IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/azt/cemmap/43-15.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An econometric model of link formation with degree heterogeneity

Author

Listed:
  • Bryan S. Graham

Abstract

I formulate and study a model of undirected dyadic link formation which allows for assortative matching on observed agent characteristics (homophily) as well as unrestricted agent level heterogeneity in link surplus (degree heterogeneity). Similar to fixed effects panel data analyses, the joint distribution of observed and unobserved agent-level characteristics is left unrestricted. To motivate the introduction of degree heterogeneity, as well as its fixed effect treatment, I show how its presence can bias conventional homophily measures. Two estimators for the (common) homophily parameter, beta0, are developed and their properties studied under an asymptotic sequence involving a single network growing large. The first,tetrad logit (TL), estimator conditions on a sufficient statistic for the degree heterogeneity. The TL estimator is a fourth-order U-Process minimizer. Although the fourth-order summation in the TL criterion function is over the i = 1...N agents in the network, due to a degeneracy property, the leading variance term of hat-beta_TL is of order 1/n, where n = N*(N-1)/2 equals the number of observed dyads. Using martingale theory, I show that the limiting distribution of hat-beta_TL (appropriately scaled and normalized) is normal. The second, joint maximum likelihood (JML), estimator treats the degree heterogeneity as additional (incidental) parameters to be estimated. The properties of hat-beta_JML are also non-standard due to a parameter space which grows with the size of the network. Adapting and extending recent results from random graph theory and non-linear panel data analysis (e.g., Chatterjee, Diaconis and Sly, 2011; Hahn and Newey, 2004), I show that the limit distribution of hat-beta_JML is also normal, but contains a bias term. Accurate inference necessitates bias-correction. The TL estimate is consistent under sparse graph sequences, where the number of links per agent is small relative to the total number of agents, as well as dense graphs sequences, where the number of links per agent is proportional to the total number of agents in the limit. Consistency of the JML estimate, in contrast, is shown only under dense graph sequences. The finite sample properties of hat-beta_TL and hat-beta_JML are explored in a series of Monte Carlo experiments.

