scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal ArticleDOI

Fuel efficiency and motor vehicle travel: the declining rebound effect

01 May 2007-The Energy Journal (ENERGY JOURNAL)-Vol. 28, Iss: 1, pp 25-51
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors proposed an empirical specification for motor vehicles based on a simple aggregate model that simultaneously determines vehicle-miles traveled (VMT), vehicles, and fuel efficiency.
Abstract: It has long been realized that improving energy efficiency releases an economic reaction that partially offsets the original energy saving. As the energy efficiency of some process improves, the process becomes cheaper, thereby providing an incentive to increase its use. Thus total energy consumption changes less than proportionally to changes in physical energy efficiency. For motor vehicles, the process under consideration is use of fuel in producing vehicle-miles traveled (VMT). Our empirical specification is based on a simple aggregate model that simultaneously determines VMT, vehicles, and fuel efficiency. The coefficient on the lagged dependent variable implies considerable inertia in behavior, with people adjusting their travel in a given year by just 21 percent of the ultimate response to a permanent change. The equation exhibits only mild autocorrelation, giving people confidence that their specification accounts for most influences that move sluggishly over time.

Summary (4 min read)

1. Introduction

  • It has long been realized that improving energy efficiency releases an economic reaction that partially offsets the original energy saving.
  • When vehicles are made more fuel-efficient, it costs less to drive a mile, so VMT increases if demand for it is downward-sloping.
  • Just like income changes, changes in fuel prices affect the share of fuel costs in the total cost of driving, and so the authors also expect them to influence the rebound effect.
  • Future values of the rebound effect depend on how those factors evolve.
  • Section 3 presents their theoretical model and the econometric specification, and section 4 presents estimation results.

2. Background

  • The rebound effect for motor vehicles is typically defined in terms of an exogenous change in fuel efficiency, E. Fuel consumption F and motor-vehicle travel M – the latter measured here as VMT per year – are related through the identity F=M/E.
  • Most studies assume that that travel responds to fuel price PF and efficiency E with equal and opposite elasticities, as implied by the definition of the rebound effect based on the combined variable PM=PF/E. unimportant.
  • Here, autocorrelation and the effects of a lagged dependent variable are measured with sufficient precision to distinguish them; they obtain a statistically significant coefficient on the lagged dependent variable, implying a substantial difference between long and short run.
  • The authors attempt to remedy this in their empirical work.
  • Disaggregate studies tend to produce a greater range of estimates; but those that exploit both cross-sectional and temporal variation are more consistent, finding a long-run rebound effect in the neighborhood of 20-25 percent.

3.1 System of Simultaneous Equations

  • The authors empirical specification is based on a simple aggregate model that simultaneously determines VMT, vehicles, and fuel efficiency.
  • Fuel efficiency is determined jointly by consumers and manufacturers accounting for the price of fuel, the regulatory environment, and their expected amount of driving; this process may include manufacturers’ adjustments of the relative prices of various models, consumers’ adjustments via purchases of various models (including light trucks), consumers’ decisions about vehicle scrappage, and driving habits.
  • The standard definition of the rebound effect can be derived from a partially reduced form of (1), which is obtained by substituting the second equation into the first and solving for M. Denoting the solution by M̂ , this produces: ( )[ ] ( )VMVMMMVMV XXPPMXPXPPMVMM ,,,ˆ,,,,ˆˆ ≡= .
  • (2) We call this equation a “partially reduced form” because V but not E has been eliminated (E being part of the definition of PM); thus the authors still must deal with the endogeneity of PM as a statistical issue.
  • (3) Strictly speaking, the estimation of a statistical model proves associations, not causation.

3.2 Empirical Implementation

  • While most studies reviewed in the previous section are implicitly based on (2), the authors estimate the full structural model based on system (1).
  • Second, the authors allow for behavioral inertia by including the one-year lagged value of the dependent variable as a right-hand-side variable.
  • Variable pf is the log of fuel price; hence log fuel cost per mile, pm, is equal to pf+fint.
  • If variable pm were included only in the form shown in (4), the structural elasticity εM,PM would just be its coefficient in the usage equation, m 1β .
  • Since the other terms in (6) are small, this means that m1β− is approximately the short-run rebound effect at those mean values.

