Microeconometric Modeling

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
[Part 13] 1/30 Discrete Choice Modeling Hybrid Choice Models Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University 0Introduction.
Advertisements

Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University.
12. Random Parameters Logit Models. Random Parameters Model Allow model parameters as well as constants to be random Allow multiple observations with.
[Part 1] 1/15 Discrete Choice Modeling Econometric Methodology Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University 0Introduction.
Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University.
Part 24: Bayesian Estimation 24-1/35 Econometrics I Professor William Greene Stern School of Business Department of Economics.
Discrete Choice Models William Greene Stern School of Business New York University.
1/54: Topic 5.1 – Modeling Stated Preference Data Microeconometric Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University New York NY USA.
Part 12: Random Parameters [ 1/46] Econometric Analysis of Panel Data William Greene Department of Economics Stern School of Business.
1/62: Topic 2.3 – Panel Data Binary Choice Models Microeconometric Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University New York NY USA.
Part 23: Simulation Based Estimation 23-1/26 Econometrics I Professor William Greene Stern School of Business Department of Economics.
15. Stated Preference Experiments. Panel Data Repeated Choice Situations Typically RP/SP constructions (experimental) Accommodating “panel data” Multinomial.
Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University.
[Part 15] 1/24 Discrete Choice Modeling Aggregate Share Data - BLP Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University.
Discrete Choice Models William Greene Stern School of Business New York University.
Microeconometric Modeling
Empirical Methods for Microeconomic Applications University of Lugano, Switzerland May 27-31, 2013 William Greene Department of Economics Stern School.
Efficiency Measurement William Greene Stern School of Business New York University.
Berry-Levensohn-Pakes EMA (1995) Paper Notes ECON 721.
1/54: Topic 5.1 – Modeling Stated Preference Data Microeconometric Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University New York NY USA.
Part 24: Stated Choice [1/117] Econometric Analysis of Panel Data William Greene Department of Economics Stern School of Business.
Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University.
14. Scaling and Heteroscedasticity. Using Degenerate Branches to Reveal Scaling Travel Fly Rail Air CarTrain Bus LIMB BRANCH TWIG DriveGrndPblc.
Microeconometric Modeling
1/30: Topic 4.1 – Nested Logit and Multinomial Probit Models Microeconometric Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University New.
Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University.
1/62: Topic 2.3 – Panel Data Binary Choice Models Microeconometric Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University New York NY USA.
Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University.
Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University.
[Part 15] 1/24 Discrete Choice Modeling Aggregate Share Data - BLP Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University.
Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University.
Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University.
1/26: Topic 2.2 – Nonlinear Panel Data Models Microeconometric Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University New York NY USA William.
5. Extensions of Binary Choice Models
Microeconometric Modeling
Microeconometric Modeling
William Greene Stern School of Business New York University
Microeconometric Modeling
William Greene Stern School of Business New York University
Discrete Choice Modeling
William Greene Stern School of Business New York University
Econometric Analysis of Panel Data
Discrete Choice Models
Microeconometric Modeling
Discrete Choice Modeling
Microeconometric Modeling
Microeconometric Modeling
Microeconometric Modeling
Econometric Analysis of Panel Data
Microeconometric Modeling
Microeconometric Modeling
William Greene Stern School of Business New York University
Microeconometric Modeling
Discrete Choice Modeling
Microeconometric Modeling
Discrete Choice Modeling
Econometrics Chengyuan Yin School of Mathematics.
Microeconometric Modeling
Microeconometric Modeling
Econometric Analysis of Panel Data
Microeconometric Modeling
William Greene Stern School of Business New York University
Microeconometric Modeling
Microeconometric Modeling
Microeconometric Modeling
Microeconometric Modeling
Microeconometric Modeling
Econometric Analysis of Panel Data
William Greene Stern School of Business New York University
Microeconometric Modeling
Presentation transcript:

Microeconometric Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University New York NY USA 4.3 Mixed Models and Random Parameters

