scispace - formally typeset

Journal ArticleDOI

Do economic restrictions improve forecasts

01 Dec 2004-Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics (Southern Agricultural Economics Assn)-Vol. 36, Iss: 3, pp 549-558

Abstract: A previous study showed that imposing economic restrictions improves the forecasting ability of food demand systems, thus warranting their use even when they are rejected in-sample. This article evaluates whether this result is due to economic restrictions enhancing degrees of freedom or containing nonsample information. Results indicate that restrictions improve forecasting ability even when they are not derived from economic theory, but theoretical restrictions forecast best.
Topics: Degrees of freedom (62%)

Content maybe subject to copyright    Report

DO ECONOMIC RESTRICTIONS IMPROVE FORECASTS?
Authors: Beth Murphy, Research Assistant, Department of Agricultural
and Resource Economics, North Carolina State University.
Bailey Norwood, Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural
Economics, Oklahoma State University.
Michael Wohlgenant, William Neal Reynolds Distinguished Professor,
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, North Carolina
State University.
Paper prepared for presentation at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual
Meeting, Montreal, Canada, July 27-30, 2003
Copyright 2003 by [authors(s)]. All rights reserved. Readers may make verbatim copies of this
document for non-commercial purposes by any means, provided that this copyright notice
appears on all such copies.
The authors would like to thank Terry Kastens for providing the data, computer code, and notes
necessary to replicate his results.
1

DO ECONOMIC RESTRICTIONS IMPROVE FORECASTS?
Using several popular demand systems in conjunction with food consumption data,
Kastens and Brester (KB) show that theory-constrained demand systems forecast better out-of-
sample (hereafter forecast) than their unrestrained counterparts. While at first this seems to
provide some justification for imposing theoretical constraints, it does not address the question of
whether the forecast benefit derives from economic theory or higher degrees of freedom.
Parameter restrictions serve to enhance degrees of freedom regardless of whether the
restrictions are derived from theory or not. Because models with greater degrees of freedom
forecast better, in this paper we ask whether the theory-constrained models in KB forecast better
because the restrictions are “true” or because their degrees of freedom are higher.
1
We wish to
separate the contribution of forecast improvements due to economic theory from that of higher
degrees of freedom.
We use the data from the KB study to re-estimate their models with arbitrary restrictions.
These arbitrary restrictions are not derived from theory, but they increase the degrees of freedom
by an identical amount as the economic restrictions. Results indicate that arbitrary restrictions,
due to more degrees of freedom, do improve forecasts relative to no restrictions. However,
economic restrictions improve forecasts even more, suggesting that there is valuable information
contained in economic theory, and that economic theory has an important role in forecasting.
THE VALUE OF PARAMETER RESTRICTIONS
It may seem strange that theoretical restrictions would be rejected in-sample, and then
reduce forecast errors out-of-sample.
2
Why would theoretical restrictions appear informative out-
of-sample but not in-sample?
3
One reason, based on the concept of sample and non-sample
information, is that economic restrictions improve forecasts because economic theory is
informative. The other explanation, based on degrees of freedom issues, is that any restriction
might improve forecasts, regardless of whether the restriction is true or not.
2

Sample information refers to a set of observations. Theoretical restrictions are a form of
non-sample information. They represent information researchers believe to be true but may not
be reflected adequately in a random sample. The three most popular restrictions; symmetry,
homogeneity, and adding-up are derived from theory of the representative consumer. Their
derivation rests on several assumptions that may be too restrictive. Assumptions commonly made
are that all consumers possess and maximize the same utility function, the parameters of that
function are time-invariant, all consumers face identical real prices, and either all specified goods
must be exhaustive or a subset must be separable (Deaton and Mullbauer).
But restrictions derived from economic theory need not hold perfectly to have value.
Economic restrictions convey information even if none of the above assumptions hold. If beef is
a strong substitute for pork, pork should be a strong substitute for beef. The symmetry condition
ensures this is the case.
4
The point is that theoretical restrictions may convey much information
we know about consumers, even if their parametric representation is not perfectly accurate.
Suppose we wish to estimate a parameter vector β for use in forecasting, and the
prediction errors (either in- or out-of-sample) are an increasing function of the distance between
the true vector β and its estimate
β . The more information contained in β , the smaller this
distance. Information in
is a function of sample and non-sample information. Let the
unrestricted estimate be denoted
and its theory-constrained counterpart be , where only
contains sample information and
β contains sample and non-sample input. When predicting in-
sample observations of the dependent variable, it is possible that sample information may
dominate the non-sample information (the information in theoretical restrictions). Though the
restrictions do reflect reality to some degree, their parametric representation is not exactly true,
and allowing the estimation routine to search unrestricted over all possible value for β results in
significantly smaller [in-sample] prediction errors than if constrained by theory.
ˆ
U
β
ˆ
R
ˆ
ˆ
β
ˆ
R
β
ˆ
U
β
ˆ
3