3.3 Variables

  • This section describes the main variables in (4) and their rationale.
  • Next, this equation is interpreted as a partial adjustment model, so that the coefficient of lagged fuel intensity enables us to form a predicted desired fuel intensity for each state in each year, including years after 1977.
  • For their preferred specification, the authors apply a correction assuming that the census counts are accurate and that the error in estimating population between them grows linearly over that ten-year time interval.
  • The authors show them for the original rather than the logged version of variables; they also show the logged version after normalization for those variables that enter the specification through interactions.

4.1 Structural Equations

  • Each table shows two different estimation methods: threestage least squares (3SLS) and ordinary least squares (OLS).
  • In addition, the inclusion in their specification of pm^2 ≡ (pf+fint)2 requires including as instruments those combinations of variables that appear when fint is replaced by its regression equation and (pf+fint)2 is expanded.
  • The negative effect of adults/road-mile can equivalently be viewed as confirmation that increasing road capacity produces some degree of induced demand, a result found by many other researchers.
  • The results also suggest that CAFE regulation had a substantial effect of enhancing the fuel efficiency of vehicles – at its maximum value of 0.35 in 1984, the cafe variable increased long-run desired fuel efficiency by 21 percent.

4.2 Rebound Effects and Other Elasticities

  • And some other elasticities implied by the structural models.
  • Thus differences among OLS results in the literature, and differences between those results and ours, may be caused as much by differences in specification as by endogeneity bias.
  • Thus the rebound effect decreased in magnitude over their sample period; their base specification attributes this decrease mostly to rising incomes but partly to falling fuel prices.
  • 25 This scenario happens to put pm at its sample average, and thus enables us also to see the effect of rising income without falling fuel prices.
  • Combining it with the elasticity of vehicle-miles traveled gives the total price-elasticity of fuel consumption, shown in the last panel of the table.

4.3 Estimates on separate time periods

  • As noted, the authors find the rebound effect to be much smaller when computed for values of per capita income characterizing recent years than when computed for average values over the 36- year estimation period.
  • Furthermore, the coefficient of lagged vma in the usage equation is considerably smaller (0.55 to 0.58) when estimated on these subsamples than when estimated on the full sample.
  • Nevertheless, the summary results in Table 6 clearly show the hypothesized decline in the rebound effect as the authors move from the first two periods to the last period.
  • Except for the first period, the long-run estimates agree closely with these full-model predictions.

4.4 Other Specifications and Estimation Methods

  • As the authors have seen, fuel prices are potentially important for the rebound effect; but their influence depends on a coefficient (that of pm^2) whose estimate is statistically imprecise.
  • The authors also show some 2SLS results for both the full model and this reduced model, in order to examine more carefully whether specification error in the model could be adversely affecting the 3SLS estimates.
  • Third, with 3SLS, the simplified specification is somewhat more conservative than the full specification in predicting how much the rebound effect has declined during the period; but it is more radical in the predicted effect of income because this simplified specification does not use fuel prices to help explain the decline.
  • The third pair of columns in Table 7 shows the results of using a Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) estimator that allows the residuals to be correlated arbitrarily over time and for their variances to vary over time.
  • This results in total fuel consumption responding more sensitively to changes in fuel prices or in the stringency of cafe standards.

4.5 Caveats

  • The authors call attention to three limitations.
  • The posited sources of measurement error are mostly unrelated to their independent variables; and even if they were, their use of fixed effects eliminates the spurious effect of any cross-state relationship that is consistent over time.
  • One might worry that errors in measuring fuel consumption by state could appear in both VMT data (in those states where the VMT estimate is based on fuel consumption) and in fuel efficiency.
  • 33 Second, their estimates, like those of most previous studies, rely on the theoretical restriction that people react to changes in cost per mile in the same way whether those changes arise from variations in fuel prices or in fuel efficiency.
  • It appears that the time-series properties of the usage equation are poorly identified when pf and fint are allowed to have separate effects.

