## A brief mathematical revision of the Ramsey Model

We mentioned in the last post the Solow-Swan model in order to explain the importance of the specification related to theories and the regression analysis. In this post, I’m going to explain a little bit more the neoclassical optimization related to consumption, in this case, it’s going to be fundamental to the theory of Ramsey (1928) related to the behavior of savings & consumption.

We declare first some usual assumptions, like closed economy XN=0, net investment equals I=K-δK where δ is a common depreciation rate of the economy for all kinds of capital. There’s no government spending in the model so G=0. And finally, we’re setting a function which is going to capture the individual utility u(c) given by:

This one is referred to as the constant intertemporal elasticity function of the consumption c over time t. The behavior of this function can be established as:

This is a utility function with a concave behavior, basically, as consumption in per capita terms is increasing, the utility also is increasing, however, the variation relative to the utility and the consumption is decreasing until it gets to a semi-constant state, where the slope of the points c1 and c2 is going to be decreasing.

We can establish some results of the function here, like

And that

That implies that the utility at a higher consumption point is bigger than on a low consumption point, but the variation of the points is decreasing every time.

The overall utility function for the whole economy evaluated at a certain time can be written as:

Where U is the aggregated utility of the economy at a certain time (t=0), e is the exponential function, ρ is the intergenerational discount rate of the consumption (this one refers to how much the individuals discount their present consumption related to the next generations) n is the growth rate of the population, t is the time, and u(c) is our individual utility function, dt is just the differential which indicates what are we integrating.

Think of this integral as a sum. You can aggregate the proportion of individual utilities at a respective time considering the population size, but also you need to bring back to the present the utility of other generations which are far away from our time period, this is where ρ enters and its very familiar to the role of the interest rate in the present value in countability.

This function is basically considering all time periods for the sum of individuals’ utility functions, in order to aggregate the utility of the economy U (generally evaluated at t=0).

This is our target function because we’re maximizing the utility, but we need to restrict the utility to the income of the families. So, in order to do this, the Ramsey model considers the property of the financial assets of the Ricardian families. This means that neoclassical families can have a role in the financial market, having assets, obtaining returns or debts.

The aggregated equation to the evolution of financial assets and bonuses B is giving by:

Where the left-side term is the evolution of all of the financial assets of the economy over time, w refers to the real rate of the wages, L is the aggregate amount of labor, r is the interest rate of return of the whole assets in the economy B, and finally, C is the aggregated consumption.

The equation is telling us that the overall evolution of the total financial assets of the economy is giving by the total income (related to the amount of wages multiplied the hours worked, and the revenues of the total stock of financial assets) minus the total consumption of the economy.

We need to find this in per capita terms, so we divide everything by L

And get to this result.

Where b=B/L and c is the consumption in per capita terms.  Now we need to find the term with a dot on B/L, and to do this, we use the definition of financial assets in per capita terms given by:

And now we difference respect to time. So, we got.

We solve the derivate in general terms as:

And changing the notation with dots (which indicate the variation over time):

We have

We separate fractions and we got:

Finally, we have:

Where we going to clear the term to complete our equation derived from the restriction of the families.

And we replace equation (2) into equation (1). And we have

To obtain.

This is the equation to find the evolution of financial assets in per capita terms, where we can see it depends positively on the rate of wages of the economy and the interest rate of returns of the financial assets, meanwhile it depends negatively on the consumption per capita and the growth rate of the population.

The maximization problem of the families is giving then as

Where we assume that b(0)>0 which indicates that at the beginning of the time, there was at least one existing financial asset.

We need to impose that utility function is limited, so we state:

Where in the long run, the limit of utility is going to equal 0.

Now here’s the tricky thing, the use of dynamical techniques of optimization. Without going into the theory behind optimal control. We can use the Hamiltonian approach to find a solution to this maximization problem, the basic structure of the Hamiltonian is the following:

H(.) = Target Function + v (Restriction)

We first need to identify two types of variables before implementing it in our exercise, the control variable, and the state variable. The control variable is the one that focuses on the agent which is a decision-maker, (in this case, the consumption is decided by the individual, and the state variable is the one relegated in the restriction). The state variable is the financial assets or bonus b. Now the term v is the dynamic multiplier of Lagrange, consider it, as the shadow price of the financial assets in per capita terms, and it represents an optimal change in the individual utility given by one extra unit of the assets.

