IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/1902.11017.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Integrability and Identification in Multinomial Choice Models

Author

Listed:
  • Debopam Bhattacharya

Abstract

McFadden's random-utility model of multinomial choice has long been the workhorse of applied research. We establish shape-restrictions under which multinomial choice-probability functions can be rationalized via random-utility models with nonparametric unobserved heterogeneity and general income-effects. When combined with an additional restriction, the above conditions are equivalent to the canonical Additive Random Utility Model. The sufficiency-proof is constructive, and facilitates nonparametric identification of preference-distributions without requiring identification-at-infinity type arguments. A corollary shows that Slutsky-symmetry, a key condition for previous rationalizability results, is equivalent to absence of income-effects. Our results imply theory-consistent nonparametric bounds for choice-probabilities on counterfactual budget-sets. They also apply to widely used random-coefficient models, upon conditioning on observable choice characteristics. The theory of partial differential equations plays a key role in our analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Debopam Bhattacharya, 2019. "Integrability and Identification in Multinomial Choice Models," Papers 1902.11017, arXiv.org, revised May 2021.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1902.11017
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1902.11017
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Arthur Lewbel, 2001. "Demand Systems with and without Errors," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(3), pages 611-618, June.
    2. Armstrong, Mark & Vickers, John, 2015. "Which demand systems can be generated by discrete choice?," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 158(PA), pages 293-307.
    3. Mas-Colell, Andreu & Whinston, Michael D. & Green, Jerry R., 1995. "Microeconomic Theory," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195102680.
    4. Matzkin, Rosa L., 1993. "Nonparametric identification and estimation of polychotomous choice models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 58(1-2), pages 137-168, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Bhattacharya, D., 2018. "Income Effects and Rationalizability in Multinomial Choice Models," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1884, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    2. Zheng Fang & Juwon Seo, 2019. "A Projection Framework for Testing Shape Restrictions That Form Convex Cones," Papers 1910.07689, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2021.
    3. Aradillas-Lopez, Andres, 2010. "Semiparametric estimation of a simultaneous game with incomplete information," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 157(2), pages 409-431, August.
    4. Sebastiaan Maes & Raghav Malhotra, 2023. "Robust Hicksian Welfare Analysis under Individual Heterogeneity," Papers 2303.01231, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2023.
    5. Javier A. Birchenall, 2024. "Random choice and market demand," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 57(1), pages 165-198, February.
    6. Daniel McFadden, 2014. "The new science of pleasure: consumer choice behavior and the measurement of well-being," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 2, pages 7-48, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Haag, Berthold R. & Hoderlein, Stefan & Pendakur, Krishna, 2009. "Testing and imposing Slutsky symmetry in nonparametric demand systems," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 153(1), pages 33-50, November.
    8. Paul Oslington, 2012. "General Equilibrium: Theory and Evidence," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 88(282), pages 446-448, September.
    9. James J. Heckman & Rodrigo Pinto, 2022. "Causality and Econometrics," NBER Working Papers 29787, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. 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.
    11. Daniel L. McFadden, 2013. "The New Science of Pleasure," NBER Working Papers 18687, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. W D A Bryant, 2009. "General Equilibrium:Theory and Evidence," World Scientific Books, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., number 6875.
    13. Jean-Pierre H. Dubé, 2018. "Microeconometric Models of Consumer Demand," NBER Working Papers 25215, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Hoderlein, Stefan & Mihaleva, Sonya, 2008. "Increasing the price variation in a repeated cross section," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 147(2), pages 316-325, December.
    15. James J. Heckman & Rodrigo Pinto, 2023. "Econometric Causality: The Central Role of Thought Experiments," NBER Working Papers 31945, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. 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.
    17. Wright, Austin L. & Sonin, Konstantin & Driscoll, Jesse & Wilson, Jarnickae, 2020. "Poverty and economic dislocation reduce compliance with COVID-19 shelter-in-place protocols," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 544-554.
    18. Jolian McHardy & Michael Reynolds & Stephen Trotter, 2012. "The Stackelberg Model as a Partial Solution to the Problem of Pricing in a Network," Working Paper series 19_12, Rimini Centre for Economic Analysis.
    19. Janvier D. Nkurunziza, 2005. "Reputation and Credit without Collateral in Africa`s Formal Banking," Economics Series Working Papers WPS/2005-02, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    20. Stephanie Rosenkranz & Patrick W. Schmitz, 2007. "Can Coasean Bargaining Justify Pigouvian Taxation?," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 74(296), pages 573-585, November.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:1902.11017. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.