Now, let us turn to the case where β and are used for forecasting out-of-sample.
Specifically, we focus on the case where observations from earlier dates are used to forecast
future observations. It is likely that the true parameter vector β changes over time due to
changing consumer preferences, model misspecification, and other complexities involved in
econometrics, in ways difficult to capture even with the most advanced random coefficient
estimation techniques. If this is true, then sample information from previous time periods are of
less use in explaining future observations as they were in explaining in-sample observations. But
the value of non-sample information via theoretical restrictions stays the same because theory is
not time dependent. The amount of information in theoretical restrictions, relative to the
information contained in the in-sample observations, is now greater, and the restricted estimates’
forecasting ability, relative to unrestricted estimates, begins to improve.
U
ˆ
R
β
ˆ
Some evidence for this is given in Table 1 using data from KB and their form of the
AIDS model. This table shows the ratio of forecast errors from an unrestricted AIDS model to an
AIDS model with symmetry and homogeneity imposed. With only a one-year-ahead forecast
horizon, the restricted model performed better in some cases and worse in others. Once this
horizon increases, the restricted form has lower errors for all food groups. As the forecast
horizon increases, the theoretically constrained model forecasts better. This may be due to the
economic content of the restrictions, i.e., that the restrictions are theory-based and the theory is
sound.
Restrictions do not have to be based on theory, empirical results, or even make sense to
improve forecasts. Restrictions may improve forecasts simply because they increase the degrees
of freedom (Brieman). As Sawa notes, even if one model is a closer approximation to the true
model analytically, in small samples, models with more degrees of freedom may better represent
the true data generating process. Consider again the data and AIDS model used by KB. In Table
1, an unrestricted AIDS model is compared to a parsimonious AIDS model, where the value of all
4

parameters except for own-price and intercept terms are set to zero. At a one-year horizon, the
unrestrained AIDS model has lower forecast errors for four out of six goods, but at a 1-11 year
horizon, the parsimonious AIDS model has better forecasts for four out of six goods. At longer
forecast horizons, forecast improvements can be obtained simply by increasing the degrees of
freedom. This finding is not isolated; it is generally accepted that models with more degrees of
freedom tend to forecast better.
Consider again one forecast series from the parameter vector
β and one from the vector
. In this case, it is assumed that β is estimated using restrictions not based on theory, but
since restrictions are imposed, the degrees of freedom are higher for
β than . The mean-
squared error of
β from its true value β is the variance of the estimator plus the squared bias,
i.e., . Forecasts from β will be more
accurate than those from
β if . If the restrictions are not true, it
is certainly the case that
. However, since degrees of freedom are higher for
the restricted estimate, it may be that
V
U
ˆ
R
ˆ
R
β
ˆ
R
ˆ
[]
2
β
+
BIAS
U
β
ˆ
R
ˆ
V=
( ) () ()
2
RRRR
2
R
BIASVβ
ˆ
Eβ
ˆ
ββ
ˆ
E +=+
U
ˆ
U
2
RR
VBIASV +<
2
U
2
R
BIAS >
UR
V
R
ˆ
2
U
BIAS
<
, such that the mean-squared error for β is lower
than
β , thus producing better forecasts. A case can be made for V
R
being lower than V
U
. With
more degrees of freedom, the restricted parameter estimates are derived from more observations;
thus, their variability in repeated samples should be smaller (Breiman).
R
ˆ
U
ˆ
The KB study found that models with economic restrictions forecast better than their
unrestrained counterparts. We have just explained how this could occur. First, the economic
theory used to derive those restrictions might be valuable non-sample information, i.e., the theory
might be correct. Second, even if the theory is not correct, restrictions serve to increase degrees
of freedom, and more degrees of freedom could result in more accurate forecasts. Which
explanation is correct? This is an important question to address, because the answer will guide
5

