2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2007.05.025
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Can rejections of weak separability be attributed to random measurement errors in the data?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
22
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
22
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, Diewert and Parkan (1985) and Swofford and Whitney (1994) propose non‐parametric tests for weak separability, but those tests also do not account for the possibility of measurement errors in the data. Elger and Jones (2008) propose a non‐parametric method to determine if violations ofweak separability can be attributed to measurement errors in the observed quantity data, building on Varian (1985). In this paper, we apply their method to additive separability.…”
Section: Non‐parametric Testsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For example, Diewert and Parkan (1985) and Swofford and Whitney (1994) propose non‐parametric tests for weak separability, but those tests also do not account for the possibility of measurement errors in the data. Elger and Jones (2008) propose a non‐parametric method to determine if violations ofweak separability can be attributed to measurement errors in the observed quantity data, building on Varian (1985). In this paper, we apply their method to additive separability.…”
Section: Non‐parametric Testsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We use non‐parametric methods to test for additive separability between consumption and monetary assets. An innovative aspect of our study is that we use a new method, based on Varian (1985) and Elger and Jones (2008), to determine whether or not violations of the necessary and sufficient non‐parametric conditions for additive separability can be attributed to measurement errors in the observed data. The non‐parametric methods used in this study have several advantages relative to parametric tests based on estimating dynamic stochastic general equilibrium models.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…food, housing, beverages) discusses the importance of separability (Elger and Jones, 2008;LaFrance, 1993;Moschini, 2001). In the environmental/ecological literature, it is more common to refer to the (related) problem of 'overlapping' values (Balmford et al, 2011), but the key point remains: those interested in estimating the value of an entire ecosystem, may need to approach the problem from a 'whole ecosystem' perspective (Loomis et al, 2000) -unless it is possible to first establish that individual ecosystem services are separable (in consumption or use), and thus additive.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An alternative testing strategy is explored by Swofford and Whitney (1994), Elger and Jones (2008) and Fleissig and Whitney (2008), who use nonlinear programming methods to solve (iii.1) and (iii.2) simultaneously. is is done by reformulating the problem as a nonlinear minimization problem subject to a number of linear and nonlinear restrictions.…”
Section: (Iv) For All T ∈ T There Exist Numbers S T and U T And Strimentioning
confidence: 99%
“…See, for example, Swofford andWhitney (1987, 1988), Barnhart and Whitney (1988), Patterson (1991), Belongia and Chrystal (1991), Choi and Sosin (1992), Swofford and Whitney (1994), Jones and Mazzi (1996), Cox (1997), Fisher and Fleissig (1997), Rickertsen (1998), Spencer (2002, Whitney (2003, 2008), Swofford (2005), Serletis and Rangel-Ruiz (2005), Jones, Dutkowsky, and Elger (2005), Jha and Longjam (2006), Blundell, Browning, and Crawford (2007), Hjertstrand (2007, 2009), Elger, Jones, Edgerton, and Binner (2008, Elger and Jones (2008), and Drake and Fleissig (2008). 7 We refer to Garey and Johnson (1979) for an introduction into the theory of np-completeness.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%