IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/emetrp/v89y2021i1p457-474.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Empirical Content of Binary Choice Models

Author

Listed:
  • Debopam Bhattacharya

Abstract

An important goal of empirical demand analysis is choice and welfare prediction on counterfactual budget sets arising from potential policy interventions. Such predictions are more credible when made without arbitrary functional‐form/distributional assumptions, and instead based solely on economic rationality, that is, that choice is consistent with utility maximization by a heterogeneous population. This paper investigates nonparametric economic rationality in the empirically important context of binary choice. We show that under general unobserved heterogeneity, economic rationality is equivalent to a pair of Slutsky‐like shape restrictions on choice‐probability functions. The forms of these restrictions differ from Slutsky inequalities for continuous goods. Unlike McFadden–Richter's stochastic revealed preference, our shape restrictions (a) are global, that is, their forms do not depend on which and how many budget sets are observed, (b) are closed form, hence easy to impose on parametric/semi/nonparametric models in practical applications, and (c) provide computationally simple, theory‐consistent bounds on demand and welfare predictions on counterfactual budge sets.

Suggested Citation

  • Debopam Bhattacharya, 2021. "The Empirical Content of Binary Choice Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 89(1), pages 457-474, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:emetrp:v:89:y:2021:i:1:p:457-474
    DOI: 10.3982/ECTA16801
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA16801
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3982/ECTA16801?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lee, Ying-Ying & Bhattacharya, Debopam, 2019. "Applied welfare analysis for discrete choice with interval-data on income," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 211(2), pages 361-387.
    2. Yuichi Kitamura & Jörg Stoye, 2018. "Nonparametric Analysis of Random Utility Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(6), pages 1883-1909, November.
    3. Guido W. Imbens & Whitney K. Newey, 2009. "Identification and Estimation of Triangular Simultaneous Equations Models Without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(5), pages 1481-1512, September.
    4. Arthur Lewbel, 2001. "Demand Systems with and without Errors," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(3), pages 611-618, June.
    5. Richard W. Blundell & James L. Powell, 2004. "Endogeneity in Semiparametric Binary Response Models," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 71(3), pages 655-679.
    6. Jerry A. Hausman & Whitney K. Newey, 2016. "Individual Heterogeneity and Average Welfare," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 84, pages 1225-1248, May.
    7. Hoderlein, Stefan, 2011. "How many consumers are rational?," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 164(2), pages 294-309, October.
    8. Dette, Holger & Hoderlein, Stefan & Neumeyer, Natalie, 2016. "Testing multivariate economic restrictions using quantiles: The example of Slutsky negative semidefiniteness," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 191(1), pages 129-144.
    9. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    10. Bhattacharya, Debopam, 2008. "A Permutation-Based Estimator For Monotone Index Models," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(3), pages 795-807, June.
    11. Matzkin, Rosa L, 1992. "Nonparametric and Distribution-Free Estimation of the Binary Threshold Crossing and the Binary Choice Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(2), pages 239-270, March.
    12. Stefan Hoderlein & Jörg Stoye, 2014. "Revealed Preferences in a Heterogeneous Population," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 96(2), pages 197-213, May.
    13. Debopam Bhattacharya, 2015. "Nonparametric Welfare Analysis for Discrete Choice," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 617-649, March.
    14. Han, Aaron K., 1987. "Non-parametric analysis of a generalized regression model : The maximum rank correlation estimator," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 35(2-3), pages 303-316, July.
    15. Debopam Bhattacharya, 2018. "Empirical welfare analysis for discrete choice: Some general results," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 9(2), pages 571-615, July.
    16. Klein, Roger W & Spady, Richard H, 1993. "An Efficient Semiparametric Estimator for Binary Response Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 61(2), pages 387-421, March.
    17. Manski, Charles F., 1975. "Maximum score estimation of the stochastic utility model of choice," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 205-228, August.
    18. Daniel McFadden, 2005. "Revealed stochastic preference: a synthesis," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 26(2), pages 245-264, August.
    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. Zheng Fang & Juwon Seo, 2021. "A Projection Framework for Testing Shape Restrictions That Form Convex Cones," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 89(5), pages 2439-2458, September.
    2. Lee, Ying-Ying & Bhattacharya, Debopam, 2019. "Applied welfare analysis for discrete choice with interval-data on income," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 211(2), pages 361-387.
    3. Petri, Henrik, 2023. "Binary single-crossing random utility models," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 311-320.

