Identifying Structural Models of Committee Decisions With Heterogeneous Tastes and Ideological Bias
异质偏好与意识形态偏向下委员会决策结构模型的识别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。
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：摘要明确研究委员私人类型的非参数识别与结构估计，并以英格兰银行委员会的利率决策为应用，因此归入结构估计方向。
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…
关注这篇论文的作者
异质偏好与意识形态偏向下委员会决策结构模型的识别
- 研究问题
- 如何利用共同信息的变化，识别造成委员会成员建议分歧的私人类型，并在结构模型中刻画多目标偏好、意识形态偏向与从众激励？
- 方法与思路
- 作者构建包含意识形态偏向和多目标偏好的私人类型模型，分别考虑有无从众战略激励，利用已记录的共同信息变化识别类型分布。
- 材料陈述的贡献
- 摘要称证明两类模型的均衡存在性并识别私人类型分布；实证提供外部委员较少受从众激励影响的部分证据，偏向差异不显著。
- 阅读关注点
- 阅读时应核对共同信息变化支持识别所需的条件、私人类型与均衡的处理、估计实现，以及内外部委员比较中战略激励与偏向的度量。
- 阅读边界
- 摘要未列出完整识别假设、均衡唯一性或估计细节；偏向差异不显著不等于两类委员相同，实证结果也不能直接解释为因果效应。
原文摘要
In practice, members of a committee often make different recommendations despite a common goal and shared sources of information. We study the nonparametric identification and estimation of a structural model, where such discrepancies are rationalized by the members’ unobserved types, which consist of ideological bias while weighing different sources of information, and tastes for multiple objectives announced in the policy target. We consider models with and without strategic incentives for members to make recommendations that conform to the final committee decision. We show that pure-strategy Bayesian Nash equilibria exist in both cases, and that the variation in common information recorded in the data helps us to recover the distribution of private types from the members’ choices. Building on the identification result, we estimate a structural model of interest rate decisions by the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) at the Bank of England. We find some evidence that the external committee members are less affected by strategic incentives for conformity in their recommendations than the internal members. We also find that the difference in ideological bias between external and internal members is statistically insignificant. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.