435

105.1746

125.1442

105.1746

125.1442

The time coefficient is positive which means that there is an

upward trend in Bahrains GDP. Bahrains GDP had been
increasing by 115.1594 percent per year.

Reciprocal Model (Inverse):

In this model we took the inverse of each independent variable and we regressed
GDP on them. The model is as follows:

The following results were obtained from the regression:

Regression Statistics
Multiple R

0.983023

R Square
Adjusted R
Square

0.966334

Standard Error

138.2938

0.960022

Observations

df
Regression

SS

20

MS

8783383

2927794

Residual

16

306002.7

19125.17

Total

19

9089386

Coefficient
s
Intercept
1/ oil
prices

4380.469

1/I (%)

41.88234

1/M 2

-2209273

-3277.62

Standard
Error
121.908
2
1027.96
3
36.2320
9
150262.
9

t Stat
P-value
35.9325
3 9.95E-17
0.00571
-3.18846
5
1.15594 0.26467
6
3
-14.7027 1.03E-10

Significance
F

F
153.086

Lower
95%
4122.03
5

Upper
95%
4638.90
3

-5456.81

-1098.43
118.690
9
1890729

-34.9263
2527816

5.43E-12

Lower
Upper
95.0%
95.0%
4122.03
5 4638.903
-5456.81

-1098.43

-34.9263 118.6909
2527816 1890729

The estimated model is as follows:

Intercept: 4380.469 is the average value of GDP when the inverse of

oil prices, I(%) and M2 equal to zero

1/oil prices coefficient :is the partial rate of change of GDP, when 1/
oil prices increases by one percentage point GDP will decrease by
(holding other factors constant).

1/I(%) coefficient: is the partial rate of change of GDP . when the

inverse of I(%) increases by one percentage point, GDP will increase
by 41.88234 (holding other factors constant ). Its analogous to the
negative slope in the linear model.

1/M2: its the partial rate of change of GDP , when the inverse of M2
increases by one percentage point GDP will decrease by 2209273
holding other factors constant. Its analogous to the positive slope in
the linear model

: its equal to 0.966334 which mean that 96.6334% of the

variation in GDP is explained by the variation in 1/oil prices, 1/I(%)
and 1/M2. And since the dependent variable of MLR and this model
are in the same form we can compare their
of 96.6334 the MLR

.despite the high

96.9764% which means that the MLR model

if the data better than this model.

: equal to 0.960022 which mean that 96.60022% of the

variation in GDP is explained by the variation in 1/oil prices,1/I(%),
1/M2.

Hypothesis testing:-

1. Testing the joint hypothesis :

(The model is insignificant)

(The model is significant)

Since F stat = 153.086 greater than F critical of 0.00000000000543,

we reject null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis which

means that the entire model is significant.

2. Testing Hypothesis about the individual partial regression coefficients:

Coefficient
s

P-value

Significanc
e at = 0.05

oil prices

-3277.62 0.005715

yes

I(%)

41.88234 0.264673

no

M2

-2209273

yes

1.03E-10

Accept:
which means that 1/ I(%) has no effect on GDP,
insignificant .

Reject :
which means that 1/oil prices has an effect on GDP,
significant .

which means that 1/ M2 has an effect on GDP,

significant .

3. TESTING THE MODEL:

3.1 MULTICOLLINEARITY:
We tested the estimated model for MULTICOLLINEARITY through these following
methods:
A- High R2 but few significant t ratios:

As we saw earlier in the model estimation section that the R2 of this model is quit
high, about 96.9764% which means that a high percentage of the variation in
GDP is explained by the variation in the independent variable of this model
even though only one slope coefficient (M2) is significant(

. Therefore

from this observation we detected the problem of MULTICOLLINEARITY.

B- High pair wise correlation among explanatory :

to conduct this test we have to calculate the coefficient correlation between each
pair of independent variable .

the results were as follows :

oil prices

I (%)

M2

oil
prices

I (%)

-0.57915

M2

0.812013

-0.43567

From this table we can see that there is a possibility that as serious collinearity
exists between oil prices and M2

C- Subsidiary or auxiliary regression:

In this test we regress each independent variable on the remaining independent

variables of this model. And then we test the null hypothesis that

After regression each independent variable on the remaining independent

variables , we obtained these following results:

Value of
R2

Value of F
stat

F
significant

Is it
significant?

Oil prices on
other X's

0.722062

22.08232

1.87742E05

Yes

(I) (%) on other

X's

0.338934

4.35803

0.029654

M2 on other X's

0.661167

16.58609

0.000101

Yes

Yes

This table shows that, oil prices I(%) and M2 seems to be collinear with the
other Xs.

D- The variance inflation factor:

Value of R2

VIF

Oil prices on other X's

0.722062

3.597921

(I) (%) on other X's

0.338934

1.512709

M2 on other X's

0.661167

2.951304

Since all VIF are less than 5 then MULTICOLLINEARITY is not considered as
problem for these variables.

