IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/isu/genstf/1993010108000011815.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Essays in dynamic adjustment, structural change and data analysis: applications to the demand for meat in the US

Author

Listed:
  • Fabiosa, Jacinto Fama

Abstract

A number of reasons are cited in the literature to explain the over rejection of theoretical demand properties in empirical studies. This dissertation examines two of the most common explanations; the Dynamic Adjustment Hypothesis (DAH) and the Structural Change Hypothesis (SCH), as it is applied to meat demand in the U.S. That is, failure to account for dynamics and variation of parameters over time may be the root cause of the over rejection. Despite the inclusion of dynamics and parameter variation in the model, however, the theoretical demand properties still can not be accepted;The first paper clearly shows that identification of break-points in a time varying consumption model may be spurious with the presence of serial correlation. In the autoregressive specification, a break in the coefficient of the beef model is observed in 1974.4, and 1978.4 for chicken. There is no evidence for a break in the pork model. Usually ignored in earlier studies, the stability of the variance was also tested and was found stable. The break-points identified can therefore be validly attributed to the coefficient vector;The second paper shows that the data support both the dynamic adjustment and structural change hypotheses. However, both in the actual analysis and in a Monte Carlo experiment the structural change appears to be the more dominant influence in the data. Also, the result of the test for structural change is not too sensitive to the specification of the break-points as long as they are not too far away from each other;The assumptions underlying standard demand analysis mostly remain unquestioned in may empirical studies. The third paper examines these untested assumptions as testable propositions to compare how closely they approximate the data, and give indications as to the cost associated with these assumptions;The stationarity assumption is clearly violated. Only the pork quantity and price, and chicken price are stationary. Cointegration tests show that there exist a single long-run equilibrium relationship that governs the co-movements of the demand variables for the three meats over time. This implies that the three meats really belong to a single market, giving justification to model the three as a system. The short-run impulse response displays a demand-like adjustment. Shock in their own-price has permanent effect in beef, but transitory in pork and chicken. The variance decomposition suggests that the assumption of exogeneity of prices and expenditure do not closely correspond to the actual behavior of the data. A strong simultaneity is observed in pork and chicken. It is also shown that supply effects are stronger in pork and chicken than in beef.

Suggested Citation

  • Fabiosa, Jacinto Fama, 1993. "Essays in dynamic adjustment, structural change and data analysis: applications to the demand for meat in the US," ISU General Staff Papers 1993010108000011815, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:isu:genstf:1993010108000011815
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://dr.lib.iastate.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/4567c857-bb2b-4747-930f-f7359809b669/content
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Barten, A. P., 1969. "Maximum likelihood estimation of a complete system of demand equations," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 7-73.
    2. Gordon Anderson & Richard Blundell, 1983. "Testing Restrictions in a Flexible Dynamic Demand System: An Application to Consumers' Expenditure in Canada," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 50(3), pages 397-410.
    3. T. Kesavan & Zuhair A. Hassan & Helen H. Jensen & Stanley R. Johnson, 1993. "Dynamics and Long-run Structure in U.S. Meat Demand," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 41(2), pages 139-153, July.
    4. Laitinen, Kenneth, 1978. "Why is demand homogeneity so often rejected?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 1(3), pages 187-191.
    5. James S. Eales & Laurian J. Unnevehr, 1988. "Demand for Beef and Chicken Products: Separability and Structural Change," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 70(3), pages 521-532.
    6. BARTEN, Anton P., 1969. "Maximum likelihood estimation of a complete system of demand equations," LIDAM Reprints CORE 34, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    7. Christensen, Laurits R & Jorgenson, Dale W & Lau, Lawrence J, 1975. "Transcendental Logarithmic Utility Functions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 65(3), pages 367-383, June.
    8. R. P. Byron, 1970. "A Simple Method for Estimating Demand Systems under Separable Utility Assumptions," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 37(2), pages 261-274.
    9. Kramer, Walter & Ploberger, Werner & Alt, Raimund, 1988. "Testing for Structural Change in Dynamic Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 56(6), pages 1355-1369, November.
    10. Deaton, Angus S & Muellbauer, John, 1980. "An Almost Ideal Demand System," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(3), pages 312-326, June.
    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. Kesavan, Thulasiram, 1988. "Monte Carlo experiments of market demand theory," ISU General Staff Papers 198801010800009854, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    2. Keuzenkamp, Hugo A. & Barten, Anton P., 1995. "Rejection without falsification on the history of testing the homogeneity condition in the theory of consumer demand," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 103-127, May.
    3. Paul Cashin, 1991. "A Model Of The Disaggregated Demand For Meat In Australia," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 35(3), pages 263-283, December.
    4. Paul Oslington, 2012. "General Equilibrium: Theory and Evidence," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 88(282), pages 446-448, September.
    5. W D A Bryant, 2009. "General Equilibrium:Theory and Evidence," World Scientific Books, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., number 6875, August.
    6. Barnett, William A. & Serletis, Apostolos, 2008. "The Differential Approach to Demand Analysis and the Rotterdam Model," MPRA Paper 12319, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. James L. Seale & Mary A. Marchant & Alberto Basso, 2003. "Imports versus Domestic Production: A Demand System Analysis of the U.S. Red Wine Market," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 25(1), pages 187-202.
    8. William A. Barnett & Isaac Kalonda Kanyama, 2013. "Time-varying parameters in the almost ideal demand system and the Rotterdam model: will the best specification please stand up?," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(29), pages 4169-4183, October.
    9. William A. Barnett & Isaac Kalonda Kanyama, 2013. "Time-varying parameters in the almost ideal demand system and the Rotterdam model: will the best specification please stand up?," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(29), pages 4169-4183, October.
    10. Ling-yun He & Li Liu, 2016. "The demand for road transport in China: imposing theoretical regularity and flexible functional forms selection," Papers 1612.02656, arXiv.org.
    11. Toshinobu Matsuda, 2005. "Differential Demand Systems: A Further Look at Barten's Synthesis," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 71(3), pages 607-619, January.
    12. Barnett, William A. & Serletis, Apostolos, 2008. "Consumer preferences and demand systems," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 147(2), pages 210-224, December.
    13. van Heeswijk, B J & de Boer, P M C & Harkema, R, 1993. "A Dynamic Specification of an AIDS Import Allocation Model," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 57-73.
    14. Korir, Lilian & Rizov, Marian & Ruto, Eric, 2020. "Food security in Kenya: Insights from a household food demand model," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 99-108.
    15. Holt, Matthew T., 2002. "Inverse demand systems and choice of functional form," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 117-142, January.
    16. E.A. Selvanathan, 1985. "The Demand for Alcohol in the U.K.: An econometric study," Economics Discussion / Working Papers 85-06, The University of Western Australia, Department of Economics.
    17. Apostolos Serletis & Libo Xu, 2020. "Demand systems with heteroscedastic disturbances," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 58(4), pages 1913-1921, April.
    18. Yadavalli, Anita & Jones, Keithly, 2014. "Does media influence consumer demand? The case of lean finely textured beef in the United States," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 219-227.
    19. de Boer, P. M. C. & Harkema, R., 1986. "An Algorithm For Maximum Likelihood Estimation Of A New Covariance Matrix Specification For Sum-Constrained Models," Econometric Institute Archives 272357, Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    20. Kenneth W. Clements & E. A. Selvanathan & Saroja Selvanathan, 1992. "Henri Theil’s Contributions to Demand Analysis," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Ronald Bewley & Tran Hoa (ed.), Contributions to Consumer Demand and Econometrics, chapter 5, pages 74-104, Palgrave Macmillan.

    More about this item

    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:isu:genstf:1993010108000011815. 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: Curtis Balmer (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deiasus.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.