IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tin/wpaper/20150064.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Homothetic Efficiency and Test Power: A Non-Parametric Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Jan Heufer

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands)

  • Per Hjertstrand

    (Research Institute of Industrial Economics (IFN), Sweden)

Abstract

We provide a nonparametric revealed preference approach to demand analysis based on homothetic efficiency. Homotheticity is a useful restriction but data rarely satisfies testable conditions. To overcome this we provide a way to estimate homothetic efficiency of consumption choices. It generalises Heufer's (2013) two-dimensional concept to arbitrary dimensions and is motivated by a form of rationalisation similar to Halevy et al. (2012). The method allows to recover larger preferred and worse sets and provides considerably more preditive success and discriminatory power against random behaviour. An application to experimental and household expenditure data illustrates the potential of our approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Jan Heufer & Per Hjertstrand, 2015. "Homothetic Efficiency and Test Power: A Non-Parametric Approach," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 15-064/I, Tinbergen Institute.
    • Handle: RePEc:tin:wpaper:20150064
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://papers.tinbergen.nl/15064.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Varian, Hal R, 1982. "The Nonparametric Approach to Demand Analysis," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(4), pages 945-973, July.
    2. Fisman, Raymond & Kariv, Shachar & Markovitz, Daniel, 2005. "Distinguishing Social Preferences from Preferences for Altruism," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt9q26c4fr, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    3. Martin Browning & M. Dolores Collado, 2001. "The Response of Expenditures to Anticipated Income Changes: Panel Data Estimates," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(3), pages 681-692, June.
    4. Thomas Chaney, 2008. "Distorted Gravity: The Intensive and Extensive Margins of International Trade," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(4), pages 1707-1721, September.
    5. E. Eisenberg, 1961. "Aggregation of Utility Functions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(4), pages 337-350, July.
    6. Elvira Silva & Spiro E. Stefanou, 1996. "Generalization of Nonparametric Tests for Homothetic Production," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(3), pages 542-546.
    7. Cherchye, Laurens & De Rock, Bram & Sabbe, Jeroen & Vermeulen, Frederic, 2008. "Nonparametric tests of collectively rational consumption behavior: An integer programming procedure," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 147(2), pages 258-265, December.
    8. Liu, Pak-Wai & Wong, Kam-Chau, 2000. "Revealed homothetic preference and technology," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 287-314, November.
    9. repec:zbw:rwirep:0523 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Federico Echenique & Sangmok Lee & Matthew Shum, 2011. "The Money Pump as a Measure of Revealed Preference Violations," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 119(6), pages 1201-1223.
    11. Yoram Halevy & Dotan Persitz & Lanny Zrill, 2018. "Parametric Recoverability of Preferences," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 126(4), pages 1558-1593.
    12. Gross, John, 1995. "Testing Data for Consistency with Revealed Preference," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 77(4), pages 701-710, November.
    13. Cherchye, Laurens & Demuynck, Thomas & De Rock, Bram & Hjertstrand, Per, 2015. "Revealed preference tests for weak separability: An integer programming approach," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 186(1), pages 129-141.
    14. Heufer, Jan & Hjertstrand, Per, 2015. "Consistent subsets: Computationally feasible methods to compute the Houtman–Maks-index," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 87-89.
    15. Dickinson, David L., 2009. "Experiment timing and preferences for fairness," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 89-95, January.
    16. Cox, James C, 1997. "On Testing the Utility Hypothesis," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 107(443), pages 1054-1078, July.
    17. Mantel, Rolf R., 1976. "Homothetic preferences and community excess demand functions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 197-201, April.
    18. Manser, Marilyn E & McDonald, Richard J, 1988. "An Analysis of Substitution Bias in Measuring Inflation, 1959-85," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 56(4), pages 909-930, July.
    19. William T. Harbaugh & Kate Krause & Timothy R. Berry, 2001. "GARP for Kids: On the Development of Rational Choice Behavior," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1539-1545, December.
    20. Richard W. Blundell & Martin Browning & Ian A. Crawford, 2003. "Nonparametric Engel Curves and Revealed Preference," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(1), pages 205-240, January.
    21. Mattei, Aurelio, 2000. "Full-scale real tests of consumer behavior using experimental data," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 487-497, December.
    22. Mark Dean & Daniel Martin, 2016. "Measuring Rationality with the Minimum Cost of Revealed Preference Violations," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 98(3), pages 524-534, July.
    23. Knoblauch, Vicki, 1992. "A Tight Upper Bound on the Money Metric Utility Function," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(3), pages 660-663, June.
    24. Elhanan Helpman & Marc Melitz & Yona Rubinstein, 2008. "Estimating Trade Flows: Trading Partners and Trading Volumes," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 123(2), pages 441-487.
    25. Knoblauch, Vicki, 1993. "Recovering homothetic preferences," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 41-45.
    26. Marc J. Melitz, 2003. "The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(6), pages 1695-1725, November.
    27. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/6apm7lruv088iagm4rv2c33jtg is not listed on IDEAS