3.2 HETEROSCEDASTICITY:
We tested the estimated model for HETEROSCEDASTICITY using these following
techniques:
A- Graphical examination of Residuals :
After plotting the residuals against

, the following graph was obtained

The graph suggests that the squared residuals (

are related to Predicted GDP.

The graph raises the possibility the model suffers from the problem of
HETEROSCEDASTICITY.

B- Park test:
To do this test we need to regress

The following results were obtained:

on

. The model is as follows:

Regression Statistics
Multiple R
0.353621
df
SS
R Square
0.125048 MS
6.208448388
6.20844839
Adjusted R1Square
0.07644
Standard
1.553492
18Error
43.44007806
2.41333767
Observations
20
19 49.64852645

Regression
Residual
Total

Intercept
ln predectid
GDP

Coefficients

Standard
Error

25.33219

10.3721

-2.14044

1.33451

F
2.572557

Significance
F
0.126134

t Stat

P-value

Lower
95%

Upper
95%

Lower
95.0%

Upper
95.0%

2.44235
1.60392

0.025138

3.541281

47.1231

3.54128

47.1231

0.126134

-4.94414

0.66325

-4.9441

0.663254

Hypothesis testing:
(no HETEROSCEDASTICITY)

(HETEROSCEDASTICITY exists)

Since p value of

is 0.126134 which greater than 5% , we

accept the null hypothesis that no HETEROSCEDASTICITY exists .

C- Glejser test:

We will test the model in three functional form:

1.

The result from the regression are:

Intercept
Predicted
GDP

Coefficient
s

Standar
d Error

P-value

Lower
95%

Upper
95%

Lower
95.0%

Upper
95.0%

t Stat

185.473

50.83625

3.6484

0.001838

78.6699

292.28

78.6699

292.276

-0.0349

0.02005

-1.741

0.098828

-0.077

0.0072

-0.077

0.00723

Hypothesis testing:
(no HETEROSCEDASTICITY)

(HETEROSCEDASTICITY exists)

Since the P value of

is 0.098828 which is greater than 5% , we

accept the null hypothesis that no HETEROSCEDASTICITY exists .

2.

The results from the regression are:

Coefficien
ts

Standar
d Error

Intercept
S.R predicted
GDP

t Stat

P-value

280.4478

100.211
4

2.7985622

0.0118732
5

-3.67847

2.02581
7

-1.8157962

0.0860971
3

Lower 95%
69.9114964
-7.93455296

Lower
95.0%

Upper
95.0%

490.9842

69.9115

490.984
2

0.577613

-7.93455

0.57761
3

Upper 95%

Hypothesis testing :
(no HETEROSCEDASTICITY)

(HETEROSCEDASTICITY exists)

Since P value of

coefficient is 0.08609713 which is greater than

5% then we accept the null hypothesis that no

HETEROSCEDASTICITY exists .

3.

The results from the regression are:

Intercept
1/predicted
GDP

Coefficients

Standar
d Error

t Stat

P-value

Lower
95%

Upper
95%

Lower
95.0%

Upper
95.0%

-4.55623

54.59938

-0.08345

0.934416

-119.265

110.1528

-119.265

110.1528

239363.7

121287.3

1.973526

0.063989

-15451.6

494178.9

-15451.6

494178.9

Hypothesis testing :
(no HETEROSCEDASTICITY)

(HETEROSCEDASTICITY exists)

Since the P value of

is 0.063989 which is greater than 5% ,

then we can accept the null hypothesis that no

HETEROSCEDASTICITY exists.
D- Whites General Heteroscedasticity Test:

After estimating the following model:

We obtain the following results:

Regression
Statistics
Multiple R

0.592936

R Square
Adjusted R
Square

0.351573

Standard Error

14283.73

-0.02668

Observations

df

SS

MS

Regressi
on

1327454108

189636301.2

Residual

12

2448298094

204024841.2

Total

19

3775752203

Coefficien
ts

I (%)

1485.909

Standard
Error
54489.60
4
6976.185
7
2610.278
8

M2

-65.8955

47.72053
5

oil^2

-140.98

324.7535
7

Intercep
t
oil
prices

20

66579.92
1486.251

t Stat
1.22188291
1
0.21304631
8
0.56925284
2
1.38086319
2
0.43411366
5

Significance
F

0.929476529

0.518208651

-4201.4

Upper
95.0%
185302.
6
16686.0
5
7173.21
8

38.0785836
1

-169.87

38.0785
8

566.597275
8

848.557

566.597
3

P-value
0.24521195
2
0.83486725
6

Lower 95%
52142.7319
13713.5522

0.57968409

-4201.4003

Upper 95%
185302.562
9
16686.0535
1
7173.21754
6

0.19249678
2

169.869645

0.67190859
9

848.557198

Lower
95.0%
52142.7
13713.6

I^2

-60.3418

M2^2

0.016399

60.33041
3
0.014246
1

-0.02608

0.104875
3

oil*I*M2

1.00018948
4
1.15112334
9
0.24870825
3

0.33696105
8
0.27210218
9

191.790523
0.01464052

71.1068333
4
0.04743844
9

191.791
0.01464

71.1068
3
0.04743
8

0.80779199
4

0.25458691

0.20242022
5

0.25459

0.20242

Hypothesis testing:

Calculated

Critical

7.031468

at 5% and D.F=7 is 14.0671.