Concepts Models Random Effects Simulation Random Parameters Maximum Simulated Likelihood Cholesky Decomposition Heterogeneity Hierarchical Model Conditional Means Population Distribution Nested Logit Willingness to Pay (WTP) Random Parameters and WTP WTP Space Endogeneity Market Share Data Random Parameters RP Logit Error Components Logit Generalized Mixed Logit Berry-Levinsohn-Pakes Model Hybrid Choice MIMIC Model

A Recast Random Effects Model

A Computable Log Likelihood

Simulation

Random Effects Model: Simulation ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Random Coefficients Probit Model Dependent variable DOCTOR (Quadrature Based) Log likelihood function -16296.68110 (-16290.72192) Restricted log likelihood -17701.08500 Chi squared [ 1 d.f.] 2808.80780 Simulation based on 50 Halton draws --------+------------------------------------------------- Variable| Coefficient Standard Error b/St.Er. P[|Z|>z] |Nonrandom parameters AGE| .02226*** .00081 27.365 .0000 ( .02232) EDUC| -.03285*** .00391 -8.407 .0000 (-.03307) HHNINC| .00673 .05105 .132 .8952 ( .00660) |Means for random parameters Constant| -.11873** .05950 -1.995 .0460 (-.11819) |Scale parameters for dists. of random parameters Constant| .90453*** .01128 80.180 .0000 --------+------------------------------------------------------------- Implied  from these estimates is .904542/(1+.904532) = .449998.

The Entire Parameter Vector is Random

Maximum Simulated Likelihood True log likelihood Simulated log likelihood

S M

MSSM

Modeling Parameter Heterogeneity

A Hierarchical Probit Model Uit = 1i + 2iAgeit + 3iEducit + 4iIncomeit + it. 1i=1+11 Femalei + 12 Marriedi + u1i 2i=2+21 Femalei + 22 Marriedi + u2i 3i=3+31 Femalei + 32 Marriedi + u3i 4i=4+41 Femalei + 42 Marriedi + u4i Yit = 1[Uit > 0] All random variables normally distributed.

Estimating Individual Parameters Model estimates = structural parameters, α, β, ρ, Δ, Σ, Γ Objective, a model of individual specific parameters, βi Can individual specific parameters be estimated? Not quite – βi is a single realization of a random process; one random draw. We estimate E[βi | all information about i] (This is also true of Bayesian treatments, despite claims to the contrary.)

Estimating i

Conditional Estimate of i

Conditional Estimate of i

“Individual Coefficients”

The Random Parameters Logit Model Multiple choice situations: Independent conditioned on the individual specific parameters

Random Parameters Model Allow model parameters as well as constants to be random Allow multiple observations with persistent effects Allow a hierarchical structure for parameters – not completely random Uitj = 1’xi1tj + 2i’xi2tj + i’zit + ijt Random parameters in multinomial logit model 1 = nonrandom (fixed) parameters 2i = random parameters that may vary across individuals and across time Maintain I.I.D. assumption for ijt (given )

Customers’ Choice of Energy Supplier California, Stated Preference Survey 361 customers presented with 8-12 choice situations each Supplier attributes: Fixed price: cents per kWh Length of contract Local utility Well-known company Time-of-day rates (11¢ in day, 5¢ at night) Seasonal rates (10¢ in summer, 8¢ in winter, 6¢ in spring/fall) (TrainCalUtilitySurvey.lpj)

Population Distributions Normal for: Contract length Local utility Well-known company Log-normal for: Time-of-day rates Seasonal rates Price coefficient held fixed

Estimated Model Estimate Std error Price -.883 0.050 Contract mean -.213 0.026 std dev .386 0.028 Local mean 2.23 0.127 std dev 1.75 0.137 Known mean 1.59 0.100 std dev .962 0.098 TOD mean* 2.13 0.054 std dev* .411 0.040 Seasonal mean* 2.16 0.051 std dev* .281 0.022 *Parameters of underlying normal.

Distribution of Brand Value Standard deviation =2.0¢ 10% dislike local utility 2.5¢ Brand value of local utility

Random Parameter Distributions

Time of Day Rates (Customers do not like – lognormal coefficient Time of Day Rates (Customers do not like – lognormal coefficient. Multiply variable by -1.)

