IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eejocm/v26y2018icp19-27.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A new approach to calculating welfare measures in Kuhn-Tucker demand models

Author

Listed:
  • Lloyd-Smith, Patrick

Abstract

I develop a new approach to calculating welfare measures in Kuhn-Tucker consumer demand models that uses the analytical properties of the Multiple Discrete-Continuous Extreme Value (MDCEV) specification. I adapt Pinjari and Bhat's (2011) Marshallian demand forecasting routine to calculate Hicksian demands that are useful for computing welfare measures. Simulations demonstrate that this new approach substantially reduces computational time relative to the existing approach using a numerical bisection routine. The new approach performs best relative to the numerical bisection routine if i) a γ-profile utility function is specified, ii) the number of choice alternatives available is high, or iii) the average number of chosen alternatives is low.

Suggested Citation

  • Lloyd-Smith, Patrick, 2018. "A new approach to calculating welfare measures in Kuhn-Tucker demand models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 19-27.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:eejocm:v:26:y:2018:i:c:p:19-27
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jocm.2017.12.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755534517300994
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jocm.2017.12.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. von Haefen R.H. & Phaneuf D.J. & Parsons G.R., 2004. "Estimation and Welfare Analysis With Large Demand Systems," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 22, pages 194-205, April.
    2. Vasquez Lavin, Felipe & Hanemann, W. Michael, 2008. "Functional Forms in Discrete/Continuous Choice Models With General Corner Solution," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt7z25t659, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    3. Chandra Bhat & Abdul Pinjari, 2014. "Multiple discrete-continuous choice models: a reflective analysis and a prospective view," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 19, pages 427-454, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Daniel J. Phaneuf & Catherine L. Kling & Joseph A. Herriges, 2000. "Estimation and Welfare Calculations in a Generalized Corner Solution Model with an Application to Recreation Demand," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 82(1), pages 83-92, February.
    5. Willig, Robert D, 1976. "Consumer's Surplus without Apology," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 66(4), pages 589-597, September.
    6. von Haefen, Roger H., 2007. "Empirical strategies for incorporating weak complementarity into consumer demand models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 15-31, July.
    7. Bhat, Chandra R., 2008. "The multiple discrete-continuous extreme value (MDCEV) model: Role of utility function parameters, identification considerations, and model extensions," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 274-303, March.
    8. Herriges, Joseph A. & Phaneuf, Daniel J., 1999. "Choice Set Definition Issues in a Kuhn-Tucker Model of Recreation Demand," Staff General Research Papers Archive 5222, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Spence, Danielle S. & Schuster-Wallace, Corinne J. & Lloyd-Smith, Patrick, 2023. "Disparities in economic values for nature-based activities in Canada," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    2. Pellegrini, Andrea & Pinjari, Abdul Rawoof & Maggi, Rico, 2021. "A multiple discrete continuous model of time use that accommodates non-additively separable utility functions along with time and monetary budget constraints," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 37-53.
    3. Kuriyama, Koichi & Shoji, Yasushi & Tsuge, Takahiro, 2020. "The value of leisure time of weekends and long holidays: The multiple discrete–continuous extreme value (MDCEV) choice model with triple constraints," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    4. Thijs Dekker & Paul (P.R.) Koster & Niek Mouter, 2019. "The economics of participatory value evaluation," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 19-008/VIII, Tinbergen Institute.
    5. Xie, Lusi & Adamowicz, Wiktor & Lloyd-Smith, Patrick, 2023. "Spatial and temporal responses to incentives: An application to wildlife disease management," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pinjari, Abdul Rawoof & Bhat, Chandra, 2021. "Computationally efficient forecasting procedures for Kuhn-Tucker consumer demand model systems: Application to residential energy consumption analysis," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    2. Bonnet, Céline & Richards, Timothy J., 2016. "Models of Consumer Demand for Differentiated Products," TSE Working Papers 16-741, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    3. Palma, David & Hess, Stephane, 2022. "Extending the Multiple Discrete Continuous (MDC) modelling framework to consider complementarity, substitution, and an unobserved budget," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 13-35.
    4. Bhat, Chandra R., 2022. "A new closed-form two-stage budgeting-based multiple discrete-continuous model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 162-192.
    5. Sikder, Sujan & Pinjari, Abdul Rawoof, 2013. "The benefits of allowing heteroscedastic stochastic distributions in multiple discrete-continuous choice models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 39-56.
    6. Phaneuf, Daniel J. & Smith, V. Kerry, 2006. "Recreation Demand Models," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 15, pages 671-761, Elsevier.
    7. Castro, Marisol & Bhat, Chandra R. & Pendyala, Ram M. & Jara-Díaz, Sergio R., 2012. "Accommodating multiple constraints in the multiple discrete–continuous extreme value (MDCEV) choice model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 46(6), pages 729-743.
    8. Kidokoro, Yukihiro, 2016. "A micro foundation for discrete choice models with multiple categories of goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 19(C), pages 54-72.
    9. Kuriyama, Koichi & Shoji, Yasushi & Tsuge, Takahiro, 2020. "The value of leisure time of weekends and long holidays: The multiple discrete–continuous extreme value (MDCEV) choice model with triple constraints," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    10. Sánchez, José J. & Baerenklau, Ken & González-Cabán, Armando, 2016. "Valuing hypothetical wildfire impacts with a Kuhn–Tucker model of recreation demand," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 63-70.
    11. Tatsuo Suwa, 2008. "Estimation of the spatial substitution effect of national park trip demand: an application of the Kuhn-Tucker model," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 9(4), pages 239-257, December.
    12. Saxena, Shobhit & Pinjari, Abdul Rawoof & Paleti, Rajesh, 2022. "A multiple discrete-continuous extreme value model with ordered preferences (MDCEV-OP): Modelling framework for episode-level activity participation and time-use analysis," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 259-283.
    13. Fenichel, Eli P. & Abbott, Joshua K., 2014. "Heterogeneity and the fragility of the first best: Putting the “micro” in bioeconomic models of recreational resources," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 351-369.
    14. Khan, Mubassira & Machemehl, Randy, 2017. "Commercial vehicles time of day choice behavior in urban areas," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 68-83.
    15. Thijs Dekker & Paul (P.R.) Koster & Niek Mouter, 2019. "The economics of participatory value evaluation," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 19-008/VIII, Tinbergen Institute.
    16. Steve Berry & Ahmed Khwaja & Vineet Kumar & Andres Musalem & Kenneth Wilbur & Greg Allenby & Bharat Anand & Pradeep Chintagunta & W. Hanemann & Przemek Jeziorski & Angelo Mele, 2014. "Structural models of complementary choices," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 245-256, September.
    17. Xie, Lusi & Adamowicz, Wiktor & Lloyd-Smith, Patrick, 2023. "Spatial and temporal responses to incentives: An application to wildlife disease management," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    18. Bhat, Chandra R. & Castro, Marisol & Pinjari, Abdul Rawoof, 2015. "Allowing for complementarity and rich substitution patterns in multiple discrete–continuous models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 81(P1), pages 59-77.
    19. Vasquez Lavin, Felipe & Hanemann, W. Michael, 2008. "Functional Forms in Discrete/Continuous Choice Models With General Corner Solution," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt7z25t659, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    20. Chandra Bhat & Abdul Pinjari, 2014. "Multiple discrete-continuous choice models: a reflective analysis and a prospective view," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 19, pages 427-454, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:eejocm:v:26:y:2018:i:c:p:19-27. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-choice-modelling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.