5. Conclusion

  • The authors study supports many earlier findings that the long-run rebound effect, i.e. the elasticity by which changes in fuel efficiency affect the amount of driving, was 20-25% in the U.S. over the last third of the 20th century.
  • The rebound effect is likely to diminish still further as rising incomes reduce the significance of fuel costs in decisions about travel, although this may be offset to some extent by increases in fuel prices.
  • The authors model as estimated can be used to forecast the dynamic adjustment path resulting from specific policies.
  • In urbanized areas, traffic congestion is an endogenous part of the system explaining reactions to changes in fuel efficiency.
  • The degree to which the CAFE regulations have affected fleet fuel efficiency remains uncertain.

Did you find this useful? Give us your feedback

Content maybe subject to copyright    Report

Fuel Efficiency and Motor Vehicle Travel: The Declining Rebound Effect
Kenneth A. Small and Kurt Van Dender*
Department of Economics
University of California, Irvine
Irvine, CA 92697-5100
ksmall@uci.edu, kvandend@uci.edu
*Corresponding author. Tel: 949-824-9698; Fax 949-824-2182
UC Irvine Economics Working Paper #05-06-03
This version: April 10, 2006 (corrected July 17, 2006 and August 18, 2007)
Shorter version published, Energy Journal, vol. 28, no. 1 (2007), pp. 25-51.
Note: the published version lacks the corrections to the bottom panel of Tables 5 and B2,
described here in note 26.
Abstract:
We estimate the rebound effect for motor vehicles, by which improved fuel efficiency causes
additional travel, using a pooled cross section of US states for 1966-2001. Our model accounts
for endogenous changes in fuel efficiency, distinguishes between autocorrelation and lagged
effects, includes a measure of the stringency of fuel-economy standards, and allows the rebound
effect to vary with income, urbanization, and the fuel cost of driving. At sample averages of
variables, our simultaneous-equations estimates of the short- and long-run rebound effect are
4.5% and 22.2%. But rising real income caused it to diminish substantially over the period, aided
by falling fuel prices. With variables at 1997-2001 levels, our estimates are only 2.2% and
10.7%, considerably smaller than values typically assumed for policy analysis. With income at
the 1997 – 2001 level and fuel prices at the sample average, the estimates are 3.1% and 15.3%,
respectively.
JEL codes: Q0, D5, R4, C2
Keywords: carbon dioxide, fuel economy, travel demand, motor vehicle use, rebound effect
Acknowledgment:
This paper is partly based on research sponsored by the California Air Resources Board and the
California Energy Commission, and has been revised with support from the University of
California Energy Institute. We would like to thank S. Jun and C.K. Kim for excellent research
assistance. Earlier stages of this work have benefited from comments by David Brownstone,
David Greene, Winston Harrington, Eric Haxthausen, Jun Ishii, Chris Kavalec, Charles Lave,
Lars Lefgren, Reza Mahdavi, Don Pickrell, and Charles Shulock, among others. We also
appreciate comments at colloquia at Brigham Young University, Catholic University of Leuven,
and Resources for the Future. All errors, shortcomings, and interpretations are our responsibility.
Nothing in this paper has been endorsed by or represents the policy of the sponsoring
organizations.

