a comparison of weighted time dummy hedonic and time
play

A Comparison of Weighted Time Dummy Hedonic and Time-Product Dummy - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

A Comparison of Weighted Time Dummy Hedonic and Time-Product Dummy Indexes Jan de Haan, Rens Hendriks and Michael Scholz Background Aizcorbe, Corrado and Doms (2003) When Do Matched-Model and Hedonic Techniques Yield Similar Price


  1. A Comparison of Weighted Time Dummy Hedonic and Time-Product Dummy Indexes Jan de Haan, Rens Hendriks and Michael Scholz

  2. Background • Aizcorbe, Corrado and Doms (2003) – “When Do Matched-Model and Hedonic Techniques Yield Similar Price Measures?” • Aizcorbe and Pho (2005) – “Differences in Hedonic and Matched-Model Price Indexes: Do the Weights Matter?” • Silver and Heravi (2005) – “A Failure in the Measurement of Inflation: Results from a Hedonic and Matched Experiment Using Scanner Data” • Krsinich (2016) – “The FEWS Index: Fixed Effects with a Window Splice”

  3. The TDH and TPD models • The Time Dummy Hedonic model: T K ∑ ∑ = δ + δ + β + ε t t t t p D z 0 ln i i k ik i = = t k 1 1 • The Time Product Dummy model: − T N 1 ∑ ∑ t = α + δ t t + γ + ε t p D D ln i i i i i = = t i 1 1

  4. Weighted TDH and TPD Indexes t = δ t ˆ P 0 exp( ) ∏ t t s p i ( ) i  ( )   K ∑ t t = β − t ˆ P ∈ z z i S 0 0 exp  ∏ TDH k k k s 0 p   0 i ( ) = k 1 i ∈ i S 0 ∏ t t s p ( ) i ( ) i = ∏ t t γ − γ t P ∈ i S 0 0 ˆ ˆ exp TPD s 0 p 0 i ( ) i ∈ i S 0

  5. Decomposition in regression residuals (1) • Weighted TDH and TPD sum to zero in each period. t s s 0     t i i p p 0 ˆ ˆ ∏ ∏     = = i i 1     t p p 0     t ∈ ∈ i S i S 0 i i • The TDH and TPD indices can be written as: t s 0 s t i i s s 0         t t t t i i p p p p ˆ ˆ 2 2 ∏ ∏ ∏ ∏         = = = t P i i i i 0         p p p p 0 0 0 0    ˆ     ˆ  t t ∈ ∈ ∈ ∈ i S 0 i i S i i S 0 i i S i

  6. Decomposition in regression residuals (2)   t ( ) • P s 0 0 = − TPD D u u 0 0   exp D TPD D TDH t P s ( ) ( ) 0 0   TDH M   t ( ) • s • − t t N u u   exp N TDH N TPD t s ( ) ( )   M [ ] ( ) ( ) • − t − − t u u u u 0 0 ( ) 0 0 ( ) exp M TPD M TPD M TDH M TDH ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

  7. Empirical Illustration (1) Weighted TPD & TDH Indexes 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 1 3 5 7 9 1113151719212325272931333537394143454749 TPD TDH

  8. Empirical Illustration (2) Weighted Average Residuals 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0 -0,1 -0,2 -0,3 -0,4 -0,5 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 Disapp. TPD Disapp. TDH New TPD New TDH

  9. Empirical Illustration (3) Aggregate Expenditure Shares 1 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 Disapp. New Matched (0) Matched (t)

  10. Empirical Illustration (4) Decomposition of TPD-TDH Ratio 1,3 1,2 1,1 1 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 Ratio Disapp. New Third term

  11. Empirical Illustration (5) TPD-TDH Indexes – Group Level 130 120 110 100 90 80 1 3 5 7 9 1113151719212325272931333537394143454749 TPD TDH

  12. Empirical Illustration (6) Decomposition – Group Level 1,02 1,01 1 0,99 0,98 0,97 0,96 0,95 0,94 0,93 0,92 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 Ratio Disapp. New Third term

  13. Questions?

Download Presentation
Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Recommend


More recommend