Citations
More filters

Journal ArticleDOI
Abstract: We compare the ability of three preference elicitation methods (hypothetical choices, nonhypothetical choices, and nonhypothetical rankings) and three discrete-choice econometric models (the multinomial logit [MNL], the independent availability logit [IAL], and the random parameter logit [RPL]) to predict actual retail shopping behavior in three different product categories (ground beef, wheat flour, and dishwashing liquid). Overall, we find a high level of external validity. Our specific results suggest that the nonhypothetical elicitation approaches, especially the nonhypothetical ranking method, outperformed the hypothetical choice experiment in predicting retail sales. We also find that the RPL can have superior predictive performance, but that the MNL predicts equally well in some circumstances. experiment.

244 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
Andrew Muhammad1, Richard L. Kilmer2Institutions (2)
Abstract: In this article, we consider the impact of European Union (EU) export subsidy reductions on the U.S. dairy trade. We assume reductions of 36% similar to the 1995 World Trade Organization agreement. The price substitutability between U.S. and EU dairy products is estimated using a Rotterdam-type production model. Past analyses have suggested that EU export subsidy reductions will increase U.S. dairy exports because the removal of EU subsidies will raise EU export dairy prices, rendering U.S. dairy products more competitive on world markets. This is partially true for nonfat dry milk, where our projections indicate an increase of 4.6% in U.S. exports. U.S. cheese, butter, and whey exports, on the other hand, rise by only 0.2, 0.1, and 0.2%, respectively. The main reason for the relatively modest gains is that the U.S. and EU dairy products are independent, not substitutes, for one another in a majority of the countries studied. [JEL classifications: Q17, Q18, F53] © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

8 citations


Posted ContentDOI
Abstract: We compare the ability of three preference elicitation methods (hypothetical choices, non-hypothetical choices, and non-hypothetical rankings) and three discrete-choice econometric models (the multinomial logit, the independent availability logit, and the random parameter logit) to predict actual retail shopping behavior in three different product categories (ground beef, wheat flour, and dishwashing liquid). Overall, across all methods, we find a reasonably high level of external validity. Our results suggest that the non-hypothetical elicitation approaches, especially the non-hypothetical ranking, outperformed the hypothetical choice experiment in predicting retail sales. We also find that the random parameter logit can have superior predictive performance, but that the multinomial logit predicts equally well in some circumstances.

4 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
Alessandro Varacca1, Paolo Sckokai1Institutions (1)
Abstract: In this work, we analyse EU soybean and maize imports using a demand system borrowed from the differential approach to firm theory. Alongside providing own-price and cross-price (i. e. cross-country) elasticities for these two products, we test whether source-specific characteristics exert any influence on complementarity and substitution patterns between international exporters. Specifically, we look at country differences stemming from supply chain efficiency and the asynchronous approval of Genetically Modified (GM) varieties. We do so by introducing two measurements for such features into a linear demand model specified by Laitinen and Theil (1978). Estimation results suggest that the EU import structure is not affected by differences in supply chain efficiency between overseas suppliers while, depending on the product, asynchronous approval does seem to have an influence. We find that imports of maize are more sensitive than those of soybeans to differences in approval statuses between international exporters and the EU. Since soybean availability is a limiting factor for the EU feed industry, avoiding stock shortages may be a priority for European importers, hence the weaker effect of asynchronous approval. On the other hand, the substantial EU self-sufficiency for maize places more emphasis on product characteristics and prices.

1 citations


Posted Content
Andrew Muhammad1Institutions (1)
Abstract: Given the importance of EU demand for chilled fish fillets to the exporting sectors in Tanzania and Uganda, this study estimated the EUs import demand for fillets by country of origin to assess the competitiveness of exporters. Results imply that prices in Tanzania and Uganda had an insignificant impact on total imports expenditures in the EU. Conditional and unconditional cross-price effects indicated that exports from Lake Victoria did not compete with exports from other suppliers, such as Iceland, Norway and ROW. Import demand forecasts showed that market share in the EU should remain relatively unchanged given the trend in prices.

