Abstract
AbstractFang and Wang's (2015) Proposition 2 claims generic identification of a dynamic discrete choice model with hyperbolic discounting under exclusion restrictions. We note that Proposition 2 uses a definition of “generic” that does not preclude that a generically identified model is nowhere identified. We provide two examples of models that are generically identified under this definition, but that are, respectively, everywhere and nowhere identified. We then show that the proof of Proposition 2 is incorrect and incomplete. We conclude that Proposition 2 has no implications for identification of the dynamic discrete choice model and suggest alternative approaches to its identification.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