We’re setting what is inside of our integral as our objective, and our restriction remains the same and the Hamiltonian is finally written as:

The first-order conditions are giving by:

One could ask why we’re setting the partial derivates as this? Well, it’s part of the optimum control theory, but in sum, the control variable is set to be maximized (that’s why it’s equally to 0) but our financial bonus (the state variable) needs to be set negatively to the shadow prices of the evolution of the bonus because we need to find a relationship where for any extra financial asset in time we’ll decrease our utility.

The solution of the first-order condition dH/dc is giving by:

To make easier the derivate we can re-express:

To have now:

Solving the first part we got:

To finally get:

Now solving the term of the first-order condition we obtain:

thus the first-order condition is:

Now let’s handle the second equation of first-order condition in dH/db.

Which is a little bit easier since:

So, it remains:

Thus we got.

And that’s it folks, the result of the optimization problem related to the first-order conditions are giving by

Let’s examine these conditions: the first one is telling us that the shadow price of the financial assets in per capita terms it’s equal to the consumption and the discount factor of the generations within the population grate, some better interpretation can be done by using logarithms. Lets applied them.

let’s differentiate respect to time and we get:

Remember that the difference of logarithms it’s equivalent approximately to a growth rate, so we can write this another notation.

Where

In equation (4) we can identify that the growth rate of the shadow prices of the financial assets is negatively related to the discount rate ρ, and the growth rate of consumption. (in the same way, if you clear the consumption from this equation you can find out that is negatively associated with the growth rate of the shadow prices of the financial assets). Something interesting is that the growth rate of the population is associated positively with the growth in the shadow prices, meaning that if the population is increasing, some kind of pull inflation is going to rise up the shadow prices for the economy.

If we multiply (4) by -1, like this

and replace it in the second equation of the first order which is

Multiplied by both sides by v, we get

Replacing above equations drive into:

Getting n out of the equation would result in:

Which is the Euler equation of consumption!

## References

Mankiw, N. G., Romer, D., & Weil, N. D. (1992). A CONTRIBUTION TO THE EMPIRICS OF ECONOMIC GROWTH. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 407- 440.

Ramsey, F. P. (1928). A mathematical theory of saving. Economic Journal, vol. 38, no. 152,, 543–559.

Solow, R. (1956). A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 70, No. 1 (Feb., 1956),, 65-94.

## Building Traditional Food Knowledge: An approach to Food Security through North-South dialogue.

• A forthcoming book chapter as part of compiled book (2020) on ´´Food (In) Security in the Arctic: Contribution of Traditional and Local Food to promote Food Security´´. The book chapter cites recommendations to inform policy on food (in) Security .It discusses a special focus on the inclusion of indigenous communities in integrated resource management processes; where the use of local knowledge in addressing food security is explored. The inclusion of resource dependent communities in processes of spatial planning, integrated natural resource management is discussed. Bio cultural diversity is briefly discussed within the context of perceptions and governance practices in relation to regimes of dynamic, changing societal influences including social-spatial, political and socio-economic processes, linked to globalization that influence dynamics in food security in the global north and south. Key messages arise within the empirical survey that raise important issues on food security and governance linked to the bio cultural diversity web. It raises issues related to Indigenous populations which have through the years made a case of their engagement with the bio cultural web through land governance approaches in the provision of secure regimes of food.

## The holy grail in econometrics.

In the last month, while I was researching through the literature of the military expenditure and economic growth, I found a little statement from an article, which appointed one of the things less discussed in econometrics, such statement is:

“The Holy Grail of applied econometrics is a tight theoretical model, which fits the data well. Like the Holy Grail, such models are hard to find.” (Dunne, Smith, & Willenbockel, 2005)

When one, as a researcher meditate this, one really knows that matching theoretical models with regression equations it’s indeed hard. Even when econometrics can be defined as the measure and validation part of the economic science, the relationships which are addressed to study are not exactly as accurate as the theory states.

I want to put an example, let’s see the conclusions of the Solow Swan (1956) model with technology. which are compiled in the next equation.

Where Y/L is the gross domestic product -GDP- of the economy measured in per capita units, A is a level of technology, α is the elasticity of the aggregate stock of capital of the economy, s is an exogenous saving rate, δ is the depreciation rate, x is the growth rate of the technology, and n is the growth rate of the population.

