IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/uunewp/2003_009.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Relaxing the IIA Assumption in Locational Choice Models: A Comparison Between Conditional Logit, Mixed Logit, and Multinomial Probit Models

Author

Listed:
  • Dahlberg, Matz

    (Department of Economics)

  • Eklöf, Matias

    (Department of Economics)

Abstract

This paper estimates a locational choice model to assess the demand for local public services, using a data set where individuals chooses between 26 municipalities within a local labor market. We assess the importance of the IIA assumption by comparing the predictions of three difference models; the conditional logit (CL) model, the mixed logit (MXL) model, and the multinomial probit (MNP) model. Our main finding is that a MXL or a MNP estimator leads to exactly the same conclusions as the traditional CL estimator. That is, given the data used here, the IIA assumption, and hence the use of a CL estimator, seems to be valid when estimating Tiebout-related migration. The only instance when we get somewhat different results when using the MXL or MNP estimator compared with the CL estimator is when we have a too parsimonious model. One possible hypothesis explaining this result is that omitted variables are captured by the distribution parameters of the coeffcients of the included variables, leading to the false conclusion that the coefficients are not fixed. This hypothesis is supported by the results from a Monte Carlo investigation.

Suggested Citation

  • Dahlberg, Matz & Eklöf, Matias, 2003. "Relaxing the IIA Assumption in Locational Choice Models: A Comparison Between Conditional Logit, Mixed Logit, and Multinomial Probit Models," Working Paper Series 2003:9, Uppsala University, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:hhs:uunewp:2003_009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nek.uu.se/pdf/wp2003_9.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bergstrom, Theodore C & Goodman, Robert P, 1973. "Private Demands for Public Goods," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 63(3), pages 280-296, June.
    2. Nechyba, Thomas J. & Strauss, Robert P., 1998. "Community choice and local public services: A discrete choice approach," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 51-73, January.
    3. Widerstedt, Barbro, 1998. "Moving or Staying? Job Mobility as a Sorting Process," Umeå Economic Studies 464, Umeå University, Department of Economics.
    4. Dahlberg, M. & Fredriksson, P., 2001. "Migration and Local Public Services," Papers 2001-12, Uppsala - Working Paper Series.
    5. Bergstrom, Theodore C & Rubinfeld, Daniel L & Shapiro, Perry, 1982. "Micro-Based Estimates of Demand Functions for Local School Expenditures," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(5), pages 1183-1205, September.
    6. Brownstone, David & Train, Kenneth, 1999. "Forecasting new product penetration with flexible substitution patterns," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt3tb6j874, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    7. Borsch-Supan, Axel & Hajivassiliou, Vassilis A., 1993. "Smooth unbiased multivariate probability simulators for maximum likelihood estimation of limited dependent variable models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 347-368, August.
    8. Brownstone, David & Train, Kenneth, 1998. "Forecasting new product penetration with flexible substitution patterns," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 109-129, November.
    9. Yinger, John, 1982. "Capitalization and the Theory of Local Public Finance," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 90(5), pages 917-943, October.
    10. Joseph Friedman, 1981. "A Conditional Logit Model of the Role of Local Public Services in Residential Choice," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 18(3), pages 347-358, October.
    11. Quigley, John M., 1985. "Consumer choice of dwelling, neighborhood and public services," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 41-63, February.
    12. Hajivassiliou, Vassilis & McFadden, Daniel & Ruud, Paul, 1996. "Simulation of multivariate normal rectangle probabilities and their derivatives theoretical and computational results," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 72(1-2), pages 85-134.
    13. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    14. Edin, P.-A. & Fredriksson, P., 2000. "LINDA - Longitudinal INdividual DAta for Sweden," Papers 2000:19, Uppsala - Working Paper Series.
    15. Rosen, Harvey S & Fullerton, David J, 1977. "A Note on Local Tax Rates, Public Benefit Levels, and Property Values," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 85(2), pages 433-440, April.
    16. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dahlberg, Matz & Fredriksson, Peter, 2001. "Migration and Local Public Services," Working Paper Series 2001:12, Uppsala University, Department of Economics.
    2. Matz Dahlberg & Matias Eklöf & Peter Fredriksson & Jordi Jofre-Monseny, 2012. "Estimating Preferences for Local Public Services Using Migration Data," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 49(2), pages 319-336, February.
    3. Aslund, Olof, 2005. "Now and forever? Initial and subsequent location choices of immigrants," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 141-165, March.
    4. Lee, Han Bum & McNamara, Paul E., 2017. "Deconcentrating the poor via public housing policy: What really matters?," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 67-78.
    5. Andreas Ziegler, 2007. "Simulated classical tests in multinomial probit models," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 655-681, October.
    6. Heiss, Florian & Winschel, Viktor, 2008. "Likelihood approximation by numerical integration on sparse grids," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 144(1), pages 62-80, May.
    7. Ziegler Andreas, 2010. "Z-Tests in Multinomial Probit Models under Simulated Maximum Likelihood Estimation: Some Small Sample Properties," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 230(5), pages 630-652, October.
    8. Karthik K. Srinivasan & Hani S. Mahmassani, 2005. "A Dynamic Kernel Logit Model for the Analysis of Longitudinal Discrete Choice Data: Properties and Computational Assessment," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(2), pages 160-181, May.
    9. Paleti, Rajesh, 2018. "Generalized multinomial probit Model: Accommodating constrained random parameters," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 248-262.
    10. Epstein, Andrew J., 2010. "Effects of report cards on referral patterns to cardiac surgeons," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 718-731, September.
    11. Scheufele, Gabriela & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2010. "Ordering effects and strategic response in discrete choice experiments," Research Reports 107743, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    12. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    13. Stephane Hess & John W. Polak, 2004. "An analysis of parking behaviour using discrete choice models calibrated on SP datasets," ERSA conference papers ersa04p60, European Regional Science Association.
    14. Layton, David F., 2000. "Random Coefficient Models for Stated Preference Surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 21-36, July.
    15. Campbell, Danny & Hutchinson, W. George & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2006. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments to Derive Individual-Specific WTP Estimates for Landscape Improvements under Agri-Environmental Schemes: Evidence from the Rural Environment Protection Scheme in Irel," Sustainability Indicators and Environmental Valuation Working Papers 12220, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    16. Zsolt Sandor, 2009. "Multinomial discrete choice models (in Russian)," Quantile, Quantile, issue 7, pages 9-19, September.
    17. Sigal Kaplan & Yoram Shiftan & Shlomo Bekhor, 2011. "A Semi-Compensatory Residential Choice Model With Flexible Error Structure," ERSA conference papers ersa10p65, European Regional Science Association.
    18. Ida, Takanori & Goto, Rei, 2009. "Interdependency among addictive behaviours and time/risk preferences: Discrete choice model analysis of smoking, drinking, and gambling," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 608-621, August.
    19. Walker, Joan & Ben-Akiva, Moshe, 2002. "Generalized random utility model," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 303-343, July.
    20. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2001. "Logit Models For Pooled Contingent Valuation And Contingent Rating And Ranking Data: Valuing Benefits From Forest Biodiversity Conservation," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20616, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Locational choice; Tiebout migration; Mixed logit; Multinomial probit;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C15 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Statistical Simulation Methods: General
    • C25 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions; Probabilities
    • H72 - Public Economics - - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations - - - State and Local Budget and Expenditures
    • H73 - Public Economics - - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations - - - Interjurisdictional Differentials and Their Effects

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hhs:uunewp:2003_009. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Ulrika Öjdeby (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nekuuse.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.