If respondent j chooses the non-GM food, it implies that the utility of choosing the non-GM food
is greater than that of choosing GM food:
U1j > U0j (6)
By assuming the marginal utilities of money (income) for non-GM food and GM food are
identical, i.e. β1 = β0 = β, the probability of choosing non-GM food is:
Prob (Non-GM) = Prob [α1Zj + β1 (Yj - Pngmj) - α0 Zj - β0 (Yj - Pgmj) > 0]
= Prob [(α1 - αo) Zj - β(l,ιιgιrn - Pgmj) + (ε1j - εoj) > 0]
This can be written more compactly as:
Prob (Non-GM) = Prob [α Zj - β(∆P) + εj > 0] (7)
where,
α = (α1 - α0)
∆P = (Pngm - Pgm)
εj = (ε1j - ε0j)
Assume further that the error term has a logistic distribution and it is symmetrical. Therefore, we
can derive the probability of choosing non-GM food as:
Prob (non-GM) = Prob [α Zj - β∆P + ε > 0]
= Prob [- (α Zj - β∆P) < ε] = 1 - Prob [-(α Zj - β∆P) > ε]
= Prob [ε < (α Zj - β∆P)] (8)
Furthermore, with a logistic distribution, ε has a mean of zero and variance π2σ2/3. Normalizing
by σ creates a logistic variable with mean zero and variance n2/3. Equation (8) becomes:
Prob (non-GM) = Prob [θ < (α Zj - β∆P)/ σ] = Ψ [α Zj / σ - (β∆P /σ)] (9)
where θ = ɛ/ɑ, σ is the standard error, Ψ is the cumulative distribution function.
Therefore, by using a logistic distribution, the probability of choosing the non-GM product is:
Prob (non-GM) = [1 + exp (- (α Zj / σ - β∆P /σ))]-1 (10)
More intriguing information
1. Errors in recorded security prices and the turn-of-the year effect2. he Effect of Phosphorylation on the Electron Capture Dissociation of Peptide Ions
3. IMPROVING THE UNIVERSITY'S PERFORMANCE IN PUBLIC POLICY EDUCATION
4. The fundamental determinants of financial integration in the European Union
5. News Not Noise: Socially Aware Information Filtering
6. Government spending composition, technical change and wage inequality
7. AN EXPLORATION OF THE NEED FOR AND COST OF SELECTED TRADE FACILITATION MEASURES IN ASIA AND THE PACIFIC IN THE CONTEXT OF THE WTO NEGOTIATIONS
8. Individual tradable permit market and traffic congestion: An experimental study
9. The Value of Cultural Heritage Sites in Armenia: Evidence From a Travel Cost Method Study
10. Special and Differential Treatment in the WTO Agricultural Negotiations