1 citations


References
More filters

Posted Content
Abstract: Ever since Richard Stone (1954) first estimated a system of demand equations derived explicitly from consumer theory, there has been a continuing search for alternative specifications and functional forms. Many models have been proposed, but perhaps the most important in current use, apart from the original linear expenditure system, are the Rotterdam model (see Henri Theil, 1965, 1976; Anton Barten) and the translog model (see Laurits Christensen, Dale Jorgenson, and Lawrence Lau; Jorgenson and Lau). Both of these models have been extensively estimated and have, in addition, been used to test the homogeneity and symmetry restrictions of demand theory. In this paper, we propose and estimate a new model which is of comparable generality to the Rotterdam and translog models but which has considerable advantages over both. Our model, which we call the Almost Ideal Demand System (AIDS), gives an arbitrary first-order approximation to any demand system; it satisfies the axioms of choice exactly; it aggregates perfectly over consumers without invoking parallel linear Engel curves; it has a functional form which is consistent with known household-budget data; it is simple to estimate, largely avoiding the need for non-linear estimation; and it can be used to test the restrictions of homogeneity and symmetry through linear restrictions on fixed parameters. Although many of these desirable properties are possessed by one or other of the Rotterdam or translog models, neither possesses all of them simultaneously. In Section I of the paper, we discuss the theoretical specification of the AIDS and justify the claims in the previous paragraph. In Section II, the model is estimated on postwar British data and we use our results to test the homogeneity and symmetry restrictions. Our results are consistent with earlier findings in that both sets of restrictions are decisively rejected. We also find that imposition of homogeneity generates positive serial correlation in the errors of those equations which reject the restrictions most strongly; this suggests that the now standard rejection of homogeneity in demand analysis may be due to insufficient attention to the dynamic aspects of consumer behavior. Finally, in Section III, we offer a summary and conclusions. We believe that the results of this paper suggest that the AIDS is to be recommended as a vehicle for testing, extending, and improving conventional demand analysis. This does not imply that the system, particularly in its simple static form, is to be regarded as a fully satisfactory explanation of consumers' behavior. Indeed, by proposing a demand system which is superior to its predecessors, we hope to be able to reveal more clearly the problems and potential solutions associated with the usual approach.

4,474 citations


Journal ArticleDOI

539 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
Abstract: Some decision rules for discriminating among alternative regression models are proposed and mutually compared. They are essentially based on the Akaike Information Criterion as well as the Kullback-Leibler Information Criterion (KLIC) : namely, the distance between a postulated model and the true unknown structure is measured by the KLIC. The proposed criteria combine the parsimony of parameters with the goodness of fit. Their relationships with conventional criteria are discussed in terms of a new concept of unbiasedness .

369 citations


Book ChapterDOI
01 Jan 2001
Abstract: This paper is concerned with testing for causation, using the Granger definition, in a bivariate time-series context. It is argued that a sound and natural approach to such tests must rely primarily on the out-of-sample forecasting performance of models relating the original (non-prewhitened) series of interest. A specific technique of this sort is presented and employed to investigate the relation between aggregate advertising and aggregate consumption spending. The null hypothesis that advertising does not cause consumption cannot be rejected, but some evidence suggesting that consumption may cause advertising is presented.

297 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
Leo Breiman1Institutions (1)
Abstract: When a regression problem contains many predictor variables, it is rarely wise to try to fit the data by means of a least squares regression on all of the predictor variables. Usually, a regression equation based on a few variables will be more accurate and certainly simpler. There are various methods for picking “good” subsets of variables, and programs that do such procedures are part of every widely used statistical package. The most common methods are based on stepwise addition or deletion of variables and on “best subsets.” The latter refers to a search method that, given the number of variables to be in the equation (say, five), locates that regression equation based on five variables that has the lowest residual sum of squares among all five variable equations. All of these procedures generate a sequence of regression equations, the first based on one variable, the next based on two variables, and so on. Each member of this sequence is called a submodel and the number of variables in the e...

253 citations