Differences Between Classical and Bayesian Estimates for Mixed Logit Models: A Replication Study

Journal of Applied Econometrics

Volumn 32, Issue 2, 2017, Pages 470-476

  Elshiewy, Ossama ^a   Zenetti, German ^b   Boztug, Yasemin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GÖTTINGEN   (Germany)

^b HUMBOLDT UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84995691228     PISSN: 08837252     EISSN: 10991255     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jae.2513     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Argentesi E, Filistrucchi L. 2007. Estimating market power in a two-sided market: the case of newspapers. Journal of Applied Econometrics 22(7): 1247–1266.
2. Balcombe K, Fraser I, McSorley E. 2015. Visual attention and attribute attendance in multi-attribute choice experiments. Journal of Applied Econometrics 30(3): 447–467.
3. Burda M, Harding M. 2013. Panel probit with flexible correlated effects: quantifying technology spillovers in the presence of latent heterogeneity. Journal of Applied Econometrics 28(6): 956–981.
4. Chang JB, Lusk JL. 2011. Mixed logit models: accuracy and software choice. Journal of Applied Econometrics 26(1): 167–172.
5. Haan P, Kemptner D, Uhlendorff A. 2015. Bayesian procedures as a numerical tool for the estimation of an intertemporal discrete choice model. Empirical Economics 49(3): 1123–1141.
6. Hensher DA. 2006. How do respondents process stated choice experiments? Attribute consideration under varying information load. Journal of Applied Econometrics 21(6): 861–878.
7. Herriges JA, Kling CL. 1999. Nonlinear income effects in random utility models. Review of Economics and Statistics 81(1): 62–72.
8. Hess S, Train KE. 2011. Recovery of inter- and intra-personal heterogeneity using mixed logit models. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 45(7): 973–990.
9. Huber J, Train KE. 2001. On the similarity of classical and Bayesian estimates of individual mean partworths. Marketing Letters 12(3): 259–269.
10. Jain DC, Vilcassim NJ, Chintagunta PK. 1994. A random-coefficients logit brand-choice model applied to panel data. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 12(3): 317–328.
11. Kleinjans KJ, Van Soest A. 2014. Rounding, focal point answers and nonresponse to subjective probability questions.Journal of Applied Econometrics 29(4): 567–585.
12. McFadden D, Train KE. 2000. Mixed MNL models for discrete response. Journal of Applied Econometrics 15(5): 447–470.
13. Meijer E, Rouwendal J. 2006. Measuring welfare effects in models with random coefficients. Journal of Applied Econometrics 21(2): 227–244.
14. Musalem A, Bradlow ET, Raju SJ. 2009. Bayesian estimation of random-coefficients choice models using aggregate data. Journal of Applied Econometrics 24(3): 490–516.
15. Regier DA, Ryan M, Phimister E, Marra CA. 2009. Bayesian and classical estimation of mixed logit: an application to genetic testing. Journal of Health Economics 28(3): 598–610.
16. Revelt D, Train KE. 1998. Mixed logit with repeated choices: households' choices of appliance efficiency level. Review of Economics and Statistics 80(4): 647–657.
17. Sándor Z, Franses PH. 2009. Consumer price evaluations through choice experiments. Journal of Applied Econometrics 24(3): 517–535.
18. Siikamäki J, Larson DM. 2015. Finding sensitivity to scope in nonmarket valuation. Journal of Applied Econometrics 30(2): 333–349.
19. Train KE. 2001. A comparison of hierarchical Bayes and maximum simulated likelihood for mixed logit. Working Paper, Department of Economics, University of California. Berkeley.
20. Train KE, Sonnier G. 2005. Mixed logit with bounded distributions of correlated partworths. In Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics, Scarpa R, Riccardo A (eds), Springer: Berlin; 117–134.
21. Van Soest A, Vonkova H. 2014. How sensitive are retirement decisions to financial incentives? A stated preference analysis. Journal of Applied Econometrics 29(2): 246–264.
22. Zenetti G, Otter T. 2014. Bayesian estimation of the random coefficients logit from aggregate count data. Quantitative Marketing and Economics 12(1): 43–84.