Specification issues and confidence intervals in unilateral price effects analysis

Journal of Econometrics

Volumn 113, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 3-31

  Capps Jr , Oral ^a   Church, Jeffrey ^b   Alan Love, H ^a  

^a TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

Author keywords

AIDS and Rotterdam demand systems; Merger simulation; Unilateral effects

Indexed keywords

APPROXIMATION THEORY; COMPETITION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; COSTS; MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS; STATISTICAL METHODS;

ECONOMETRICS; UNILATERAL EFFECTS;

INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS;

EID: 0346093798     PISSN: 03044076     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0304-4076(02)00164-1     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Alston J., Foster K., Green R. Estimating elasticities with the linear approximate almost ideal demand system. some Monte Carlo results Review of Economics and Statistics. 76:1994;351-356.
2. Baker J. Unilateral competitive effects theories in merger analysis. Antitrust. 11:1997;21-26.
3. Berndt E., Savin N.E. Estimation and hypothesis testing in singular equation systems with autoregressive disturbances. Econometrica. 43:1975;937-957.
4. Buse A. Evaluating the linearized almost ideal demand system. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 76:1994;781-793.
5. Crooke P., Froeb L., Tschantz S., Werden G. Effects of assumed demand form on simulated postmerger equilibria. Review of Industrial Organization. 15:1999;205-217.
6. Davidson R., MacKinnon J. Estimation and Inference in Econometrics. 1993;Oxford University Press, New York.
7. Deaton A., Meullbauer J. An almost ideal demand system. American Economic Review. 70:1980;312-326.
8. Edgerton D. Weak separability and the estimation of elasticities in multistage demand systems. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 79:1997;62-79.
9. Efron B. Bootstrap methods. another look at the jackknife Annals of Statistics. 7:1979;1-26.
10. Efron, B., 1982. The jackknife, the bootstrap and other resampling plans. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia.
11. Freedman D.A., Peters S. Bootstrapping a regression equation. some empirical results Journal of American Statistical Association. 79:1984;97-106.
12. Green R., Alston J. Elasticities in AIDS models. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 72:1990;442-445.
13. Hausman J., Leonard G. Economic analysis of differentiated products mergers using real world data. George Mason Law Review. 5:1997;321-346.
14. Hausman J. Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica. 46:1978;1251-1271.
15. Hausman, J., Taylor, W., 1981. Panel data and unobservable individual effects. Econometrica 49, 1377-1398.
16. Hausman J., Leonard G., Zona J.D. Competitive analysis with differenciated products. Annales d' Economie et Statistique. 34:1994;159-180.
17. Pollak R.A., Wales T.J. The likelihood dominance criterion. a new approach to model selection Journal of Econometrics. 47:1991;227-242.
18. Rayner R. Bootstrapping. p values and power in the first-order autoregression a Monte Carlo investigation The Journal of Business and Economic Statistics. 8:1990;251-263.
19. Rubinfeld D. Market definition with differentiated products. the post/Nabisco cereal merger Antitrust Law Journal. 68:2000;163-182.
20. Theil H. The system-wide approach to microeconomics. 1980;University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
21. Werden, G., 1997a. Simulating unilateral competitive effects from differentiated products. Antitrust 11, 27-30.
22. Werden G. Simulating the effects of differentiated products mergers. a practical alternative to structural merger policy George Mason Law Review. 5:1997;363-386.
23. Werden G., Froeb L. The effects of mergers in differentiated products industries. logit demand and merger policy Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization. 10:1994;407-426.
24. Werden G., Froeb L. Simulation as an alternative to structural merger policy in differentiated products industries. Coates M., Kleit A. The Economics of the Antitrust Process. 1996;65-88 Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.