Semi-parametric estimation of the EASI model: Welfare implications of taxes identifying clusters due to unobserved preference heterogeneity
EASI 模型的半参数估计：偏好异质性聚类与税收福利效应AI 解读 ↓
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明
本页整理公开书目信息，不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成，未完成全文核验，可能有误；具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本，未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要；缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
本页为预印本版本；arXiv 收录、作者填写的期刊信息以及作者既有发表经历，都不单独证明本篇已接收。作者发表记录按 OpenAlex 身份与完整姓名、本站覆盖期刊 ISSN 及正式卷期核对，只展示已核实例，档案仍可能误合并。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录，不合计多个记录；关联记录可能包含正式发表版本，不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零，引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配，同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列，再参考通用方法与发表日期。
分类依据与纠错
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类：摘要明确估计 EASI 需求系统，并据结构需求关系分析税收导致的替代与福利变化。
反馈分类问题
正在核对关联版本…
代码、数据与补充材料
正在核对对应版本的资源…
EASI 模型的半参数估计：偏好异质性聚类与税收福利效应
- 研究问题
- 如何在 EASI 需求系统中刻画不可观测偏好异质性，并在存在删失、同时性内生性和非线性时分析电力税的福利影响？
- 方法与思路
- 作者使用 Dirichlet 过程非参数设定需求系统的随机误差，以识别偏好异质性群组，并将框架应用于哥伦比亚电力消费税分析。
- 材料陈述的贡献
- 摘要称，应用识别出四个偏好群组，其中一个包含样本的百分之九十五；模型显示税收替代效应，并发现较高社会经济阶层平均福利损失更大。
- 阅读关注点
- 应核对误差分布与群组形成机制、内生性和删失的处理，以及 Slutsky 矩阵、预测分布和等价变差如何支持福利解释。
- 阅读边界
- 所给版本为 arXiv 预印本，同行评审与期刊接收未核实；摘要未说明完整识别与先验设定，福利概率和群组结果均限于所述模型及应用。
原文摘要
We provide a novel inferential framework to estimate the exact affine Stone index (EASI) model, and analyze welfare implications due to price changes caused by taxes. Our inferential framework is based on a non-parametric specification of the stochastic errors in the EASI incomplete demand system using Dirichlet processes. Our proposal enables to identify consumer clusters due to unobserved preference heterogeneity taking into account, censoring, simultaneous endogeneity and non-linearities. We perform an application based on a tax on electricity consumption in the Colombian economy. Our results suggest that there are four clusters due to unobserved preference heterogeneity; although 95% of our sample belongs to one cluster. This suggests that observable variables describe preferences in a good way under the EASI model in our application. We find that utilities seem to be inelastic normal goods with non-linear Engel curves. Joint predictive distributions indicate that electricity tax generates substitution effects between electricity and other non-utility goods. These distributions as well as Slutsky matrices suggest good model assessment. We find that there is a 95% probability that the equivalent variation as percentage of income of the representative household is between 0.60% to 1.49% given an approximately 1% electricity tariff increase. However, there are heterogeneous effects with higher socioeconomic strata facing more welfare losses on average. This highlights the potential remarkable welfare implications due taxation on inelastic services.