1
1. Introduction
It has long been realized that improving energy efficiency releases an economic reaction
that partially offsets the original energy saving. As the energy efficiency of some process
improves, the process becomes cheaper, thereby providing an incentive to increase its use. Thus
total energy consumption changes less than proportionally to changes in physical energy
efficiency. This “rebound effect” is typically quantified as the extent of the deviation from
proportionality. It has been studied in many contexts, including residential space heating and
cooling, appliances, and transportation (Greening, Greene, and Difiglio, 2000).
For motor vehicles, the process under consideration is use of fuel in producing vehicle-
miles traveled (VMT). When vehicles are made more fuel-efficient, it costs less to drive a mile,
so VMT increases if demand for it is downward-sloping. That in turn causes more fuel to be used
than would be the case if VMT were constant; the difference is the rebound effect. Obtaining
reliable measures of it is important because it helps determine the effectiveness of measures
intended to reduce fuel consumption and because increased driving exacerbates congestion and
air pollution. For example, the rebound effect was an issue in the evaluation of recently adopted
greenhouse-gas regulations for California (CARB, 2004, Sect. 12.3-12.4). It has played a
prominent role in analyses of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations in the
US and of proposals to strengthen them.
This paper presents estimates of the rebound effect for passenger-vehicle use that are
based on pooled cross-sectional time-series data at the U.S. State level. It adds to a sizeable
econometric literature, contributing four main improvements. First, we use a longer time series
(1966-2001) than was possible in earlier studies. This increases the precision of our estimates,
enabling us (among other things) to determine short- and long-run rebound effects and their
dependence on income. Second, the econometric specifications rest on an explicit model of
simultaneous aggregate demand for VMT, vehicle stock, and fuel efficiency. The model is
estimated directly using two- and three-stage least squares (2SLS and 3SLS); thus we can treat
consistently the fact that the rebound effect is defined starting with a given change in fuel
efficiency, yet fuel efficiency itself is endogenous. Third, we measure the stringency of CAFE
regulation, which was in effect during part of our sample period, in a theoretically motivated
way: as the gap between the standard and drivers’ desired aggregate fuel efficiency, the latter
estimated using pre-CAFE data and a specification consistent with our behavioral model. Fourth,

2
we allow the rebound effect to depend on income and on the fuel cost of driving. The
dependence on income is expected from theory (Greene, 1992), and is suggested by micro-based
estimates across deciles of the income distribution (West, 2004). Just like income changes,
changes in fuel prices affect the share of fuel costs in the total cost of driving, and so we also
expect them to influence the rebound effect.
Our best estimates of the rebound effect for the US as a whole, over the period 1966-
2001, are 4.5% for the short run and 22.2% for the long run. The 2SLS and 3SLS results are
mostly similar to each other but differ from ordinary least squares (OLS) results, which are
unsatisfactory as they strongly depend on details of the specification. While our short-run
estimate is at the lower end of results found in the literature, the long-run estimate is similar to
what is found in most earlier work. Additional estimation results, like the long-run price-
elasticity of fuel demand (-0.43) and the proportion of it that is caused by mileage changes
(52%), are similar to those in the literature.
This agreement is qualified, however, by our finding that the magnitude of the rebound
effect declines with income and, with less certainty, increases with the fuel cost of driving. These
dependences substantially reduce the magnitude that applies to recent years . For example, using
average values of income, urbanization and fuel costs measured over the most recent five-year
period covered in our data set (1997-2001), our results imply short- and long-run rebound effects
of just 2.2% and 10.7%, roughly half the average values over the longer time period. Similarly,
the long-run price elasticity of fuel demand declines in magnitude in recent years and so does the
proportion of it caused by changes in amount of motor-vehicle travel. These changes are largely
the result of real income growth and lower real fuel prices. Future values of the rebound effect
depend on how those factors evolve.
The structure of the paper is as follows. Section 2 introduces the definition of the
rebound effect and reviews some key contributions toward measuring it. Section 3 presents our
theoretical model and the econometric specification, and section 4 presents estimation results.
Section 5 concludes.
2. Background
The rebound effect for motor vehicles is typically defined in terms of an exogenous
change in fuel efficiency, E. Fuel consumption F and motor-vehicle travel M – the latter
measured here as VMT per year – are related through the identity F=M/E. The rebound effect

