A Comparison of Bayesian and Sampling Theory Inferences in a Probit Model

HE PROBIT MODEL IS A POPULAR DEVICE for explaining binary choice decisions in econometrics. It has been used to describe choices such as labor force participation, travel mode, home ownership, and type of education. These and many more examples can be found in papers by Amemiya (1981) and Maddala (1983). Given the contribution of economics towards explaining such choices, and given the nature of data that are collected, prior information on the relationship between a choice probability and several explanatory variables frequently exists. Bayesian inference is a convenient vehicle for including such prior information. Given the increasing popularity of Bayesian inference it is useful to ask whether inferences from a probit model are sensitive to a choice between Bayesian and sampling theory techniques. Of interest is the sensitivity of inference on coefficients, probabilities, and elasticities. We consider these issues in a model designed to explain choice between fixed and variable interest rate mortgages. Two Bayesian priors are employed: a uniform prior on the coefficients, designed to be noninformative for the coefficients, and an inequality restricted prior on the signs of the coefficients. We often know, a priori, whether increasing the value of a particular explanatory variable will have a positive or negative effect on a choice probability. This knowledge can be captured by using a prior probability density function (pdf) that is truncated to be positive or negative. Thus, three sets of results are compared:those from maximum likelihood (ML) estimation, those from Bayesian estimation with an unrestricted uniform prior on the coefficients, and those from Bayesian estimation with a uniform prior truncated to accommodate inequality restrictions on the coefficients.

Poverty - dynamic and sustainability perspectives: Implications for welfare and policy with reference to India

After outlining some comparative features of poverty in India, this article reviews critically recent literature on the dynamics of poverty. On economic efficiency grounds, it rejects the view that the chronically poor are more deserving than the non-chronic poor of poverty assistance. Mechanisms of households and communities for coping with poverty are discussed. The possibility is raised that where poverty has been persistent that rational methods for coping with it are likely to be well established, and less suffering may occur than for households and communities thrown temporarily into poverty. However, situations can also be envisaged where such rational behaviours deepen the poverty trap and create unfavourable externalities for poverty alleviation. Conflict can arise between programmes to alleviate poverty in poor communities and the sustainability of these communities and their local cultures. Problems posed by this are discussed. Furthermore, the impact of market extension on poor landholders is considered. In contrast to the prevailing view that increased market extension and liberalisation is favourable to poor farmers, it is argued that inescapable market transaction cost makes it difficult for the poor to survive as landholders in a fluid and changing market system. The likelihood of poor landholders joining the landless poor rises, and if they migrate from the countryside to the city they face further adjustment hurdles. Consequently, poor landholders may be poorer after the extension of the market system and only their offspring may reap benefits from market reforms.

Dynamic processes in the contingent valuation of an endangered mammal species

Reports experimental results involving 204 members of the public who were asked their willingness to pay for the conservation of the mahogany glider Petaurus gracilis on three occasions: prior to information being provided to them about the glider and other wildlife species; after such information was provided, and after participants had an opportunity to see live specimens of this endangered species. Variations in the mean willingness to pay are analysed. Concerns arise about whether information provision and experience reveal ‘true’ contingent valuations of public goods and about the choice of the relevant contingent valuation measure.