Suggested Citation

  • Bryan S. Graham, 2015. "An econometric model of link formation with degree heterogeneity," CeMMAP working papers 43/15, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
  • Handle: RePEc:azt:cemmap:43/15
    DOI: 10.1920/wp.cem.2015.4315
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cemmap.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/CWP4315.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1920/wp.cem.2015.4315?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:dau:papers:123456789/10840 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Karyne B. Charbonneau, 2014. "Multiple Fixed Effects in Binary Response Panel Data Models," Staff Working Papers 14-17, Bank of Canada.
    3. Fernández-Val, Iván & Weidner, Martin, 2016. "Individual and time effects in nonlinear panel models with large N, T," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 192(1), pages 291-312.
    4. Jeremy T. Fox & Patrick Bajari, 2013. "Measuring the Efficiency of an FCC Spectrum Auction," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 100-146, February.
    5. Bryan S. Graham, 2015. "Methods of Identification in Social Networks," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 7(1), pages 465-485, August.
    6. Jackson, Matthew O. & Lã“Pez-Pintado, Dunia, 2013. "Diffusion and contagion in networks with heterogeneous agents and homophily," Network Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 49-67, April.
    7. Nicholas Christakis & James Fowler & Guido Imbens & Karthik Kalyanaraman, 2010. "An empirical model for strategic network formation," CeMMAP working papers CWP16/10, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    8. Marijtje A. J. van Duijn & Tom A. B. Snijders & Bonne J. H. Zijlstra, 2004. "p2: a random effects model with covariates for directed graphs," Statistica Neerlandica, Netherlands Society for Statistics and Operations Research, vol. 58(2), pages 234-254, May.
    9. Manski, Charles F, 1987. "Semiparametric Analysis of Random Effects Linear Models from Binary Panel Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(2), pages 357-362, March.
    10. Paul Goldsmith-Pinkham & Guido W. Imbens, 2013. "Social Networks and the Identification of Peer Effects," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(3), pages 253-264, July.
    11. Jackson Matthew O. & Rogers Brian W., 2007. "Relating Network Structure to Diffusion Properties through Stochastic Dominance," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 1-16, February.
    12. Benjamin Golub & Matthew O. Jackson, 2012. "How Homophily Affects the Speed of Learning and Best-Response Dynamics," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 127(3), pages 1287-1338.
    13. Jackson, Matthew O. & Wolinsky, Asher, 1996. "A Strategic Model of Social and Economic Networks," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 44-74, October.
    14. Jinyong Hahn & Whitney Newey, 2004. "Jackknife and Analytical Bias Reduction for Nonlinear Panel Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(4), pages 1295-1319, July.
    15. Ting Yan & Jinfeng Xu, 2013. "A central limit theorem in the β-model for undirected random graphs with a diverging number of vertices," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 100(2), pages 519-524.
    16. Gary Chamberlain, 1980. "Analysis of Covariance with Qualitative Data," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 47(1), pages 225-238.
    17. Bloch, Francis & Jackson, Matthew O., 2007. "The formation of networks with transfers among players," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 133(1), pages 83-110, March.
    18. Venkatesh Bala & Sanjeev Goyal, 2000. "A Noncooperative Model of Network Formation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(5), pages 1181-1230, September.
    19. Honore, Bo E. & Powell, James L., 1994. "Pairwise difference estimators of censored and truncated regression models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1-2), pages 241-278.
    20. Áureo de Paula & Seth Richards-Shubik & Elie Tamer, 2015. "Identification of preferences in network formation games," CeMMAP working papers CWP29/15, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    21. Elie Tamer, 2003. "Incomplete Simultaneous Discrete Response Model with Multiple Equilibria," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 70(1), pages 147-165.
    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. Bryan S. Graham, 2014. "An econometric model of link formation with degree heterogeneity," NBER Working Papers 20341, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Bryan S. Graham, 2017. "An Econometric Model of Network Formation With Degree Heterogeneity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 85, pages 1033-1063, July.
    3. Bryan S. Graham, 2017. "An econometric model of network formation with degree heterogeneity," CeMMAP working papers 08/17, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    4. Bryan S. Graham, 2019. "Network Data," Papers 1912.06346, arXiv.org.
    5. Bryan S. Graham, 2019. "Network Data," CeMMAP working papers CWP71/19, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    6. Bryan S. Graham, 2015. "Methods of Identification in Social Networks," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 7(1), pages 465-485, August.
    7. Matthew O. Jackson & Brian W. Rogers & Yves Zenou, 2016. "Networks: An Economic Perspective," Papers 1608.07901, arXiv.org.
    8. Áureo de Paula, 2015. "Econometrics of network models," CeMMAP working papers CWP52/15, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    9. Bryan S. Graham, 2016. "Homophily and transitivity in dynamic network formation," CeMMAP working papers CWP16/16, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    10. Bryan S. Graham, 2016. "Homophily and transitivity in dynamic network formation," CeMMAP working papers 16/16, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    11. Jackson, Matthew O. & Zenou, Yves, 2015. "Games on Networks," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications,, Elsevier.
    12. Áureo de Paula, 2020. "Econometric Models of Network Formation," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 12(1), pages 775-799, August.
    13. Matthew O. Jackson & Brian W. Rogers & Yves Zenou, 2017. "The Economic Consequences of Social-Network Structure," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 55(1), pages 49-95, March.
    14. Alex Centeno, 2022. "A Structural Model for Detecting Communities in Networks," Papers 2209.08380, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2022.
    15. Gualdani, Cristina, 2021. "An econometric model of network formation with an application to board interlocks between firms," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 224(2), pages 345-370.
    16. Tiziano Arduini & Eleonora Patacchini & Edoardo Rainone, 2015. "Parametric and Semiparametric IV Estimation of Network Models with Selectivity," EIEF Working Papers Series 1509, Einaudi Institute for Economics and Finance (EIEF), revised Oct 2015.
    17. Botosaru, Irene & Muris, Chris & Pendakur, Krishna, 2023. "Identification of time-varying transformation models with fixed effects, with an application to unobserved heterogeneity in resource shares," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 232(2), pages 576-597.
    18. Pongou, Roland & Serrano, Roberto, 2016. "Volume of trade and dynamic network formation in two-sided economies," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 147-163.
    19. Boucher, Vincent, 2016. "Conformism and self-selection in social networks," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 30-44.
    20. Yingyao Hu & Zhongjian Lin, 2018. "Misclassification and the hidden silent rivalry," CeMMAP working papers CWP12/18, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.

    More about this item

    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:azt:cemmap:43/15. 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: Dermot Watson (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ifsssuk.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.