Advertisement

Estimating dynamic discrete choice models with aggregate data: Properties of the inclusive value approximation

  • Timothy DerdengerEmail author
  • Vineet Kumar
Article

Abstract

We investigate the use of the inclusive value based approach for estimating dynamic discrete choice models of demand with aggregate data. The inclusive value sufficiency (IVS) approach approximates a multi-dimensional state space with a single “sufficient statistic” in order to mitigate the curse of dimensionality and tractability estimate model primitives. Although in widespread use, the conditions under which IVS is appropriate have not been examined. Theoretically, we show that the estimator is biased and inconsistent. We then use Monte Carlo simulations (of a simple model of dynamic durable goods adoption) to demonstrate the degree of bias associated with the inclusive value approximation estimator under an array of parameterizations and data generating processes. In our examination, we show that the estimator performs better when the discount factor is smaller and/or when the price sensitivity of the consumer is larger. Examining how the bias impacts economic quantities of interest, we find that the IVS method under estimates the true long-run own-price elasticities and over estimates the change in profits as prices change. Theses findings highlight the importance of correctly specifying how consumers form expectations. As a result, researchers should consider how to empirically support their assumption for the underlying consumer belief structure.

Keywords

Dynamic structural models Inclusive value 

JEL Classification

C13 C50 

Notes

References

  1. Aguirregabiria, V., & Mira, P. (2010). Dynamic discrete choice structural models: a survey. Journal of Econometrics, 156(1), 38–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrews, I., & Armstrong, T.B. (2017). Unbiased instrumental variables estimation under known first-stage sign. Quantitative Economics, 8(2), 479–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bayer, P., McMillan, R., Murphy, A., Timmins, C. (2016). A dynamic model of demand for houses and neighborhoods. Econometrica, 84(3), 893–942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berry, S., Levinsohn, J., Pakes, A. (1995). Automobile prices in market equilibrium. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, pp. 841–890.Google Scholar
  5. Carranza, J.E. (2010). Product innovation and adoption in market equilibrium: the case of digital cameras. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 28(6), 604–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chou, C., Derdenger, T., Kumar, V. (2019). Linear estimation of aggregate dynamic discrete demand for durable goods: Overcoming the curse of dimensionality. Marketing Science.Google Scholar
  7. Derdenger, T., & Kumar, V. (2013). The dynamic effects of bundling as a product strategy. Marketing Science, 32(6), 827–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dubé, J-P, Hitsch, GJ, Jindal, P. (2014). The joint identification of utility and discount functions from stated choice data: An application to durable goods adoption. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 12(4), 331–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gordon, B.R. (2009). A dynamic model of consumer replacement cycles in the PC processor industry. Marketing Science, 28(5), 846–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gowrisankaran, G., & Rysman, M. (2012). Dynamics of consumer demand for new durable goods. Journal of Political Economy, 120(6), 1173–1219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hendel, I., & Nevo, A. (2006). Measuring the implications of sales and consumer inventory behavior. Econometrica, 74(6), 1637–1673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ho, C.-Y. (2015). Switching cost and deposit demand in China. International Economic Review, 56(3), 723–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Manski, C.F. (2004). Measuring expectations. Econometrica, 72(5), 1329–1376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McFadden, D. (1974). The measurement of urban travel demand. Journal of public economics, 3(4), 303–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Melnikov, O. (2013). Demand for differentiated durable products: the case of the us computer printer market. Economic Inquiry, 51(2), 1277–1298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nair, H. (2007). Intertemporal price discrimination with forward-looking consumers: Application to the us market for console video-games. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 5(3), 239–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schiraldi, P. (2011). Automobile replacement: a dynamic structural approach. The RAND journal of economics, 42(2), 266–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Song, I., & Chintagunta, P.K. (2003). Micromodel of new product adoption with heterogeneous and forward-looking consumers: Application to the digital camera category. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 1(4), 371–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Weiergraeber, S. (2017). Network effects and switching costs in the us wireless industry. Memeo.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tepper School of BusinessCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.School of ManagementYale UniversityNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations