IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tse/wpaper/28401.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Analysis of Multiple Discrete-Continuous Choices: Empirical Evidence of Biased Price Elasticities under Standard Discrete Choice models on the Soft Drink Market

Author

Listed:
  • Bonnet, Céline
  • de Mouzon, Olivier

Abstract

The New Empirical Industrial Organization (NEIO) literature allows to analyze competition, market power and welfare implications of public policies. This literature is based on the estimation of consumer substitution patterns, that is on the estimation of demand models. Standard discrete choice models are commonly used and assume that the consumer chooses only one unit of a single alternative. However, panelists are often shoppers making decisions for the entire household. A household is composed of several persons with various tastes. The current NEIO literature then often omits multiple brand choice and quantity choice of a product representing multiple tastes within the household. To tackle this point, we model multiple discrete/continuous choices of households following Bhat (2005a). Moreover, we deal with observed and unobserved household heterogeneity as well as omitted variable problem that occurs in this type of consumer choice model. Using French purchase data on the Soft Drink Market, we show that consumer substitution patterns could be biased if multiple brand and quantity choices are not taken into account. Indeed, our results suggest that own price elasticities could be significantly underestimated.

Suggested Citation

  • Bonnet, Céline & de Mouzon, Olivier, 2014. "Analysis of Multiple Discrete-Continuous Choices: Empirical Evidence of Biased Price Elasticities under Standard Discrete Choice models on the Soft Drink Market," TSE Working Papers 14-520, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
  • Handle: RePEc:tse:wpaper:28401
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tse-fr.eu/sites/default/files/medias/doc/wp/fff/wp_tse_520.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bhat, Chandra R. & Sen, Sudeshna, 2006. "Household vehicle type holdings and usage: an application of the multiple discrete-continuous extreme value (MDCEV) model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 35-53, January.
    2. Jerry A. Hausman, 1996. "Valuation of New Goods under Perfect and Imperfect Competition," NBER Chapters, in: The Economics of New Goods, pages 207-248, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Terza, Joseph V. & Basu, Anirban & Rathouz, Paul J., 2008. "Two-stage residual inclusion estimation: Addressing endogeneity in health econometric modeling," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 531-543, May.
    4. Dubin, Jeffrey A & McFadden, Daniel L, 1984. "An Econometric Analysis of Residential Electric Appliance Holdings and Consumption," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(2), pages 345-362, March.
    5. Timothy F. Bresnahan & Robert J. Gordon, 1996. "The Economics of New Goods," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number bres96-1.
    6. William R. Dillon & Sunil Gupta, 1996. "A Segment-Level Model of Category Volume and Brand Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(1), pages 38-59.
    7. Berry, Steven & Levinsohn, James & Pakes, Ariel, 1995. "Automobile Prices in Market Equilibrium," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 63(4), pages 841-890, July.
    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. Nevo, Aviv, 2001. "Measuring Market Power in the Ready-to-Eat Cereal Industry," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(2), pages 307-342, March.
    2. Alessandro Iaria, & Wang, Ao, 2021. "An Empirical Model of Quantity Discounts with Large Choice Sets," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 1378, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    3. Lurkin, Virginie & Garrow, Laurie A. & Higgins, Matthew J. & Newman, Jeffrey P. & Schyns, Michael, 2017. "Accounting for price endogeneity in airline itinerary choice models: An application to Continental U.S. markets," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 228-246.
    4. Eugenio J. Miravete, 2004. "The Doubtful Profitability of Foggy Pricing," Working Papers 04-07, NET Institute.
    5. Mark Egan & Ali Hortaçsu & Gregor Matvos, 2017. "Deposit Competition and Financial Fragility: Evidence from the US Banking Sector," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(1), pages 169-216, January.
    6. Joshua D. Angrist & Jörn-Steffen Pischke, 2010. "The Credibility Revolution in Empirical Economics: How Better Research Design Is Taking the Con out of Econometrics," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 24(2), pages 3-30, Spring.
    7. Federico Ciliberto & GianCarlo Moschini & Edward D. Perry, 2019. "Valuing product innovation: genetically engineered varieties in US corn and soybeans," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 50(3), pages 615-644, September.
    8. Raluca M. Ursu, 2018. "The Power of Rankings: Quantifying the Effect of Rankings on Online Consumer Search and Purchase Decisions," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(4), pages 530-552, August.
    9. Thomas E. Guerrero & C. Angelo Guevara & Elisabetta Cherchi & Juan de Dios Ortúzar, 2021. "Addressing endogeneity in strategic urban mode choice models," Transportation, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 2081-2102, August.
    10. Carlos Pérez Montes, 2013. "The impact of interbank and public debt markets on the competition for bank deposits," Working Papers 1319, Banco de España.
    11. Amit Khandelwal, 2010. "The Long and Short (of) Quality Ladders," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 77(4), pages 1450-1476.
    12. Stephen J. Redding & David E. Weinstein, 2016. "A unified approach to estimating demand and welfare," CEP Discussion Papers dp1445, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    13. Steven T. Berry & Philip A. Haile, 2024. "Nonparametric Identification of Differentiated Products Demand Using Micro Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 92(4), pages 1135-1162, July.
    14. Stephen J Redding & David E Weinstein, 2020. "Measuring Aggregate Price Indices with Taste Shocks: Theory and Evidence for CES Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 135(1), pages 503-560.
    15. Dunn, Abe, 2016. "Health insurance and the demand for medical care: Instrumental variable estimates using health insurer claims data," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 74-88.
    16. Lein, Sarah Marit & Beck, Günter W., 2015. "Microeconometric evidence on demand-side real rigidity and implications for monetary non-neutrality," VfS Annual Conference 2015 (Muenster): Economic Development - Theory and Policy 113144, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    17. Timothy F. Bresnahan & Scott Stern & Manuel Trajtenberg, 1995. "Market Segmentation and the Sources of Rents from Innovation: Personal Computers in the Late 1980s," Working Papers 95001, Stanford University, Department of Economics.
    18. Bee Yan Aw & Yi Lee & Hylke Vandenbussche, 2020. "Consumer taste in trade," Discussion Papers 2020-15, University of Nottingham, GEP.
    19. Christos Genakos & Kai‐Uwe Kühn & John Van Reenen, 2018. "Leveraging Monopoly Power by Degrading Interoperability: Theory and Evidence from Computer Markets," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 85(340), pages 873-902, October.
    20. Joao Macieira & Pedro Pereira & Joao Vareda, 2013. "Bundling Incentives in Markets with Product Complementarities: The Case of Triple-Play," Working Papers 13-15, NET Institute.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    multiple purchases; discrete-continuous choices; soft drink market; price elasticities; household heterogeneity;
    All these keywords.

    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:tse:wpaper:28401. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/tsetofr.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.