    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. Sam Cosaert & Thomas Demuynck, 2018. "Nonparametric Welfare and Demand Analysis with Unobserved Individual Heterogeneity," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 100(2), pages 349-361, May.
    2. Bart Capéau & Liebrecht De Sadeleer & Sebastiaan Maes & André Decoster, 2020. "Nonparametric welfare analysis for discrete choice: levels and differences of individual and social welfare," Working Papers of Department of Economics, Leuven 674666, KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), Department of Economics, Leuven.
    3. Yuichi Kitamura & Jörg Stoye, 2018. "Nonparametric Analysis of Random Utility Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(6), pages 1883-1909, November.
    4. Cherchye, Laurens & Demuynck, Thomas & Rock, Bram De, 2019. "Bounding counterfactual demand with unobserved heterogeneity and endogenous expenditures," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 211(2), pages 483-506.
    5. Victor Chernozhukov & Jerry A. Hausman & Whitney K. Newey, 2019. "Demand Analysis with Many Prices," NBER Working Papers 26424, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Jerry A. Hausman & Whitney K. Newey, 2016. "Individual Heterogeneity and Average Welfare," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 84, pages 1225-1248, May.
    7. Arthur Lewbel & Krishna Pendakur, 2017. "Unobserved Preference Heterogeneity in Demand Using Generalized Random Coefficients," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 125(4), pages 1100-1148.
    8. Francesca Molinari, 2020. "Microeconometrics with Partial Identi?cation," CeMMAP working papers CWP15/20, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    9. Sebastiaan Maes & Raghav Malhotra, 2023. "Robust Hicksian Welfare Analysis under Individual Heterogeneity," Papers 2303.01231, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2023.
    10. Hubner, Stefan, 2016. "Topics in nonparametric identification and estimation," Other publications TiSEM 08fce56b-3193-46e0-871b-0, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    11. Debopam Bhattacharya & Pascaline Dupas & Shin Kanaya, 2019. "Demand and Welfare Analysis in Discrete Choice Models with Social Interactions," CREATES Research Papers 2019-09, Department of Economics and Business Economics, Aarhus University.
    12. Hoderlein, Stefan & Sherman, Robert, 2015. "Identification and estimation in a correlated random coefficients binary response model," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 188(1), pages 135-149.
    13. Maes, Sebastiaan & Malhotra, Raghav, 2024. "Beyond the Mean : Testing Consumer Rationality through Higher Moments of Demand," CRETA Online Discussion Paper Series 85, Centre for Research in Economic Theory and its Applications CRETA.
    14. Jerry Hausman & Whitney K. Newey, 2014. "Individual Heterogeneity and Average Welfare," CeMMAP working papers 42/14, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    15. Maes, Sebastiaan & Malhotra, Raghav, 2024. "Robust Hicksian Welfare Analysis under Individual Heterogeneity," CRETA Online Discussion Paper Series 84, Centre for Research in Economic Theory and its Applications CRETA.
    16. Stefan Hoderlein & Jörg Stoye, 2015. "Testing stochastic rationality and predicting stochastic demand: the case of two goods," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 3(2), pages 313-328, October.
    17. Lee, Ying-Ying & Bhattacharya, Debopam, 2019. "Applied welfare analysis for discrete choice with interval-data on income," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 211(2), pages 361-387.
    18. Stefan Hoderlein & Robert Sherman, 2012. "Identification and estimation in a correlated random coefficients binary response model," CeMMAP working papers 42/12, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    19. Francesca Molinari, 2019. "Econometrics with Partial Identification," CeMMAP working papers CWP25/19, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    20. Yuichi Kitamura & Jörg Stoye, 2013. "Nonparametric analysis of random utility models: testing," CeMMAP working papers 36/13, Institute for Fiscal Studies.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C14 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Semiparametric and Nonparametric Methods: General
    • C25 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions; Probabilities
    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:emetrp:v:89:y:2021:i:1:p:457-474. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/essssea.html .

    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.