The term ε is just added as the stochastic error in the equation to proceed with the regression analysis, which theoretically is defined as independent of the variables in the regression and represents external shocks in the per capita product. However, if this doesn’t happen in the time series context, it could be possible that this term contains all the variables not included in the regression, therefore violating the exogeneity assumption and inducing an omitted variable bias with misspecification.

Basically, the model is telling us that the growth of the economy is positively given by the technology and the rate of saving of the economy which is invested in physical capital.

Now the Augmented Solow-Model proposed by Mankiw, Romer & Weil (1992) also known as the MRW model, concludes the following:

Where we got some new terms denoted with β as the elasticity of the aggregate stock of human capital in the production function, and separated terms of the savings, denoted by s_k as the saving rate dedicated to the accumulation of physical capital and s_h which is the saving rate dedicated to the accumulation of human capital.

The Augmented Model proposed by Mankiw, Romer & Weil has more variables in the specification of the growth of the economy.

Which one is correct? The answer relies on the regressions they have performed with both models, in general, the augmented model explains better the economic growth and the convergence of the economies than the simple Solow-Swan model.

The simple Solow-Swan model has a problem in the specification and an omitted variable problem, the augmented Solow-Swan model correct this by introducing the measure and importance of human capital accumulation. Both are theoretical constructions, but the augmented model fits better in reality than the original model.

Going further, one could ask if it would be wrong to consider all variables as endogenous? In the last two models, we have seen that the savings of physical or human capital are exogenous along with the growth rate of technology, but more theoretical considerations, like the Ramsey (1928) model could determinate the savings as endogenous, even the depreciation and the technology can be endogenized,  so regressing the above equation with two-stage or three-stage least squares would be the best approach.

Considering this set of ideas, econometricians then will have to face a difficult situation when the theoretical approach might not be suitable for the reality of the sample, and I say this because this is a complex world, where a single explanation for all the situations is not plausible.

We need to remember also, that the whole objective of the theory is to explain reality, and if this theory fails to succeed in this objective, even the most logical explanation would be useless. Something completely out of sense is to modify reality to match with the theory.

The holy grail then would be the adequacy of the theory with the reality, and in econometrics, this means that we need to find a strong theoretical framework that matches our data generating process. But the validation techniques should have some logical approaches considering the assumptions of the regression.

Going backward, before theory and empirical methods, we are interested in finding the truth, and this truth goes from discovery existing or non-existing relationships and causality, in order to explain reality. Such findings, even when they start from a deviated or wrong approach are useful to build the knowledge.

A great example of this is the Phillip’s Curve (Phillips, 1958), it started as an empirical fact which correlated positive rates of inflation with employment, and then it began to be strongly study on Phelps (1967) and Friedman (1977) with more theoretical concepts as rational expectations over the phenomenon of inflation.

Econometricians should then do research with logical economic sense when they are heading to estimate relationships, but have to be aware that samples and individuals are not the same in the space (they change according to locations and the time itself). However, the theoretical framework is the main basis we need to always consider during the economic research, but also remember we can propose a new theoretical framework, to explain the reality on the basis of facts and past theories.

### Bibliography

Dunne, J., Smith, R. P., & Willenbockel, D. (2005). MODELS OF MILITARY EXPENDITURE AND GROWTH: A CRITICAL REVIEW. Defence and Peace Economics, Volume 16, 2005 – Issue 6, 449-461.

Friedman. (1977). Nobel Lecture Inflation and Unemployment. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 85, No. 3 (Jun., 1977), 451-472.

Kwat, N. (2018). The Circular Flow of Economic Activity. Obtenido de Economics Discussion: http://www.economicsdiscussion.net/circular-flow/the-circular-flow-of-economic-activity/18159

Mankiw, N. G., Romer, D., & Weil, N. D. (1992). A CONTRIBUTION TO THE EMPIRICS OF ECONOMIC GROWTH. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 407- 440.

Marmolejo, I. (2012). Indifference Curve Confusion and Possible Critique. Obtenido de Radical Subjectivist: https://radicalsubjectivist.wordpress.com/2012/02/10/indifference-curve-confusion-and-possible-critique/

Nicholson, W. (2002). Microeconomic Theory. México D.F.: Thompson Learning.

Phelps, E. (1967). Phillips Curves, Expectations of Inflation and Optimal Unemployment over Time . Economica, New Series, Vol. 34, No. 135 (Aug., 1967), 254-281.

Phillips, A. W. (1958). The Relation between Unemployment and the Rate of Change of Money Wage Rates in the United Kingdom, 1861-1957. Economica, New Series, Vol. 25, No. 100. (Nov., 1958),, 283-299.

