A model for ordinal responses with heterogeneous status quo outcomes

and Andrei SirchenkoORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0567-4170

Abstract

The decisions to reduce, leave unchanged, or increase a choice variable (such as policy interest rates) are often characterized by abundant status quo outcomes that can be generated by different processes. The decreases and increases may also be driven by distinct decision-making paths. Neither conventional nor zero-inflated models for ordinal responses adequately address these issues. This paper develops a flexible endogenously switching model with three latent regimes, which create separate processes for interest rate hikes and cuts and overlap at a no-change outcome, generating three different types of status quo decisions. The model is not only favored by statistical tests but also produces economically more meaningful inference with respect to the existing models, which deliver biased estimates in the simulations.

    • Supplementary Material
  • Bagozzi, B. E., and B. Mukherjee. 2012. “A Mixture Model for Middle Category Inflation in Ordered Survey Responses.” Political Analysis 20: 369–386.

  • Basu, D., and R. M. de Jong. 2007. “Dynamic Multinomial Ordered Choice with an Application to the Estimation of Monetary Policy Rules.” Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics and Econometrics 11 (4): 1–35.

  • Blinder, A. S. 2004. The Quiet Revolution: Central Banking Goes Modern. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

  • Brooks, R., M. N. Harris, and C. Spencer. 2012. “Inflated Ordered Outcomes.” Economics Letters 117 (3): 683–686.

  • Cragg, J. G. 1971. “Some Statistical Models for Limited Dependent Variables with Application to the Demand for Durable Goods.” Econometrica 39 (5): 829–844.

  • Dolado, J., R. Maria-Dolores, and M. Naveira. 2005. “Are Monetary-Policy Reaction Functions Asymmetric?: The Role of Nonlinearity in the Phillips Curve.” European Economic Review 49 (2): 485–503.

  • Greene, W. H. 2004. “Convenient Estimators for the Panel Probit Model.” Empirical Economics 29 (1): 21–47.

  • Greene, W. H., and D. A. Hensher. 2010. Modeling Ordered Choices: A Primer. Cambridge University Press.

  • Hamilton, J. D. 1989. “A New Approach to the Economic Analysis of Nonstationary Time Series and the Business Cycle.” Econometrica 57 (2): 357–384.

  • Hamilton, J. D., and O. Jorda. 2002. “A Model for the Federal Funds Rate Target.” Journal of Political Economy 110 (5): 1135–1167.

  • Harris, M. N., and X. Zhao. 2007. “A Zero-Inflated Ordered Probit Model, with an Application to Modelling Tobacco Consumption.” Journal of Econometrics 141 (2): 1073–1099.

  • Hartman, R. S., M. Doane, and C.-K. Woo. 1991. “Consumer Rationality and the Status Quo.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 106: 141–162.

  • Hu, L., and P. C. B. Phillips. 2004. “Dynamics of the Federal Funds Target Rate: A Nonstationary Discrete Choice Approach.” Journal of Applied Econometrics 19: 851–867.

  • Kahneman, D., J. L. Knetsch, and R. H. Thaler. 1991. “Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 5 (1): 193–206.

  • Kaminsky, G. L., and C. M. Reinhart. 1999. “The Twin Crises: The Causes of Banking and Balance-of-Payments Problems.” American Economic Review 89 (3): 473–500.

  • Kauppi, H. 2012. “Predicting the Direction of the Fed’s Target Rate.” Journal of Forecasting 31: 47–67.

  • MacKinnon, J. G. 1996. “Numerical Distribution Functions for Unit Root and Cointegration Tests.” Journal of Applied Econometrics 11: 601–618.

  • McKelvey, R. D., and W. Zavoina. 1975. “A Statistical Model for the Analysis of Ordinal Level Dependent Variables.” Journal of Mathematical Sociology 4: 103–120.

  • Piazzesi, M. 2005. “Bond Yields and the Federal Reserve.” Journal of Political Economy 113 (2): 311–344.

  • Poole, W. 2003. “Fed Transparency: How, not Whether.” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review November/December: 1–8.

  • Samuelson, W., and R. Zeckhauser. 1988. “Status Quo Bias in Decision Making.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1: 7–59.

  • Small, K. 1987. “A Discrete Choice Model for Ordered Alternatives.” Econometrica 55: 409–424.

  • Van den Hauwe, R. Paap, and D. van Dijk. 2013. “Bayesian Forecasting of Federal Funds Target Rate Decisions.” Journal of Macroeconomics 37: 19–40.

  • Vovsha, P. 1997. “Application of Cross-Nested Logit Model to Mode Choice in Tel Aviv, Israel, Metropolitan Area.” Transportation Research Record 1607: 6–15.

  • Vuong, Q. 1989. “Likelihood Ratio Tests for Model Selection and Non-Nested Hypotheses.” Econometrica 57 (2): 307–333.

  • Wen, C.-H., and F. Koppelman. 2001. “The Generalized Nested Logit Model.” Transportation Research B 35: 627–641.

  • Wilde, J. 2000. “Identification of Multiple Equation Probit Models with Endogenous Dummy Regressors.” Economics Letters 69 (3): 309–312.

  • Winkelmann, R. 2008. Econometric Analysis of Count Data. 5th edition. Springer.

Purchase article
Get instant unlimited access to the article.
$42.00
Price including VAT
Log in
Already have access? Please log in.


Journal + Issues

SNDE recognizes that advances in statistics and dynamical systems theory can increase our understanding of economic and financial markets. The journal seeks both theoretical and applied papers that characterize and motivate nonlinear phenomena. Researchers are required to assist replication of empirical results by providing copies of data and programs online. Algorithms and rapid communications are also published.

Search