Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorAaberge, Rolf
dc.contributor.authorColombino, Ugo
dc.contributor.authorWennemo, Tom
dc.date.accessioned2011-11-21T12:12:07Z
dc.date.available2011-11-21T12:12:07Z
dc.date.issued2006
dc.identifier.issn1892-753x
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11250/180245
dc.description.abstractAbstract: During the last two decades, the discrete-choice modelling of labour supply decisions has become increasingly popular, starting with Aaberge et al. (1995) and van Soest (1995). Within the literature adopting this approach there are however two potentially important issues that are worthwhile analyzing in their implications and that so far have not been given the attention they might deserve. A first issue concerns the procedure by which the discrete alternatives are selected to enter the choice set. For example van Soest (1995) chooses (non probabilistically) a set of fixed points identical for every individual. This is by far the most widely adopted method. By contrast, Aaberge et al. (1995) adopt a sampling procedure suggested by McFadden (1978) and also assume that the choice set may differ across the households. A second issue concerns the availability of the alternatives. Most authors assume all the values of hours-of-work within some range [0, H] are equally available. At the other extreme, some authors assume only two or three alternatives (e.g. non-participation, part-time and full-time) are available for everyone. Aaberge et al. (1995) assume instead that not all the hour opportunities are equally available to everyone; they specify a probability density function of opportunities for each individual and the discrete choice set used in the estimation is built by sampling from that individual-specific density function. In this paper we explore by simulation the implications of - the procedure used to build the choice set (fixed alternatives vs sampled alternatives) - accounting or not accounting for a different availability of alternatives. The way the choice set is represented seems to have little impact on the fitting of observed values, but a more significant and important impact on the out-of-sample prediction performance. Keywords: Labour supply, discrete-choice models, quantity constraints, prediction performanceno_NO
dc.language.isoengno_NO
dc.publisherStatistics Norway, Research Departmentno_NO
dc.relation.ispartofseriesDiscussion Papers;No. 449
dc.subjectLabour supplyno_NO
dc.subjectDiscrete-choice modelsno_NO
dc.subjectPrediction performanceno_NO
dc.subjectJEL classification: C51no_NO
dc.subjectJEL classification: C52no_NO
dc.subjectJEL classification: H31no_NO
dc.subjectJEL classification: J22no_NO
dc.titleEvaluating alternative representations of the choice sets in models of labour supplyno_NO
dc.typeWorking paperno_NO
dc.subject.nsiVDP::Social science: 200::Economics: 210::Economics: 212no_NO
dc.source.pagenumber29 s.no_NO


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel