The Interpretation of Coefficients in N-Chotomous Qualitative Response Models*

Researchers in financial accounting often use qualitative response models in choice-based empirical research. Most of this research relies on the familiar techniques of dichotomous probit or logistic regression. Only a limited amount of this research uses n-chotomous qualitative response models such as ordered probit or multinomial logistic regression. A potential explanation for this limited use is that the interpretation of model coefficients in qualitative response models with limited dependent variables (dichotomous or n-chotomous) differs substantially from OLS regression, and econometric texts do not provide a systematic approach to coefficient interpretation. This paper discusses several approaches to interpreting coefficients in n-chotomous qualitative response models. These methods focus on partial derivatives, elasticities of probability, sensitivity analysis, and odds ratios. The methods are applied to the models presented in Thomas (1989) and Mittelstaedt (1989). Additional analyses of the models demonstrate that the methods of interpretation can provide different conclusions or strengthen existing conclusions. The methods provide a better understanding of the directional effects of model coefficients, the relative responsiveness of the probability of choice to changes in the independent variables, and the effects of changes in the independent variables on the probability of choice. These methods should make these models more attractive to researchers interested in choice-based financial accounting research, and allow for a broader range of decision outcomes than that provided by dichotomous qualitative response models.     

Market Size, Trade, and Productivity

We develop a monopolistically competitive model of trade with firm heterogeneity—in terms of productivity differences—and endogenous differences in the "toughness" of competition across markets—in terms of the number and average productivity of competing firms. We analyse how these features vary across markets of different size that are not perfectly integrated through trade; we then study the effects of different trade liberalization policies. In our model, market size and trade affect the toughness of competition, which then feeds back into the selection of heterogeneous producers and exporters in that market. Aggregate productivity and average mark-ups thus respond to both the size of a market and the extent of its integration through trade (larger, more integrated markets exhibit higher productivity and lower mark-ups). Our model remains highly tractable, even when extended to a general framework with multiple asymmetric countries integrated to different extents through asymmetric trade costs. We believe this provides a useful modelling framework that is particularly well suited to the analysis of trade and regional integration policy scenarios in an environment with heterogeneous firms and endogenous mark-ups.     

WHY HAVE SO MANY DISINFLATIONS SUCCEEDED?

Why is it that the achievements of some disinflations from low and moderate peaks are long‐lived, whereas in others the gains in the inflationary front dissipate quickly? Based on an index of the sustainability of disinflations, various competing explanations of what determines sustainability are tested. Three factors, potentially at the top of the list of many researchers, are shown to be insignificant: oil shocks, fiscal policy, and inflation targeting. Nevertheless, other important features such as the exchange rate regime, achieving low inflation rates during the disinflation, and food price shocks are shown to be important variables driving the sustainability records. (JEL E31, E32, E52, E58, F41)     

Savings, Personal Wealth and Risk

In this Briefing Paper we examine the underlying determinants of personal savings behaviour to substantiate our view that the recent fall in savings rates does not imply that it must in future bounce back to some more normal level. On the contrary there are good reasons for believing that savings are more likely to go on falling than to rise.
We argue that consumer behaviour should be related explicitly to personal wealth as well as to disposable income. Personal wealth has risen substantially since 1982: the fall in inflation and long-term interest rates has pushed up gilts' prices; the recovery of profits has sparked off a stock market boom; and the value of the housing stock, which is by far the most important asset held by the personal sector, has started to rise again in real terms. This rise in asset values means that, despite a rise in consumption financed by borrowing, the personal sector balance sheet still in a healthy state, particularly when account is taken of the personal savings now held indirectly via pension funds. These have risen rapidly recently, reducing the need for other long-term savings.
The rise in total wealth has increased savers' tolerance of a fall in net liquid assets (bank and building society deposits etc less borrowing). The willingness to hold a smaller (precautionary) stock of net liquid assets may also reflect a perceived reduction in risk. Financial markets have been much more stable over the period since 1975 than over the preceding eight years, and may now be signalling that the period of adjustment to the shocks and disturbances of the 1970s is drawing to an end. The fall in savings is a worldwide phenomenon. As in the UK it is linked to the fall in inflation and may also be connected with the recovery of the world's major stock markets.