Posterior Estimation of i Estimate by simulation

Expected Preferences of Each Customer Customer likes long-term contract, local utility, and non-fixed rates. Local utility can retain and make profit from this customer by offering a long-term contract with time-of-day or seasonal rates.

Application: Shoe Brand Choice Simulated Data: Stated Choice, 400 respondents, 8 choice situations, 3,200 observations 3 choice/attributes + NONE Fashion = High / Low Quality = High / Low Price = 25/50/75,100 coded 1,2,3,4 Heterogeneity: Sex (Male=1), Age (<25, 25-39, 40+) Underlying data generated by a 3 class latent class process (100, 200, 100 in classes)

Stated Choice Experiment: Unlabeled Alternatives, One Observation

Random Parameters Logit Model

WTP Application (Value of Time Saved) Estimating Willingness to Pay for Increments to an Attribute in a Discrete Choice Model WTP = MU(attribute) / MU(Income) Random

Extending the RP Model to WTP Use the model to estimate conditional distributions for any function of parameters Willingness to pay = -i,time / i,cost Use simulation method

Simulation of WTP from i

WTP

A Generalized Mixed Logit Model

Generalized Multinomial Choice Model

Estimation in Willingness to Pay Space Both parameters in the WTP calculation are random.

Estimated Model for WTP --------+-------------------------------------------------- Variable| Coefficient Standard Error b/St.Er. P[|Z|>z] |Random parameters in utility functions QUAL| -.32668*** .04302 -7.593 .0000 1.01373 renormalized PRICE| 1.00000 ......(Fixed Parameter)...... -11.80230 renormalized |Nonrandom parameters in utility functions FASH| 1.14527*** .05788 19.787 .0000 1.4789 not rescaled ASC4| .84364*** .05554 15.189 .0000 .0368 not rescaled |Heterogeneity in mean, Parameter:Variable QUAL:AGE| .05843 .04836 1.208 .2270 interaction terms QUA0:AGE| -.11620 .13911 -.835 .4035 PRIC:AGE| .23958 .25730 .931 .3518 PRI0:AGE| 1.13921 .76279 1.493 .1353 |Diagonal values in Cholesky matrix, L. NsQUAL| .13234*** .04125 3.208 .0013 correlated parameters CsPRICE| .000 ......(Fixed Parameter)...... but coefficient is fixed |Below diagonal values in L matrix. V = L*Lt PRIC:QUA| .000 ......(Fixed Parameter)...... |Heteroscedasticity in GMX scale factor sdMALE| .23110 .14685 1.574 .1156 heteroscedasticity |Variance parameter tau in GMX scale parameter TauScale| 1.71455*** .19047 9.002 .0000 overall scaling, tau |Weighting parameter gamma in GMX model GammaMXL| .000 ......(Fixed Parameter)...... |Coefficient on PRICE in WTP space form Beta0WTP| -3.71641*** .55428 -6.705 .0000 new price coefficient S_b0_WTP| .03926 .40549 .097 .9229 standard deviation | Sample Mean Sample Std.Dev. Sigma(i)| .70246 1.11141 .632 .5274 overall scaling |Standard deviations of parameter distributions sdQUAL| .13234*** .04125 3.208 .0013 sdPRICE| .000 ......(Fixed Parameter)...... Estimated Model for WTP

Appendix: extensions

Modeling Variations Parameter specification Stochastic specification “Nonrandom” – variance = 0 Correlation across parameters – random parts correlated Fixed mean – not to be estimated. Free variance Fixed range – mean estimated, triangular from 0 to 2 Hierarchical structure - ik = k + k’zi Stochastic specification Normal, uniform, triangular (tent) distributions Strictly positive – lognormal parameters (e.g., on income) Autoregressive: v(i,t,k) = u(i,t,k) + r(k)v(i,t-1,k) [this picks up time effects in multiple choice situations, e.g., fatigue.]