Ramsey, F. P. (1928). A mathematical theory of saving. Economic Journal, vol. 38, no. 152,, 543–559.

Solow, R. (1956). A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 70, No. 1 (Feb., 1956),, 65-94.

## Children Marriage: Alarming & Unattended Phenomenon in the Middle East

A forthcoming paper has used MICS UNICEF Survey Data for a sample of three Middle Eastern countries: Egypt, Sudan, and Palestine and employed Multilevel logistic regression to empirically investigate the impact of child marriage on a large set of women and children health-related indicators. The results showed that child marriage is generally associated with giving birth to children with higher under-five mortality rates. Also, women who marry before reaching the age of 18 are less likely to receive any form of antenatal care and more likely to give birth to children who later die.

Governments and public communities should pay close attention to improving the widespread, availability and affordability of education for girls and women nationwide regardless of the women’s residence area and levels of income. Subsidizing and income transfer programs should make sure that girls continue their education and do not leave schools due to income constraints. Availability and reachability of schools especially for girls living in slums or refugee camps that are located outside the peripheral areas of public services should be improved and families need to be constantly advised and guided about the importance of education to their children.

Within the MENA region that has the lowest global share of female literacy, Palestinian women are classified as the best-educated (The Royal Academy of Science International Trust [RASIT], 2017). Our analysis suggests that the better educational attainment of Palestinian women explains the low prevalence of child marriage and having relatively lower health deprivations relative to their counterparts in the other countries. Better educated women are not only capable of better caring about their health and the health of their children but also they are better wives, citizens and a catalyst for the development of their countries. As narrated by Hafez Ibrahim the Nile poet in his poem about knowledge and morals (Ibrahim, 1937): “A mother is a school, whenever you equipped her well, you prepared a nation with a fine race”.

Reference: Hassan, S.M and Khan, M. (2020). Health Repercussions of Child Marriage on Middle-Eastern Mothers and Their Children. MSR working papers, 001-2020.

## The budget constraints in the microeconomic approach

Following the last post which gave an example to model the Cobb-Douglas utility function regarding microeconometrics, we need to provide an important aspect related to the behavior of the consumer. That is the budget constraint (referred to as a monetary linear constraint) which limits the number of goods that the consumer can buy and use to get a certain level of utility.

In this article, I want to start with an introduction of the basic concept of budget constrain related to the income in microeconomics, and that’s the linear constraint given a set of quantities and prices of the goods which determine the utility for the consumer, this is closely related to the Cobb-Douglas utility function (and overall utility functions) since it is one of the main aspects of the microeconomic theory.

Keeping the utility function as the traditional Cobb-Douglas function:

We know that the utility is sensitive to the elasticity αand B. With αand B lesser or equal to one.  And since resources are not infinite, we can establish that the amount of goods that the consumer can pay is not infinite. In markets, the only way to get goods and services is with money, and according to the circular flow of the economy, the factor market can revenue two special productive factors: labor and capital, we can say that consumers have a level of income derived from his productive activities.

Inside the microeconomic theory in general, utility U is restricted to the income of the consumer within a maximization process with a linear constraint containing the goods and prices which are consumed. The budget constraint for the two good model looks as it follows:

Where I is the income of the individual, Px is the price of the good X and Py is the price of the good Y. One might wonder if the income of the customer is the sum of prices times goods, which doesn’t seem as close to what the circular flows states in a first glance. Income could be defined as the sum of the salary and overall returns of the productive activities (like returns on assets) of the consumer, and there’s no such thing as that in the budget equation.

However, if you look at the equation as a reflection of all the spending on goods (assuming the consumer will spend everything) this will equally match all that he has earned from his productive activities.

The maximization problem of the consumer is established as:

And typical maximization solution is done by using the Lagrange operator where the whole expression of the Lagrange function can be stated as:

A useful trick to remember how to write this function is to remember that if λ is positive then the income is positive and the prices and goods are negative (we’re moving everything to the left from the constraint equation). And the first-order conditions are given by:

By simply dividing the first two differential equations you’ll get the solution to the consumer’s problem which satisfies the relation as the next ratio:

Each good then is primarily sensitive to his own price and the weight (elasticity) in the utility function, seconded by the prices and quantities of the other good Y. If we replace one of the solutions in the last differential equation, say X, we’ll get:

Taking as a general factor the Py*Y will result in:

The quantities of the good Y are a ratio of the Income times the elasticity B and this is divided by the price of the same good Y given the sum of the elasticities. Before we stated that α+ B = 1 so we got that B=1- α and the optimum quantities of the goods can be defined now as:

This optimal place its graphically displayed ahead, and it represents the point where the utility is the maximum given a certain level of income and a set of prices for two goods, if you want to expand this analysis please refer to Nicholson (2002). The tangent point of the maximization process related to the income constraint for the case of two goods. Source: Own Elaboration.

The budget constrains: An econometric appreciation

Suppose we got a sample of n individuals which only consumes a finite number of goods. The income is given for each individual and also the quantities for each good. How we would be able to estimate the average price that each good has? If we start by assuming that the income is a relation of prices and quantities from the next expression:

Where X_1 is the good number one associated with the price of the good P_1, the income would be the sum of all quantities multiplicated by their prices or simply, the sum of all expenses. That’s the approach on demand-based income. In this case we got m goods consumed.

Now assume we can replace each price for another variable.

Looks familiar, isn’t it? It’s a regression structure for the equation, so in theory, we are able to estimate each price with ordinary least squares. Assuming as the prices, the estimators associated with each good with B-coefficients. And that all the income is referred to as the other side of the coin for the spending process.

The simulation exercises

Assume we got a process which correlates the following variables (interpret it as the Data Generating Process):

Where I is the total income, Px, Py, Pz are the given prices for the goods X, Y, and Z and we got s which refers to a certain amount of savings, all of this of the individual i. This population according to the DGP not only uses the income for buying the goods X, Y, and Z, but also deposits an amount of savings in s. The prices used in the Monte Carlo approach are Px=10, Py=15, and Pz=20.

If we regress the income and the demanded quantities of each good, we’ll have:

The coefficients don’t match our DGP and that is because our model is suffering from a bias problem related to omitted variables. In this case, we’re not taking into account that the income is not only the sum of expenses in goods but also the income is distributed in savings. Regressing the expression with the s variable we have:

The coefficients for the prices of each good (X, Y, Z) match our DGP almost accurate, R squared has gotten a significant increase from 51.45% to 99.98%. And the overall variance of the model has been reduced. The interesting thing to note here is that the savings of the individuals tend to be associated with an increase in the income with an increase of one monetary unit in the savings.

Remember that this is not an exercise of causality, this is more an exercise of correlation. In this case, we’re just using the information of the goods for the individuals of our sample to estimate the average price for the case of two goods. If we have a misspecification problem, such an approach cannot be performed.

This is one way to estimate the prices that the consumers pay for each good, however, keep in mind that the underlying assumptions are that 1) the prices are given for everyone, they do not vary across individuals, 2) The quantities of X, Y and the amount of savings must be known for each individual and it must be assumed that the spending (including money deposited in savings) should be equivalent to the income. 3) The spending of each individual must be assumed to be distributed among the goods and other variables and those have to be included in the regression, otherwise omitted variable bias can inflict problems in the estimators of the goods we’re analyzing.

References

Kwat, N. (2018). The Circular Flow of Economic Activity. Economics Discussion. Recuperated from: http://www.economicsdiscussion.net/circular-flow/the-circular-flow-of-economic-activity/18159

Marmolejo, I. (2012). Indifference Curve Confusion and Possible Critique. Radical Subjectivist. Recuperated from: https://radicalsubjectivist.wordpress.com/2012/02/10/indifference-curve-confusion-and-possible-critique/

Nicholson, W. (2002). Microeconomic Theory. México D.F.: Thompson Learning.

## A brief example to model the Cobb-Douglas utility function using Stata.

Regarding microeconometrics, we can find applications that go from latent variables to model market decisions (like logit and probit models) and techniques to estimate the basic approaches for consumers and producers.

In this article, I want to start with an introduction of a basic concept in microeconomics, which is the Cobb-Douglas utility function and its estimation with Stata. So we’re reviewing the basic utility function, some mathematical forms to estimate it and finally, we’ll see an application using Stata.

Depending on the elasticity α and β for goods X and Y, we’ll have a respective preference of the consumer given by the utility function just above. In basic terms, we restrict α + β =1 in order to have an appropriate utility function which reflects a rate of substitution between the two goods X and Y.  If we assume a constant value of the utility given by U* for the consumer, we could graph the curve by solving the equation for Y, in this order of ideas.

