Competing Risks and Unobserved Heterogeneity, with Special Reference to Dynamic Microsimulation Models

  • Heinz P. Galler
Part of the The Plenum Series on Demographic Methods and Population Analysis book series (PSDE)


The idea of competing risks provides a useful conceptual basis for multistate models in general, and microsimulation models as a special case. However, some methodological problems arise when the different risks are not independent. Besides causal relations, such dependencies may be caused by unobserved heterogeneity of the units. In this case, not all relevant explanatory variables are included in the model, which may cause stochastic dependencies between different partial processes. Approaches for dealing with this problem are discussed both in a continuous time and a discrete time framework.


Hazard Rate Unobserved Heterogeneity Discrete Time Model Continuous Time Model Marginal Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allison, P.D. (1982), Discrete-Time Methods for the Analysis of Event Histories. In: S. Leinhardt (ed.) Sociological Methodology 1982, Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.Google Scholar
  2. Chamberlain, G. (1984), Panel Data. In: Z. Griliches & M. Intriligator (eds.) Handbook of Econometrics, Vol. 2, North Holland: Amsterdam, pp. 1247–1318.Google Scholar
  3. Csicsman, N., & Pappne, N. (1987), The Software Developed for the Hungarian Micro-simulation System. In: Proceedings of the IIASA Conference on Demographical Micro-simulation, Budapest.Google Scholar
  4. Galler, H.P. (1988), Microsimulation of Household Formation and Dissolution. In: N. Keilman, A. Kuijsten & A. Vossen (eds.) Modelling Household Formation and Dissolution, Clarendon Press: Oxford, pp. 139–159.Google Scholar
  5. Hammel, E.A. (1990), SOCSIMII,Graduate Group in Demography, University of California, Working paper No. 29, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  6. Heckman, J. (1981), The Incidental Parameter Problem and the Problem of Initial Conditions in Estimating a Discrete Time-Discrete Data Stochastic Process. In: CH. Manski & D. Mcfadden (eds.) Structural Analysis of Discrete Data with Econometric Applications, MIT Press: Cambridge, pp. 179–195.Google Scholar
  7. Heckman, J., & Honort, B. (1989), The Identifiability of the Competing Risk Model. Biometrika, Vol. 76, pp. 325–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Heike, H.D. et al. (1988a), Das Darmstädter Mikrosimulationsmodell–Überblick und erste Ergebnisse. Allgemeines Statistisches Archiv, Vol. 72, pp. 109–129.Google Scholar
  9. Heike, H.D. et al. (1988b), Der Darmstädter Pseudo-Mikrosimulator, Modellansatz und Realisierung, Angewandte Informatik, Vol. 1 /1988, pp. 9–17.Google Scholar
  10. Hellwig, O. (1988), Probleme und Lösungsansiitze bei der Datenbeschaffung und Parameterschiitzung flir Mikrosimulationsmodelle der privaten Haushalte, PhD thesis, Technical University of Darmstadt.Google Scholar
  11. Hougaard, P. et al. (1992), Measuring the Similarities between the Lifetime of Adult Danish Twins Born between 1881–1930, Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 87, pp. 17–24.Google Scholar
  12. Hsiao, C. (1986), Analysis of Panel Data, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  13. Lawless, J. (1982), Statistical Models arui Methods for Lifetime Data, John Wiley: New York.Google Scholar
  14. Maddala, G. (1983), Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Muthén, B. (1983), Latent Variable Structural Equation Modelling with Categorical Data, Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 22, pp. 43–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Munitn, B. (1984), A General Structural Equation Model with Dichotomous Ordered Categorical, and Continuous Latent Variable Indicators, Psychometrika, Vol. 49, pp. 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nelissen, J. (1989), NEDYMAS: Microsimulation of Household and Education Dynamics, Growth Dynamics University Institute Discussion Paper No. 89/3, Erasmus University: Rotterdam.Google Scholar
  18. Oakes, D. (1989), Bivariate Survival Models Induced by Frailties, Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 84, pp. 487–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Orcurr, G. et al. (1976), Policy Exploration through Microanalytic Simulation, The Urban Institute: Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  20. Trans, A. (1975), A Nonidentifiability Aspect of the Problem of Competing Risks, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), Vol. 32, pp. 20–22.Google Scholar
  21. Tuma, N., & M. Hannan (1984), Social Dynamics, Models and Methods, Academic Press: Orlando.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heinz P. Galler
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Econometrics and StatisticsMartin-Luther University of Halle-WittenbergHalleGermany

Personalised recommendations