2009
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8276.2009.01359.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Estimating Structural Change with Smooth Transition Regressions: An Application to Meat Demand

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
11
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
1
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, and more importantly, this result does not hold when accounting for structural breaks. This evidence is in line with the material presented in the literature review where previous studies have found nonlinearity in the prices of several commodities as well; see Roll (1984); Boudoukh et al (2007); Pede et al (2018); Ubilava (2012); Reitz and Westerhoff (2006); Mainardi (2001); Holt and Craig (2006); Holt and Balagtas (2009); and Ubilava and Holt (2013) for instance. In the latter case, there is a good number of price series that when measured in level are I (0), that is they are non-stationary and possess a unit root.…”
Section: Unit Root and Stationarity Testssupporting
confidence: 90%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…However, and more importantly, this result does not hold when accounting for structural breaks. This evidence is in line with the material presented in the literature review where previous studies have found nonlinearity in the prices of several commodities as well; see Roll (1984); Boudoukh et al (2007); Pede et al (2018); Ubilava (2012); Reitz and Westerhoff (2006); Mainardi (2001); Holt and Craig (2006); Holt and Balagtas (2009); and Ubilava and Holt (2013) for instance. In the latter case, there is a good number of price series that when measured in level are I (0), that is they are non-stationary and possess a unit root.…”
Section: Unit Root and Stationarity Testssupporting
confidence: 90%
“…The consequences on food access and security (Debnath et al, 2018), land use allocation, sociopolitical balance and economic growth perspectives (Santeramo et al, 2018) are direct derivations resulting from the oscillation of prices and their patterns toward the mean reversion behavior that the literature finds as well. More relevantly, in the following studies Holt and Craig (2006); Holt and Balagtas (2009); and Ubilava and Holt (2013) provide robust evidence addressing the importance of using nonlinear estimation methods to model commodity price dynamics. As such we also ground our research estimations making use of the Ter€ asvirta's Smooth Transition Autoregressive (STAR) model as we further develop in the next section.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Although comparisons of various types of inverse demand models have not yet produced consensus, the IAIDS model developed by Eales and Unnevehr (1994) and Moschini and Vissa (1992) is by far the most commonly used version. More recently, Goodwin, Harper, and Schnepf (2003) and Holt and Balagtas (2009) employed that model to evaluate the effects of structural change on demand.…”
Section: Theoretical Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While potential structural changes in demand due to new species and/or new sources have received little attention in the literature on seafood demand, there has been ongoing interest in the notion of structural changes in the literature on demand for meat (Dahlgran 1987, Moschini and Meilke 1989, Peterson and Chen 2005, Holt and Balagtas 2009 and for other goods (Ueda andFrechette 2002, Muhammad 2011). Moschini and Meilke (1989) documented structural changes associated with the peak of beef consumption and claimed that signi icant gains in poultry productivity and subsequent reductions in real retail prices represented a change in the structure of meat demand.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Smooth transition regressions have been also used in systems of demand estimation byMoschini and Meilke (1989),Goodwin et al (2003) andHolt and Balagtas (2009), among others.10 Here we suppose that the transition function is the same in all equations because we impose a common regime switching process for all equations.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%