And the behavior of the utility function will be given by the number of quantities of the good Y explained by X and the respective elasticities α and β. We can graph the behavior of the indifference curve given a constant utility level according to the quantities of X and Y, also for a start, we will assume that α =0.5 and β=0.5 where the function has the following pattern for the same U* level of utility (example U=10), this reflects the substitution between the goods.

If you might wonder what happens when we alter the elasticity of each good, like for example, α =0.7 and β=0.3 the result would be a fast decaying curve instead of the pattern of the utility before.

Estimating the utility function of the Cobb-Douglas type will require data of a set of goods (X and Y in this case) and the utility.

Also, it would imply that you somehow measured the utility  (that is, selecting a unit or a measure for the utility), sometimes this can be in monetary units or more complex ideas deriving from subjective utility measures.

Applying logarithms to the equation of the Cobb-Douglas function would result in:

Which with properties of logarithms can be expressed as:

This allows a linearization of the function as well, and we can see that the only thing we don’t know regarding the original function is the elasticities of α and β. The above equation fits perfectly in terms of a bivariate regression model. But remember to add the stochastic part when you’re modeling the function (that is, including the residual in the expression). With this, we can start to do a regressing exercise of the logarithm of the utility for the consumers taking into account the amount of the demanded goods X and Y. The result would allow us to estimate the behavior of the curve.

However, some assumptions must be noted: 1) We’re assuming that our sample (or subsample) containing the set of individuals i tend to have a similar utility function, 2) the estimation of the elasticity for each good, would also be a generalization of the individual behavior as an aggregate. One could argue that each individual i has a different utility function to maximize, and also that the elasticities for each good are different across individuals. But we can argue also that if the individuals i  are somewhat homogenous (regarding income, tastes, and priorities, for example, the people of the same socioeconomic stratum) we might be able to proceed with the estimation of the function to model the consumer behavior toward the goods.