    28. Nicole Becker & Kirsten Häger & Jan Heufer, 2013. "Revealed Notions of Distributive Justice I: Theory," Jena Economics Research Papers 2013-041, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    29. Selten, Reinhard, 1991. "Properties of a measure of predictive success," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 153-167, April.
    30. Hanoch, Giora & Rothschild, Michael, 1972. "Testing the Assumptions of Production Theory: A Nonparametric Approach," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 80(2), pages 256-275, March-Apr.
    31. Timothy K. M. Beatty & Ian A. Crawford, 2011. "How Demanding Is the Revealed Preference Approach to Demand?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(6), pages 2782-2795, October.
    32. Heufer, Jan, 2008. "A Geometric Measure for the Violation of Utility Maximization," Ruhr Economic Papers 69, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    33. Thomas Chaney, 2008. "Distorted Gravity: The Intensive and Extensive Margins of International Trade," Post-Print hal-03579844, HAL.
    34. repec:zbw:rwirep:0069 is not listed on IDEAS
    35. Heraklis M. Polemarchakis, 1983. "Homotheticity and the Aggregation of Consumer Demands," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 98(2), pages 363-369.
    36. W. E. Diewert, 1973. "Afriat and Revealed Preference Theory," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 40(3), pages 419-425.
    37. James Andreoni & John Miller, 2002. "Giving According to GARP: An Experimental Test of the Consistency of Preferences for Altruism," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(2), pages 737-753, March.
    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. Jim Engle-Warnick & Natalia Mishagina, 2014. "Insensitivity to Prices in a Dictator Game," CIRANO Working Papers 2014s-19, CIRANO.
    2. Eileen Tipoe & Abi Adams & Ian Crawford, 2022. "Revealed preference analysis and bounded rationality [Consume now or later? Time inconsistency, collective choice and revealed preference]," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 74(2), pages 313-332.
    3. Yoram Halevy & Dotan Persitz & Lanny Zrill, 2018. "Parametric Recoverability of Preferences," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 126(4), pages 1558-1593.
    4. Ian Crawford & Bram De Rock, 2014. "Empirical Revealed Preference," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 6(1), pages 503-524, August.
    5. Jan Heufer, 2013. "Testing revealed preferences for homotheticity with two-good experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(1), pages 114-124, March.
    6. Smeulders, Bart & Crama, Yves & Spieksma, Frits C.R., 2019. "Revealed preference theory: An algorithmic outlook," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 272(3), pages 803-815.
    7. Demuynck, Thomas & Hjertstrand, Per, 2019. "Samuelson's Approach to Revealed Preference Theory: Some Recent Advances," Working Paper Series 1274, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    8. Matej Opatrny, 2018. "Extent of Irrationality of the Consumer: Combining the Critical Cost Eciency and Houtman Maks Indices," Working Papers IES 2018/11, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, revised Apr 2018.
    9. Laurens Cherchye & Thomas Demuynck & Bram De Rock, 2013. "Nash‐Bargained Consumption Decisions: A Revealed Preference Analysis," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 123, pages 195-235, March.
    10. Sam Cosaert & Thomas Demuynck, 2015. "Revealed preference theory for finite choice sets," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 59(1), pages 169-200, May.
    11. Dieter Saelens, 2022. "Unitary or collective households? A nonparametric rationality and separability test using detailed data on consumption expenditures and time use," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 62(2), pages 637-677, February.
    12. Heufer, Jan & Hjertstrand, Per, 2019. "Homothetic preferences revealed," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 602-614.
    13. Heufer, Jan, 2014. "Nonparametric comparative revealed risk aversion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 569-616.
    14. Dziewulski, Paweł, 2020. "Just-noticeable difference as a behavioural foundation of the critical cost-efficiency index," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    15. Pawel Dziewulski, 2018. "Just-noticeable difference as a behavioural foundation of the critical cost-efficiency," Economics Series Working Papers 848, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    16. Aluma Dembo & Shachar Kariv & Matthew Polisson & John Quah, 2021. "Ever since Allais," IFS Working Papers W21/15, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    17. Thomas Demuynck & John Rehbeck, 2023. "Computing revealed preference goodness-of-fit measures with integer programming," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 76(4), pages 1175-1195, November.
    18. Cherchye, Laurens & Demuynck, Thomas & De Rock, Bram & Hjertstrand, Per, 2015. "Revealed preference tests for weak separability: An integer programming approach," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 186(1), pages 129-141.
    19. Per Hjertstrand & James Swofford, 2014. "Are the choices of people stochastically rational? A stochastic test of the number of revealed preference violations," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 46(4), pages 1495-1519, June.
    20. Brocas, Isabelle & Carrillo, Juan D. & Combs, T. Dalton & Kodaverdian, Niree, 2019. "Consistency in simple vs. complex choices by younger and older adults," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 580-601.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Demand Theory; Efficiency; Experimental Economics; Homotheticity; Non-parametric Analysis; Revealed Preference; Utility Maximisation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C14 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Semiparametric and Nonparametric Methods: General
    • D11 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Theory
    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis

    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:tin:wpaper:20150064. 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: Tinbergen Office +31 (0)10-4088900 (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/tinbenl.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.