might make some choices closer substitutes for certain investors. In this
paper we do not address this problem.
6For that reason, one would, for example, expect two adjacent counties
to be closer substitutes than two adjacent states.
7Usually, by including Census Divisions dummies in studies dealing with
choices across the U.S. states.
8Note that what were choices in the CLM are now observations.
9Note that the sector specific characteristics drop out of the next expres-
sion.
10 For example, in a state choice set analysis, introducing dummy variables
for the nine Census Divisions is equivalent to admitting that each investor
restricts his choice set to the particular Census Division where the invest-
ment was observed. The demonstration is provided in Appendix A. Note
also that, in light of this relation, introducing dummies variables for groups
of elemental alternatives is equivalent to estimating the lower levels of a
two-step limited information nested logit.
11This model is extensively reviewed in McFadden & Train (2000).
12See Chen & Kuo (2001)for a proof of this result.
31
More intriguing information
1. The name is absent2. Business Cycle Dynamics of a New Keynesian Overlapping Generations Model with Progressive Income Taxation
3. ENERGY-RELATED INPUT DEMAND BY CROP PRODUCERS
4. A model-free approach to delta hedging
5. Multi-Agent System Interaction in Integrated SCM
6. An Economic Analysis of Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Consumption: Implications for Overweight and Obesity among Higher- and Lower-Income Consumers
7. Group cooperation, inclusion and disaffected pupils: some responses to informal learning in the music classroom
8. Does South Africa Have the Potential and Capacity to Grow at 7 Per Cent?: A Labour Market Perspective
9. DISCUSSION: POLICY CONSIDERATIONS OF EMERGING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES
10. The name is absent