Compare it with

at 1-5% =0.95 and D.F =7 ,

2.16735

Since 7.0356 is greater than 2.16735 then we accept the null hypothesis that there is no
.

3.3

AUTOCORRELATION:

We will test the model for autocorrelation using the following methods:-

A- The Graphical Method(time sequence plot):

After plotting the residuals

graph :

against time we get the following

The scatter shows that residuals

dont seem to be randomly

distributed , instead they exhibit a distinct behavior, they start

with positive then turn to negative then turn to positive again and
finally they become negative . so we conclude from this graph that
the successive residuals are positively correlated which suggest a
positive autocorrelation .

B- Durbin Watson d test:

To conduct this test we need first to calculate sum of squared differences in

successive residuals to the RSS:

Residuals(et
)

et-1

-93.3828251

-211.405515

-93.3828

-191.603935

-211.406

-137.004266

-191.604

125.797092

-137.004
125.797
1

-42.8255982
30.2296837
1
194.763996
3
81.8974262
4
98.1638440
4
184.020997
6
130.736750
2

d=et-et1
-118.023
19.8015
8
54.5996
7
262.801
4

-42.8256
30.2296
8

-168.623
73.0552
8
164.534
3

194.764
81.8974
3
98.1638
4

-112.867
16.2664
2
85.8571
5

184.021
130.736
8

-53.2842

-43.8604929
11.6447771
9
25.4509018
9

-43.8605
11.6447
8

-174.597
55.5052
7
13.8061
2

-31.6582483

25.4509

-57.1092

-127.129738

-31.6582

-39.8928489
118.057931
1

-127.13

-95.4715
87.2368
9
157.950
8

-81.9999332

-39.8928
118.057
9

-200.058

D^2
13929.3
6
392.102
6
2981.12
4
69064.5
5
28433.6
1
5337.07
4
27071.5
4
12738.8
6
264.596
3
7371.45
1
2839.21
1
30484.2
3080.83
5
190.609
1
3261.45
5
9114.80
5
7610.27
5
24948.4
5
40023.1
5
289137.
3

et^2
8720.35
2
44692.2
9
36712.0
7
18770.1
7
15824.9
1
1834.03
2
913.833
8
37933.0
1
6707.18
8
9636.14
33863.7
3
17092.1
1923.74
3
135.600
8
647.748
4
1002.24
5
16161.9
7
1591.43
9
13937.6
8
6723.98
9
274824.
2

et*et-1
19741.6
4
40506.1
3
26250.5
6
-17234.7
-5387.34
-1294.6
5887.65
4
15950.6
7
8039.36
6
18064.2
1
24058.3
1
-5734.18
-510.746
296.370
1
-805.731
4024.70
5
5071.56
7
-4709.67
-9680.74

1.052081

Which means there is positive autocorrelation.

Decision:
Since

which means no decision.

Conclusion:
1- In the multiple regression model we concluded that the entire model is
significant .however after testing the partial individual hypothesis we found out
that two slop coefficient are statistically insignificant, which were oil prices
coefficient and I(%) coefficient.
2- In the double log model we concluded that only one slope coefficient is
statistically significant which M2.

3- In the semi log model we concluded that on average GDP of Bahrain had been
increasing at the instantaneous rate of growth of 4.75% and at the compound
rate of growth of 4.87% per year.
4- In the linear trend model we found out that there is an upward trend in GDP of
Bahrain .
5- In the inverse model we compared its
that since MLRs

with the one of MLR and we concluded

is higher then MLR is a better estimate to the PRF of GDP.

6- After testing the model for Multicollinearity , in the first test we found out that a
serious collinearity problems exists between oil prices and M2 so we concluded that its
better to eliminate oil prices from the model. However after further testing we found out
that Multicollinearity is not considered a problem for all explanatory variables.
7- After conducting 4 different test of Heteroscedasticity on the model we found out that no
Heteroscedasticity exists in the mode .
8- Finally we tested the model for autocorrelation using two , in graphical test we saw that
there is a positive autocorrelation , however after further testing we couldnt decide
whether there is an autocorrelation or not.

Under the supervision of:

Dr.Ebrahim Hassan Al-Eize

Done by:
Duaa Hassan Ali Al-Aradi

20070986

Mohammed Hassan Humidan 20063019

Mohammed Abdulwahid juma 20053272
Hussain Saleh Isa

20073884

sec.4
sec. 1
sec. 1
sec. 1