IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wiw/wiwrsa/ersa03p294.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Random Utility Model of Demand for Variety under Spatial Differentiation

Author

Listed:
  • Tiina Heikkinen

Abstract

This paper studies a linear economic geography model under general equilibrium and iceberg transportation costs from a linear random utility point of view. A motivation is given by previous work on spatial product differentiation establishing a connection between demands generated by linear random utility optimization and demands due to CES-utility. Two interpretations of random utility are considered. First, the utility of a representative consumer from one unit of a given variety is assumed to be random e.g. due to a random linear trade cost or unobservable quality. In the second interpretation, as in mainstream random utility theory, the uncertainty is due to the incomplete information of the modeller regarding the utility and/or trade cost parameters. Discrete choice can be assumed within this second linear model. The approach to stochastic utility is based on maximizing linear random utility functions via probabilistic constraints. This allows to deal with both normally and log-normally distributed network link coefficients. The main focus is on the case where the random utility/cost coefficients are independent and identically distributed random variables. Linear random utility in both the first case, where utility/cost is random (or hard to measure), and the second case, where the modeller does not know the utility functions, implies demand for variety. This is different from the outcome under expected linear utility maximization. (Unlike in linear random utility models optimization in this paper is performed before the realization of the random variable, like in models of state dependent utility.) In economic geography the demand for diversity due to linear random utility can explain intra-industry trade between symmetric regions. The outcome of individual stochastic utility optimization coincides with the modeller's predicted solution to an aggregate consumer's income allocation under discrete choice (like in previous work). In addition to the relation to economic geography, the paper is related to recent work on noncooperative network formation under linear utility functions. The main conclusions from the stochastic programming approach to resource allocation in the presence of spatial differentiation can be summarized as follows: (1) A stochastic programming framework for the study of linear random utility models is introduced. The uncertainty in utility can be the consequence of the lack of complete information available either to the modeller or the consumer. In the former case discrete choice can be assumed within this linear model. Unlike in other random linear models, it can be assumed in the stochastic programming framework introduced that any fixed number of varieties (not just one) is demanded. When the utility parameters are i.i.d. normal or lognormal random variables, it is optimal for the representative consumer to demand either all varieties or use all income as money, unless the consumer is restricted to buy at most a single variety. Increasing the product diversity both increases the utility estimated by the modeller and the utility that can be obtained by consumers optimizing stochastic utility. (2) In related work on random utility, the assumption of a joint logconcave distribution of the random utility parameters is a sufficient condition for the existence of a decentralized solution to resource allocation. In this paper it is argued that a logconcave distribution of the random utility/cost coefficients is a sufficient condition for the existence of a Pareto-efficient resource allocation. (3) The linear stochastic programming model in this paper is related to recent work on endogenous network formation under linear utility functions (ref 1). The model in (ref 1) resulting to either an empty network (with no links formed) or a fully connected network (with all possible links) network is extended to firstly allowing for the network link coefficients measuring the decay between the different nodes to be i.i.d. random variables, and secondly, to an endogenous link formation price. In the random utility interpretation, the transactions between a pair of nodes can be interpreted either as communication (ref 1) or more generally as trade in any goods that can be considered substitutes to one another. Ref 1. V. Bala and S. Goyal: "A Noncooperative Model of Network Formation", Econometrica 2000 Ref 2. S. Anderson, A. De Palma and J.-F. Thisse, "Discrete Choice Theory of Product Differentiation"