3
arises because travel M depends (among other things) on the variable cost per mile of driving, a
part of which is the per-mile fuel cost, P
M
P
F
/E, where P
F
is the price of fuel. This dependence
can be measured by the elasticity of M with respect to P
M
, which we denote
ε
M,PM
. When E is
viewed as exogenous, it is easy to show that fuel usage responds to it according to the elasticity
equation:
,,
1
FE MPM
ε
ε
=− . Thus a non-zero value of
ε
M,PM
means that F is not inversely
proportional to
E: it causes the absolute value of
ε
F,E
to be smaller than one. For this
reason, -
ε
M,PM
itself is usually taken as a definition of the rebound effect.
Two of our innovations relate directly to limitations of this standard definition of the
rebound effect. First, the standard definition postulates an exogenous change in fuel efficiency
E.
Yet most empirical measurements of the rebound effect rely heavily on variations in the fuel
price
P
F
,
1
in which case it is implausible that E is exogenous. This can be seen by noting the
substantial differences in empirical estimates of the fuel-price elasticities of fuel consumption,
ε
F,PF
, and of travel,
ε
M,PF
.
2
As shown by USDOE (1996: 5-11), they are related by
ε
F,PF
=
PFEPFEPFM ,,,
)1(
ε
ε
ε
, where
ε
E,PF
measures the effect of fuel price on efficiency. Thus the
observed difference between
ε
F,PF
and
ε
M,PF
requires that
ε
E,PF
be considerably different from
zero. Ignoring this dependence of
E on P
F
, as is done in many studies, may cause the rebound
effect to be overestimated if unobserved factors that cause
M to be large (e.g. an unusually long
commute) also cause
E to be large (e.g. the commuter chooses fuel-efficient vehicles to reduce
the cost of that commute).
A second limitation of the standard definition is that fuel cost is just one of several
components of the total cost of using motor vehicles. Another important component is time cost,
which is likely to increase as incomes grow. If consumers’ response to fuel costs is related to the
proportion of total cost accounted for by fuel, then |
ε
M,PM
| should increase with fuel cost itself
and diminish with income (Greene, 1992). Our specification allows for such dependences.
Furthermore, time costs increase with traffic congestion; we account for this indirectly by
allowing the rebound effect to depend on urbanization, although empirically this turns out to be
1
Most studies assume that that travel responds to fuel price P
F
and efficiency E with equal and opposite elasticities,
as implied by the definition of the rebound effect based on the combined variable P
M
=P
F
/E. See for example
Schimek (1996), Table 2 and Greene et al. (1999), fn. 6.
2
See USDOE (1996, pp. 5-14 and 5-83 to 5-87); Graham and Glaister (2002, p. 17); and the review in Parry and
Small (2005).

4
unimportant. An extension, not attempted here, would be to allow congestion to be endogenous
within the system that determines amount of travel.
Some empirical studies of the rebound effect have used aggregate time-series data.
Greene (1992) uses annual U.S. data for 1957-1989 to estimate the rebound effect at 5 to 15%
both in the short and long run, with a best estimate of 12.7%. According to Greene, failing to
account for autocorrelation – which he estimates at 0.74 – results in spurious measurements of
lagged values and to the erroneous conclusion that long-run effects are larger than short-run
effects.
3
Greene also presents evidence that the fuel-cost-per-mile elasticity declines over time,
consistent with the effect of income just discussed; but the evidence has only marginal statistical
significance.
Jones (1993) re-examines Greene’s data, adding observations for 1990 and focusing on
model-selection issues in time-series analysis. He finds that although Greene’s autoregressive
model is statistically valid, so are alternative specifications, notably those including lagged
dependent variables. The latter produce long-run estimates of the rebound effect that
substantially exceed the short-run estimates (roughly 31% vs. 11%).
4
Schimek (1996) uses data
from a still longer time period and finds an even smaller short-run but a similarly large long-run
rebound effect (29%).
5
Schimek accounts for federal CAFE regulations by including a time
trend for years since 1978; he also includes dummy variables for the years 1974 and 1979, when
gasoline-price controls were in effect, resulting in queues and sporadic rationing at service
stations. These controls reduce the extent of autocorrelation in the residuals.
These aggregate studies highlight the possible importance of lagged dependent variables
(inertia) for sorting out short-run and long-run effects. But they do not settle the issue because
they have trouble disentangling the presence of a lagged dependent variable from the presence of
autocorrelation. Their estimates of these dynamic properties are especially sensitive to the time
period considered and to their treatment of the CAFE regulations.
3
Another study that found autocorrelation is that by Blair, Kaserman, and Tepel (1984). They obtain a rebound
effect of 30%, based on monthly data from Florida from 1967 through 1976. They do not estimate models with
lagged variables.
4
These figures are from the linear lagged dependent variable model (model III in Table 1). Estimates for the log-
linear model are nearly identical.
5
These figures are his preferred results, from Schimek (1996), p. 87, Table 3, model (3).

Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The evidence in favour of Jevons Paradox is far from conclusive, but it does suggest that economywide rebound effects are larger than is conventionally assumed and that energy plays a more important role in driving productivity improvements and economic growth than is normally assumed as discussed by the authors.

860 citations

BookDOI
01 Oct 2012
TL;DR: The Global Energy Assessment (GEA) as mentioned in this paper brings together over 300 international researchers to provide an independent, scientifically based, integrated and policy-relevant analysis of current and emerging energy issues and options.
Abstract: The Global Energy Assessment (GEA) brings together over 300 international researchers to provide an independent, scientifically based, integrated and policy-relevant analysis of current and emerging energy issues and options. It has been peer-reviewed anonymously by an additional 200 international experts. The GEA assesses the major global challenges for sustainable development and their linkages to energy; the technologies and resources available for providing energy services; future energy systems that address the major challenges; and the policies and other measures that are needed to realize transformational change toward sustainable energy futures. The GEA goes beyond existing studies on energy issues by presenting a comprehensive and integrated analysis of energy chalenges, opportunities and strategies, for developing, industrialized and emerging economies. This volume is a invaluable resource for energy specialists and technologists in all sectors (academia, industry and government) as well as policymakers, development economists and practitioners in international organizations and national governments.

812 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the second-best optimal level of gasoline taxation taking into account unpriced pollution, congestion, and accident externalities, as well as interactions with the broader fiscal system is developed.
Abstract: This paper develops an analytical framework to assess the second-best optimal level of gasoline taxation taking into account unpriced pollution, congestion, and accident externalities, as well as interactions with the broader fiscal system. We provide calculations of the optimal taxes for the US and the UK under a variety of parameter scenarios. Under our central parameter values, the second-best optimal gasoline tax is $1.01/gal for the US and $1.34/gal for the UK. Current tax rates are much lower than this in the US and higher in the UK. The calculations are moderately sensitive to alternative parameter assumptions. The congestion externality is the largest component in both nations; revenue-raising needs also play a significant role, as do accident externalities and local air pollution. Potential welfare gains from reducing the current UK tax rate are estimated at nearly one-fourth the production cost of all gasoline used in the UK. Even larger gains could be achieved by switching to a tax on vehicle miles with equal revenue yield. For the US, the welfare gains from optimizing the gasoline tax are smaller, but those from switching to an optimal tax on vehicle miles are very large.

768 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A review of the academic literature from marketing and behavioral science that exa... as mentioned in this paper highlights the important role of marketing in encouraging sustainable consumption, and presents a review of marketing and behavioural science literature that support sustainable consumption.
Abstract: Highlighting the important role of marketing in encouraging sustainable consumption, the current research presents a review of the academic literature from marketing and behavioral science that exa...

650 citations


Cites background from "Fuel efficiency and motor vehicle t..."

  • ...The availability of pro-environmental technologies and resources also can lead to negative spillover effects (Small and Dender 2007; Sorrell, Dimitropoulos, and Sommerville 2009)....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors provide an economic perspective on the range of market barriers, market failures, and behavioral failures that have been cited in the energy efficiency context and assess the extent to which these conditions provide a motivation for policy intervention in energy-using product markets, including an examination of the evidence on policy effectiveness and cost.
Abstract: Energy efficiency and conservation are considered key means for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and achieving other energy policy goals, but associated market behavior and policy responses have engendered debates in the economic literature. We review economic concepts underlying consumer decision making in energy efficiency and conservation and examine related empirical literature. In particular, we provide an economic perspective on the range of market barriers, market failures, and behavioral failures that have been cited in the energy efficiency context. We assess the extent to which these conditions provide a motivation for policy intervention in energy-using product markets, including an examination of the evidence on policy effectiveness and cost. Although theory and empirical evidence suggests there is potential for welfare-enhancing energy efficiency policies, many open questions remain, particularly relating to the extent of some key market and behavioral failures.

