Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T13:36:41.728Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Restrictions on the Effects of Preference Variables in the Rotterdam Model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Mark G. Brown  and
Jonq-Ying Lee
Mark G. Brown
Affiliation:
Economic and Market Research Department, Florida Department of Citrus, University of Florida, Gainesville
Jonq-Ying Lee
Affiliation:
Economic and Market Research Department, Florida Department of Citrus, University of Florida, Gainesville
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examines imposing and testing restrictions on preference variables in the Rotterdam model through the impacts of these variables on marginal utilities. An empirical analysis of the impact of a female labor force participation variable in a Rotterdam demand system for fresh fruit illustrates the methodology. This variable was modeled through its impact on marginal utilities via “adjusted” prices, following theoretical work by Basmann and Barten, among others. Results show that the female labor participation has negatively impacted the demands for citrus, while positively impacting the demands for other fresh fruit.

Keywords

demanddemographicfresh fruitRotterdam model
Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , April 2002 , pp. 17 - 26
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barnett, W.A. (1984). “On the Flexibility of the Rotterdam Model: A First Empirical Look.” European Economic Review 24:285–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barten, A.P. (1964a). “Consumer Demand Functions Under Conditions of Almost Additive Preferences.” Econometrica 32:1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barten, A.P. (1964b). “Family Composition, Prices and Expenditure Patterns,” in Hart, P. E., Mills, G., and Whitaker, J. K. (eds.), Econometric Analysis for National Economic Planning, London: Butterworth.Google Scholar
Barten, A.P. (1969). “Maximum Likelihood Estimation of a Complete System of Demand Equations.” European Economic Review 1:7–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barten, A.P. (1977). “The Systems of Consumer Demand Functions Approach: A Review.” Econometrica 45:23–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basmann, R.L. (1956). “A Theory of Demand with Variable Preferences.” Econometrica 24:47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bewley, R. (1986). Allocation Models: Specification, Estimation and Applications, Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Berndt, E.R., and Savin, N. E. (1975). “Estimation and Hypothesis Testing in Singular Equation Systems with Autoregressive Disturbances.” Econometrica, 43:937–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, M., and Lee, J. (1993). “Alternative Specifications of Advertising in the Rotterdam Model.” European Review of Agricultural Economics 20:419–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, M., Behr, R. and Lee, J. (1994). “Conditional Demand and Endogeneity: A Case Study of Demand for Juice Products.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 19:129–140.Google Scholar
Brown, M., and Lee, J. (1997). “Incorporating Generic and Brand Advertising Effects in the Rotterdam Demand System.” International Journal of Advertising 16:211–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byron, R.P. (1984). “On the Flexibility of the Rotterdam Model.” European Economic Review 24:273–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deaton, A.S. and Muellbauer, J. (1980). Economics and Consumer Behavior, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffy, M.H. (1987). “Advertising and the Inter-Product Distribution of Demand.” European Economic Review 31:1051–1070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffy, M. H. (1989). “Measuring the Contribution of Advertising to Growth in Demand: An Econometric Accounting Framework.” International Journal of Advertising 8:95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, F.M. and Shell, K. (1971). “Taste and Quality Change in the Pure Theory of the True Cost of Living Index,” in Griliches, Z. (ed.), Price Indexes and Quality Change: Studies in New Methods of Measurement, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Florida Agricultural Statistics Service. Citrus Summary, various issues. Orlando, Florida.Google Scholar
Goldberger, A. S. (1964). Econometric Theory, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
Hanemann, W.M. (1982). “Quality and Demand Analysis,” in Rausser, G.C. (ed.), New Directions in Econometric Modeling and Forecasting in U.S. Agriculture, New York: Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. (North Holland Publishing Company).Google Scholar
Hanemann, W.M. (1984). “Discrete/Continuous Models of Consumer Demand.” Econometrica 52:541–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ichimura, S. (1950-51). “A Critical Note on the Definition of Related Goods.” Review of Economic Studies 18:179–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keuzenkamp, H. A. and Barten, A. P. (1995). “Rejection without Falsification on the History of Testing the Homogeneity Condition in the Theory of Consumer Demand.” Journal of Econometrics 67:103–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mountain, D. C. (1988). “The Rotterdam Model: An Approximation in Variable Space.” Econometrica 56:477–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phlips, L. (1974). Applied Consumer Demand Analysis, Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Pollak, R.A. and Wales, T.J. (1992). Demand System Specification and Estimation, New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selvanathan, E. A. (1989). “Advertising and Consumer Demand: A Differential Approach.” Economic Letters 31:215–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theil, H. (1971). Principles of Econometrics. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (North-Holland Publishing Company).Google Scholar
Theil, H. (1975). Theory and Measurement of Consumer Demand, Vol. I. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Theil, H. (1976). Theory and Measurement of Consumer Demand, Vol. II. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Theil, H. (1980a). System- Wide Explorations in International Economics, Input-Output Analysis, and Marketing Research, New York: North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Theil, H. (1980b). The System-Wide Approach to Microeconomics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Tintner, G. (1952). “Complementarity and Shifts in Demand.” Metroeconomica 4:1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (October 1999). Fruit and Tree Nuts, Situation and Outlook Yearbook. Washington, DC.Google Scholar