Suggested Citation

  • Tiina Heikkinen, 2003. "A Random Utility Model of Demand for Variety under Spatial Differentiation," ERSA conference papers ersa03p294, European Regional Science Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa03p294
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www-sre.wu.ac.at/ersa/ersaconfs/ersa03/cdrom/papers/294.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dixit, Avinash K & Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1977. "Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diversity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 67(3), pages 297-308, June.
    2. Pomery, John, 1984. "Uncertainty in trade models," Handbook of International Economics, in: R. W. Jones & P. B. Kenen (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 9, pages 419-465, Elsevier.
    3. Venkatesh Bala & Sanjeev Goyal, 2000. "A Noncooperative Model of Network Formation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(5), pages 1181-1230, September.
    4. Caplin, Andrew & Nalebuff, Barry, 1991. "Aggregation and Imperfect Competition: On the Existence of Equilibrium," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(1), pages 25-59, January.
    5. Greenaway, David, 1987. "The New Theories of Intra-industry Trade," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(2), pages 95-120, April.
    6. Anderson, Simon P. & de Palma, Andre & Thisse, Jacques-Francois, 1988. "The CES and the logit : Two related models of heterogeneity," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 155-164, February.
    7. Paul Krugman & Anthony J. Venables, 1995. "The Seamless World: A Spatial Model of International Specialization," NBER Working Papers 5220, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. Gans, Joshua S. & Hill, Robert J., 1997. "Measuring product diversity," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 145-150, August.
    2. Greenaway, David & Torstensson, Johan, 2000. "Economic Geography, Comparative Advantage and Trade within Industries: Evidence from the OECD," Journal of Economic Integration, Center for Economic Integration, Sejong University, vol. 15, pages 260-280.
    3. Anchorena, José & Anjos, Fernando, 2015. "Social ties and economic development," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 63-84.
    4. Fujita, Masahisa & Thisse, Jacques-François, 2009. "New Economic Geography: An appraisal on the occasion of Paul Krugman's 2008 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 109-119, March.
    5. Boiscuvier, Éléonore, 2001. "Innovation, intégration et développement régional," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 77(2), pages 255-280, juin.
    6. Anderson, Simon P. & de Palma, Andre, 1999. "Reverse discrete choice models," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 745-764, November.
    7. Anderson, Simon P. & de Palma, Andre, 2000. "From local to global competition," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 423-448, March.
    8. Parenti, Mathieu & Ushchev, Philip & Thisse, Jacques-François, 2017. "Toward a theory of monopolistic competition," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 86-115.
    9. Anderson, Simon P. & Renault, Regis, 2003. "Efficiency and surplus bounds in Cournot competition," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 113(2), pages 253-264, December.
    10. F Medda & P Nijkamp & P Rietveld, 1999. "Urban Industrial Relocation: The Theory of Edge Cities," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 26(5), pages 751-761, October.
    11. Mizuno, Toshihide, 2003. "On the existence of a unique price equilibrium for models of product differentiation," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(6), pages 761-793, June.
    12. Gu Yiquan & Wenzel Tobias, 2012. "Price-Dependent Demand in Spatial Models," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 1-26, March.
    13. Tamás Sebestyén & Dóra Longauer, 2018. "Network structure, equilibrium and dynamics in a monopolistically competitive economy," Netnomics, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 131-157, December.
    14. Thisse, Jacques-François & Fujita, Masahisa, 2008. "New Economic Geography: an appraisal on the occasion of Paul Krugman's 2008 Nobel Prize in Economics," CEPR Discussion Papers 7063, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    15. Anderson, Simon P. & de Palma, André, 2024. "Economic distributions, primitive distributions, and demand recovery in monopolistic competition," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).
    16. Thomas J. Holmes, 1996. "Step-by-step migration to efficient agglomerations," Staff Report 221, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
    17. Matveenko, Andrei, 2020. "Logit, CES, and rational inattention," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    18. Giulio Bottazzi & Giovanni Dosi & Giorgio Fagiolo, 2001. "On the Ubiquitous Nature of the Agglomeration Economies and their Diverse Determinants: Some Notes," LEM Papers Series 2001/10, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    19. Simon P. Anderson & André De Palma, 2006. "Market Performance With Multiproduct Firms," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(1), pages 95-124, March.
    20. Paul Krugman, 1998. "Space: The Final Frontier," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 12(2), pages 161-174, Spring.

    More about this item

    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:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa03p294. 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: Gunther Maier (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.ersa.org .

    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.