603 citations

References
More filters
Book
01 Jan 2001
TL;DR: This is the essential companion to Jeffrey Wooldridge's widely-used graduate text Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data (MIT Press, 2001).
Abstract: The second edition of this acclaimed graduate text provides a unified treatment of two methods used in contemporary econometric research, cross section and data panel methods. By focusing on assumptions that can be given behavioral content, the book maintains an appropriate level of rigor while emphasizing intuitive thinking. The analysis covers both linear and nonlinear models, including models with dynamics and/or individual heterogeneity. In addition to general estimation frameworks (particular methods of moments and maximum likelihood), specific linear and nonlinear methods are covered in detail, including probit and logit models and their multivariate, Tobit models, models for count data, censored and missing data schemes, causal (or treatment) effects, and duration analysis. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data was the first graduate econometrics text to focus on microeconomic data structures, allowing assumptions to be separated into population and sampling assumptions. This second edition has been substantially updated and revised. Improvements include a broader class of models for missing data problems; more detailed treatment of cluster problems, an important topic for empirical researchers; expanded discussion of "generalized instrumental variables" (GIV) estimation; new coverage (based on the author's own recent research) of inverse probability weighting; a more complete framework for estimating treatment effects with panel data, and a firmly established link between econometric approaches to nonlinear panel data and the "generalized estimating equation" literature popular in statistics and other fields. New attention is given to explaining when particular econometric methods can be applied; the goal is not only to tell readers what does work, but why certain "obvious" procedures do not. The numerous included exercises, both theoretical and computer-based, allow the reader to extend methods covered in the text and discover new insights.

28,298 citations


"Fuel efficiency and motor vehicle t..." refers background in this paper

  • ...Haughton and Sarkar (1996) construct such a data set for the 50 U....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors randomly generate placebo laws in state-level data on female wages from the Current Population Survey and use OLS to compute the DD estimate of its "effect" as well as the standard error of this estimate.
Abstract: Most papers that employ Differences-in-Differences estimation (DD) use many years of data and focus on serially correlated outcomes but ignore that the resulting standard errors are inconsistent. To illustrate the severity of this issue, we randomly generate placebo laws in state-level data on female wages from the Current Population Survey. For each law, we use OLS to compute the DD estimate of its “effect” as well as the standard error of this estimate. These conventional DD standard errors severely understate the standard deviation of the estimators: we find an “effect” significant at the 5 percent level for up to 45 percent of the placebo interventions. We use Monte Carlo simulations to investigate how well existing methods help solve this problem. Econometric corrections that place a specific parametric form on the time-series process do not perform well. Bootstrap (taking into account the autocorrelation of the data) works well when the number of states is large enough. Two corrections based on asymptotic approximation of the variance-covariance matrix work well for moderate numbers of states and one correction that collapses the time series information into a “pre”- and “post”-period and explicitly takes into account the effective sample size works well even for small numbers of states.

9,397 citations

Book
01 Jan 1993
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors propose a nonlinear regression model based on the Gauss-Newton Regression for least squares, and apply it to time-series data and show that the model can be used for regression models for time series data.
Abstract: 1. The Geometry of Least Squares 2. Nonlinear Regression Models and Nonlinear Least Squares 3. Inference in Nonlinear Regression Models 4. Introduction to Asymptotic Theory and Methods 5. Asymptotic Methods and Nonlinear Least Squares 6. The Gauss-Newton Regression 7. Instrumental Variables 8. The Method of Maximum Likelihood 9. Maximum Likelihood and Generalized Least Squares 10. Serial Correlation 11. Tests Based on the Gauss-Newton Regression 12. Interpreting Tests in Regression Directions 13. The Classical Hypothesis Tests 14. Transforming the Dependent Variable 15. Qualitative and Limited Dependent Variables 16. Heteroskedasticity and Related Topics 17. The Generalized Method of Moments 18. Simultaneous Equations Models 19. Regression Models for Time-Series Data 20. Unit Roots and Cointegration 21. Monte Carlo Experiments

