Metonymy and Cross Section Demand
Cross section consumer expenditure data are frequently used to make conclusions about consumer demand behavior. Such conclusions, however, can only be justified under certain assumptions, which are often left unstated in the empirical demand literature. An assumption of this type, the metonymy hypothesis, was stated rigorously and then exploited by Hardle, Hildenbrand and Jerison when analyzing the monotonicity property of aggregate demand functions. The purpose of the present paper is to examine the metonymy hypothesis in more detail. We prove that the distribution of demand vectors derived from a not necessarily metonymic population is identical to the distribution derived from some metonymic one. This implies, in particular, that the metonymy hypothesis cannot be rejected or confirmed on the basis of data from a single cross section.
|Date of creation:||01 Sep 1996|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Fax: +32 10474304
Web page: http://www.uclouvain.be/core
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Wolfgang Härdle & Werner Hildenbrand & Michael Jerison, 1989.
"Empirical Evidence on the Law of Demand,"
Discussion Paper Serie A
264a, University of Bonn, Germany.
- Hildenbrand, Werner, 1983. "On the "Law of Demand."," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 51(4), pages 997-1019, July.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cor:louvco:1996046. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Alain GILLIS)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.