Evidence against Imposing Restrictions on Hurdle Models as a Test for Simultaneous versus Sequential Decision Making

William Burke

American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2019, vol. 101, issue 5, 1473-1481

Abstract: Agricultural economists frequently employ hurdle models to estimate the determinants of truncated outcomes such as market participation and adoption. A pervasive belief is that restrictions can be placed on hurdle models to test whether the decisions made in the underlying data-generating process occurred sequentially or simultaneously. This article argues against the ability to draw this conclusion and further submits there is a negative correlation between failing to reject these restrictions and sample size. Evidence to support both proposals comes from data collected in a natural setting, as well as simulated data with a known data-generating mechanism.

Keywords: Adoption; Craggit; hurdle models; market participation; sequential decision; simultaneous decision; Tobit (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2019
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (4)

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/ajae/aaz026 (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:101:y:2019:i:5:p:1473-1481.

Access Statistics for this article

American Journal of Agricultural Economics is currently edited by Madhu Khanna, Brian E. Roe, James Vercammen and JunJie Wu

More articles in American Journal of Agricultural Economics from Agricultural and Applied Economics Association Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().