4,912 citations

Posted Content
TL;DR: A theme of the text is the use of artificial regressions for estimation, reference, and specification testing of nonlinear models, including diagnostic tests for parameter constancy, serial correlation, heteroscedasticity, and other types of mis-specification.
Abstract: Offering a unifying theoretical perspective not readily available in any other text, this innovative guide to econometrics uses simple geometrical arguments to develop students' intuitive understanding of basic and advanced topics, emphasizing throughout the practical applications of modern theory and nonlinear techniques of estimation. One theme of the text is the use of artificial regressions for estimation, reference, and specification testing of nonlinear models, including diagnostic tests for parameter constancy, serial correlation, heteroscedasticity, and other types of mis-specification. Explaining how estimates can be obtained and tests can be carried out, the authors go beyond a mere algebraic description to one that can be easily translated into the commands of a standard econometric software package. Covering an unprecedented range of problems with a consistent emphasis on those that arise in applied work, this accessible and coherent guide to the most vital topics in econometrics today is indispensable for advanced students of econometrics and students of statistics interested in regression and related topics. It will also suit practising econometricians who want to update their skills. Flexibly designed to accommodate a variety of course levels, it offers both complete coverage of the basic material and separate chapters on areas of specialized interest.

4,284 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, a review of some of the relevant literature from the US offers definitions and identifies sources including direct, secondary, and economy-wide sources and concludes that the range of estimates for the size of the rebound effect is very low to moderate.

1,867 citations

Frequently Asked Questions (15)
Q1. What are the contributions mentioned in the paper "Fuel efficiency and motor vehicle travel: the declining rebound effect" ?

The authors estimate the rebound effect for motor vehicles, by which improved fuel efficiency causes additional travel, using a pooled cross section of US states for 1966-2001. 

The question of CAFE ’ s effects remains an interesting area for future research, and the authors believe their approach offers a better chance of resolving it than previous attempts. To make further progress probably requires estimating models that disaggregate the passenger-vehicle fleet into the two categories, cars and light trucks, that are regulated differently under CAFE. 

Obtaining reliable measures of it is important because it helps determine the effectiveness of measures intended to reduce fuel consumption and because increased driving exacerbates congestion and air pollution. 

In their work, the authors eliminate the spurious effects of such crosssectional correlations by using fixed-effects specification, i.e. by including a dummy variable for each state. 

Goldberg (1998) estimates the rebound effect using the Consumer Expenditure Survey for the years 1984-1990, as part of a larger equation system that also predicts automobile sales and prices. 

the stability of the simplified specification lends support to the view that the model is well specified, making 3SLS a suitable estimator. 

Two recent studies use micro data covering several different years, thereby takingadvantage of additional variation in fuel price and other variables. 

Because their model has a dynamic component, it could predict the year-by-year response to such a policy while taking into account projected changes in income and fuel prices — although the reliability of doing so diminishes if projected values lie outside the ranges observed in their data. 

Their best estimates of the rebound effect for the US as a whole, over the period 1966-2001, are 4.5% for the short run and 22.2% for the long run. 

These aggregate studies highlight the possible importance of lagged dependent variables(inertia) for sorting out short-run and long-run effects. 

22 Their implied long-run elasticity of VMT with respect to road-miles is 0.020//(1-0.7907)≈0.1, considerably smaller than the long-run elasticities with respect to lane-miles of 0.8 found by Goodwin (1996, p. 51) and Cervero and Hansen (2002, p. 484). 

In terms of policy, the full specification with 3SLS also happens to be the most conservative approach in explaining their main result, which is that the rebound effect declines with income. 

Thus the average rebound effect in this sample is estimated to be approximately 4.5% in the short run, and 22.2% in the long run.respectively. 

the authors believe that this richer specification is unreliable because it over-fits the data: coefficients on a variable and its lag are in several instances large and opposite in sign, and the predicted desired fuel intensity show implausible oscillations over time. 

the authors believe their base specification is the most suitable one given the short time period over which the authors can observe pre-CAFE behavior.