The Stata application

As a first step would be to inspect the data in graphical terms, scatter command, in this case, would be useful since it displays the behavior and correlation of the utility (U) and the goods (X and Y), adding some simple fitting lines the result would be displayed like this:

```twoway scatter U x || lfit U x
twoway scatter U y || lfit U y ``` Stata graphs for the dispersion of each good (X and Y) relative to the utility. Source: Own Elaboration.

Up to this point, we can detect a higher dispersion regarding good Y. Also, the fitted line pattern relative to the slope is different for each good. This might lead to assume for now that the overall preference of the consumer for the n individuals is higher on average for the X good than it is for the Y good. The slope, in fact, is telling us that by an increase of one unit in the X good, there’s a serious increase in the utility (U) meanwhile, the fitted line on the good Y regarding to its slope is telling us comparatively speaking, that it doesn’t increase the utility as much as the X good. For this cross-sectional study, it also would become more useful to calculate Pearson’s correlation coefficient. This can be done with:

`correlate U y x`

The coefficient is indicating us that exists somewhat of a linear association between the utility (U) and the good Y, meanwhile, it exists a stronger linear relationship relative to the X good and the utility. As a final point, there’s an inverse, but not significant or important linear relationship between goods X and Y. So the sign is indicating us that they’re substitutes of each other.

Now instead of regressing U with X and Y, we need to convert it into logarithms, because we want to do a linearization of the Cobb-Douglas utility function.

`gen ln_U=ln(U)gen ln_X=ln(x)gen ln_Y=ln(y)reg ln_U ln_X ln_Y   `

And now performing the regression without the constant.

Both regressions (with and without the constant) tends to establish the parameters in α =0.6 and β=0.4 which matches the Data Generating Process of the Montecarlo simulation. It appears that the model with the constant term has a lesser variance, so we shall select these parameters for further analysis.

How would it look then our estimation of this utility function for our sample? well, we can start using the mean value of the utility using descriptive statistics and then use a graphical function with the parameters associate. Remember that we got:

And we know already the parameters and also we can assume that the expected utility would be the mean utility in our sample. From this, we can use the command:

`sum U y x`

And with this, the estimated function for the utility level U=67.89 with approximated elasticities of 0.6 and 0.4 would look like this: Graph of the Curve for the Expect Utility of the Sample, with the parameters estimated with OLS. Source: Own Elaboration

In this order of ideas, we just estimated the indifference curve for a certain population which consists of a set of i individuals. The expected utility from both goods was assumed as the mean value of the utility for the sample and with this, we can identify the different sets of points related to the goods X and Y which represents the expected utility. This is where it ends our brief example of the modeling related to the Cobb-Douglas utility function within a sample with two goods and defined utilities.

## YEAR 2019

In our first YEAR “2019”, we had

**Over 120,000 visits to our institute website

**Over 50 completed interactive econometrics private and group training

**Around 70 researchers, 10 of them successfully completed their Ph.D. degrees, have booked our methodological and statistical guidance services

** 1 annual conference, and around 5 onsite and online workshops

** 5 online webinars

** 6 research ambassadors around the World and 10 esteemed academic council members

** New developed division “Program Design and Impact evaluation” that is managed and operated by two world first-class senior consultants.

— > Nothing could have happened without your support, trust, and faith in our mission

Stay tuned for 2020 new calendar of events and training programs.

## Spurious Regression With Stationary Time Series

The spurious relationship is said to have occurred if the statistical summaries are indicating that two variables are related to each other when in fact there is no theoretical relationship between two variables. It often happens in time series data and there are many well-known examples of spurious correlation in time series data as well. For example, Yule (1926) observed strong relationship between marriages in church and the mortality rate in UK data. Obviously, it is very hard to explain that how the marriages in church can possibly effect the mortality, but the statistics says one variable has very strong correlation with other. This is typical example of spurious regression. Yule (1926) thought that this happens due to missing third variable.

This term spurious correlation was invented on or before 1897 i.e. in less than 15 years after invention of regression analysis. In 1897, Karl Pearson wrote a paper entitled, ‘Mathematical Contributions to the Theory of Evolution: On a Form of Spurious Correlation Which May Arise When Indices Are Used in the Measurement of Organs’. The title indicates the terms spurious regression was known at least as early as 1897, and it was observed in the data related to measurement of organs. The reason for this spurious correlation was use of indices. In next 20 years, many reasons for spurious correlation were unveiled with the most popular being missing third variable. This means if X is a cause of Y and X is also a cause of Z, but Y and Z are not directly associated. If you regress Y on Z, you will find spurious regression.

In 1974, Granger and Newbold (Granger won noble prize later) found that two non-stationary series may also yield spurious results even if there is no missing variable. This finding only added another reason to the possible reasons of spurious regression. Neither this finding can be used to argue that the non-stationarity is one and only reason of spurious regression nor this can be used to argue that the spurious regression is time series phenomenon. However, unfortunately, the economists adapted the two misperception. First, they thought that spurious regression is time series phenomenon and secondly, although not explicitly stated, it appears that the economists assume that the non-stationarity is the only cause of spurious regression. Therefore, although not explicitly stated, most of books and articles discussing the spurious regression, discuss the phenomenon in the context of non-stationary time series.

Granger and his coauthors in 1998 wrote a paper entitled “Spurious regressions with stationary series”, in which they show that spurious regression can occur in the stationary data. Therefore, they clear one of the common misconception that the spurious regression is only due to non-stationarity, but they were themselves caught in the second misconception that the spurious regression is time series phenomenon. They define spurious regression as “A spurious regression occurs when a pair of independent series but with strong temporal properties, are found apparently to be related according to standard inference in an OLS regression”. The use of term temporal properties implies that they assume the spurious regression to be time series related phenomenon. But a 100 years ago, Pearson has shown the spurious regression a cross-sectional data.

The unit root and cointegration analysis were developed to cope with the problem of spurious regression. The literature argues that spurious regression can be avoided if there is cointegration. But unfortunately, cointegration can be defined only for non-stationary data. What is the way to avoid spurious regression if the underlying are stationary? The literature is silent to answer this question.

Pesaran et al (1998) developed a new technique ‘ARDL Bound Test’ to test the existence of level relationship between variables. People often confuse the level relationship with cointegration and the common term used for ARDL Bound test is ARDL cointegration, but the in reality, this does not necessarily imply cointegration. The findings of Bound test are more general and imply cointegration only under certain conditions. The ARDL is capable of testing long run relationship between pair of stationary time series as well as between pair of non-stationary time series. However, the long run relationship between stationary time series cannot be termed as cointegration because by definition cointegration is the long run relationship between stationary time series.

In fact, ARDL bound test is a better way to deal with the spurious regression in stationary time series, but several misunderstandings about the test has restricted the usefulness of the test. We will discuss the use and features of ARDL in a future blog.