Can rejections of weak separability be attributed to random measurement errors in the data?
Standard non-parametric weak separability tests do not account for measurement errors in the data. We propose a method to determine if rejections of weak separability obtained using such tests can be attributed to random measurement errors in the quantity data.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Varian, Hal R, 1982. "The Nonparametric Approach to Demand Analysis," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(4), pages 945-973, July.
- Hal R. Varian, 1983. "Non-parametric Tests of Consumer Behaviour," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(1), pages 99-110.
- Fleissig, Adrian R. & Whitney, Gerald A., 2005. "Testing for the Significance of Violations of Afriat's Inequalities," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 23, pages 355-362, July.
- Jones, Barry E. & De Peretti, Philippe, 2005. "A Comparison Of Two Methods For Testing The Utility Maximization Hypothesis When Quantity Data Are Measured With Error," Macroeconomic Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(05), pages 612-629, November.
- Barnett, William A & Choi, Seungmook, 1989. "A Monte Carlo Study of Tests of Blockwise Weak Separability," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 7(3), pages 363-377, July.
- 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.
- Richard Blundell & Jean-Marc Robin, 2000.
"Latent Separability: Grouping Goods without Weak Separability,"
Econometric Society, vol. 68(1), pages 53-84, January.
- Richard Blundell & Jean-Marc Robin, 1995. "Latent separability: grouping goods without weak separability," IFS Working Papers W95/09, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
- Richard Blundell & Jean-Marc Robin, 2000. "Latent Separability: Grouping Goods without Weak Separability," Post-Print hal-00357752, HAL.
- R. Blundell & Jean-Marc Robin, 2000. "Latent separability: grouping goods without weak separability," Sciences Po publications info:hdl:2441/f0uohitsgqh, Sciences Po.
- Donald H. Dutkowsky & Barry Z. Cynamon & Barry E. Jones, 2006. "U.S. Narrow Money for the Twenty-First Century," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 44(1), pages 142-152, January.
- Dutkowsky, Donald H & Cynamon, Barry Z, 2003. " Sweep Programs: The Fall of M1 and Rebirth of the Medium of Exchange," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 35(2), pages 263-279, April.
- Swofford, James L. & Whitney, Gerald A., 1994. "A revealed preference test for weakly separable utility maximization with incomplete adjustment," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1-2), pages 235-249.
- Jones, Barry E. & Dutkowsky, Donald H. & Elger, Thomas, 2005. "Sweep programs and optimal monetary aggregation," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 483-508, February.
- Varian, Hal R., 1985. "Non-parametric analysis of optimizing behavior with measurement error," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1-2), pages 445-458. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)