Model Extensions AR(1): wi,k,t = ρkwi,k,t-1 + vi,k,t Dynamic effects in the model Restricting sign – lognormal distribution: Restricting Range and Sign: Using triangular distribution and range = 0 to 2. Heteroscedasticity and heterogeneity

Continuous Random Variation in Preference Weights

Aggregate Data and Multinomial Choice: The Model of Berry, Levinsohn and Pakes

Resources Automobile Prices in Market Equilibrium, S. Berry, J. Levinsohn, A. Pakes, Econometrica, 63, 4, 1995, 841-890. (BLP) http://people.stern.nyu.edu/wgreene/Econometrics/BLP.pdf A Practitioner’s Guide to Estimation of Random-Coefficients Logit Models of Demand, A. Nevo, Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 9, 4, 2000, 513-548 http://people.stern.nyu.edu/wgreene/Econometrics/Nevo-BLP.pdf A New Computational Algorithm for Random Coefficients Model with Aggregate-level Data, Jinyoung Lee, UCLA Economics, Dissertation, 2011 http://people.stern.nyu.edu/wgreene/Econometrics/Lee-BLP.pdf Elasticities of Market Shares and Social Health Insurance Choice in Germany: A Dynamic Panel Data Approach, M. Tamm et al., Health Economics, 16, 2007, 243-256. http://people.stern.nyu.edu/wgreene/Econometrics/Tamm.pdf

Theoretical Foundation Consumer market for J differentiated brands of a good j =1,…, Jt brands or types i = 1,…, N consumers t = i,…,T “markets” (like panel data) Consumer i’s utility for brand j (in market t) depends on p = price x = observable attributes f = unobserved attributes w = unobserved heterogeneity across consumers ε = idiosyncratic aspects of consumer preferences Observed data consist of aggregate choices, prices and features of the brands.

BLP Automobile Market Jt t

Random Utility Model Utility: Uijt=U(wi,pjt,xjt,fjt|), i = 1,…,(large)N, j=1,…,J wi = individual heterogeneity; time (market) invariant. w has a continuous distribution across the population. pjt, xjt, fjt, = price, observed attributes, unobserved features of brand j; all may vary through time (across markets) Revealed Preference: Choice j provides maximum utility Across the population, given market t, set of prices pt and features (Xt,ft), there is a set of values of wi that induces choice j, for each j=1,…,Jt; then, sj(pt,Xt,ft|) is the market share of brand j in market t. There is an outside good that attracts a nonnegligible market share, j=0. Therefore,

Functional Form (Assume one market for now so drop “’t.”) Uij=U(wi,pj,xj,fj|)= xj'β – αpj + fj + εij = δj + εij Econsumers i[εij] = 0, δj is E[Utility]. Will assume logit form to make integration unnecessary. The expectation has a closed form.

Heterogeneity Assumptions so far imply IIA. Cross price elasticities depend only on market shares. Individual heterogeneity: Random parameters Uij=U(wi,pj,xj,fj|i)= xj'βi – αpj + fj + εij βik = βk + σkvik. The mixed model only imposes IIA for a particular consumer, but not for the market as a whole.

Endogenous Prices: Demand side Uij=U(wi,pj,xj,fj|)= xj'βi – αpj + fj + εij fj is unobserved Utility responds to the unobserved fj Price pj is partly determined by features fj. In a choice model based on observables, price is correlated with the unobservables that determine the observed choices.

Endogenous Price: Supply Side There are a small number of competitors in this market Price is determined by firms that maximize profits given the features of its products and its competitors. mcj = g(observed cost characteristics c, unobserved cost characteristics h) At equilibrium, for a profit maximizing firm that produces one product, sj + (pj-mcj)sj/pj = 0 Market share depends on unobserved cost characteristics as well as unobserved demand characteristics, and price is correlated with both.

Instrumental Variables (ξ and ω are our h and f.)

Econometrics: Essential Components

Econometrics

GMM Estimation Strategy - 1

GMM Estimation Strategy - 2

BLP Iteration

ABLP Iteration our ft.  is our (β,) No superscript is our (M); superscript 0 is our (M-1).

Side Results

ABLP Iterative Estimator

BLP Design Data

Exogenous price and nonrandom parameters

IV Estimation

Full Model

Some Elasticities