Agricultural and Food Policy, Research Methods/Statistical Methods

Agricultural and Food Policy, Research Methods/Statistical Methods

The 2009 CARD Act limited credit card lenders' ability to raise borrowers' interest rates on the basis of new information. Pricing became less responsive to public and private signals of borrowers' risk and demand characteristics, and price dispersion fell by one‐third. I estimate the efficiency and distributional effects of this shift toward more pooled pricing. Prices fell for high‐risk and price‐inelastic consumers, but prices rose elsewhere in the market and newly exceeded willingness to pay for over 30% of the safest subprime borrowers. On net, average traded prices fell and consumer surplus rose at all credit scores. Higher consumer surplus was partly driven by a fall in lender profits, and partly by the Act's insurance value to borrowers who could retain favorable pricing after adverse changes to their default risk. The relatively high level of pre‐CARD‐Act markups was crucial for realizing these surplus gains.

The standard F test for linear restrictions in regression is relevant as a criterion but fails to capture the notion of tradeoff between bias and variance. Average squared distance criteria yield operational tests that are more appropriate, depending upon objectives. In the present paper two alternative criteria are developed. The first allows testing of the hypothesis that the average squared distance of a restricted estimator from the parameter point in k space is less than the average squared distance of the unrestricted, ordinary least squares estimator from the same parameter point. The second sets up a test of betterness of the restricted estimator over the unrestricted estimator of E(Y/X), where betterness is again defined in average squared distance.

In this paper we derive and present optimal critical points for pre-tests in regression using a minimum average relative risk criterion. We use the same type risk functions as Sawa and Hiromatsu [8] who, in a recent paper in this journal, derived pre-test critical values using a minimax regret criterion. Since James-Stein type estimators can be shown to dominate any pre-test estimator for the risk functions used here and in [8], no normative claims are made for the critical values we give. However, the use of pre-testing procedures continues in practice and the results given here, contrasted with other results, add to information about the character of costs and returns to such practices.

Tables of critical points for the noncentral F are presented with noncentrality equal to 1/2 of numerator degrees of freedom for denominator degrees of freedom of 1-30, 40, 60, 120, 200, 400, and 1,000, and numerator degrees of freedom of 1-30, 40, 60, 120, and 200, and type one errors of 0.05, 0.10, 0.25, and 0.50. These critical points can be used to test the second weak MSE criterion discussed in the companion paper [2]. An approximation is suggested for noncentral F(θ), and accuracy checks are given. An appendix provides a Fortran function for the approximation. The approximation is intended for using the first weak MSE test discussed in the companion paper.

We present new identification results for a class of nonseparable nonparametric simultaneous equations models introduced by Matzkin (2008). These models combine traditional exclusion restrictions with a requirement that each structural error enter through a “residual index.†Our identification results are constructive and encompass a range of special cases with varying demands on the exogenous variation provided by instruments and the shape of the joint density of the structural errors. The most important results demonstrate identification when instruments have only limited variation. Even when instruments vary only over a small open ball, relatively mild conditions on the joint density suffice. We also show that the primary sufficient conditions for identification are verifiable and that the maintained hypotheses of the model are falsifiable.

This paper considers equilibrium quit turnover in a frictional labor market with costly hiring by firms, where large firms employ many workers and face both aggregate and firm specific productivity shocks. There is exogenous firm turnover as new (small) startups enter the market over time, while some existing firms fail and exit. Individual firm growth rates are disperse and evolve stochastically. The paper highlights how dynamic monopsony, where firms trade off lower wages against higher (endogenous) employee quit rates, yields excessive job-to-job quits. Such quits directly crowd out the reemployment prospects of the unemployed. With finite firm productivity states, stochastic equilibrium is fully tractable and can be computed using standard numerical techniques.

Comparisons of learning models in repeated games have been a central preoccupation of experimental and behavioral economics over the last decade. Much of this work begins with pooled estimation of the model(s) under scrutiny. I show that in the presence of parameter heterogeneity, pooled estimation can produce a severe bias that tends to unduly favor reinforcement learning relative to belief learning. This occurs when comparisons are based on goodness of fit and when comparisons are based on the relative importance of the two kinds of learning in hybrid structural models. Even misspecified random parameter estimators can greatly reduce the bias relative to pooled estimation.

Productivity differences across firms are large and persistent, but the evidence for worker reallocation as an important source of aggregate productivity growth is mixed. The purpose of this paper is to estimate the structure of an equilibrium model of growth through innovation designed to identify and quantify the role of resource reallocation in the growth process. The model is a version of the Schumpeterian theory of firm evolution and growth developed by Klette and Kortum (2004) extended to allow for firm heterogeneity. The data set is a panel of Danish firms that includes information on value added, employment, and wages. The model's fit is good. The estimated model implies that more productive firms in each cohort grow faster and consequently crowd out less productive firms in steady state. This selection effect accounts for 53% of aggregate growth in the estimated version of the model.