Compensating variation and Hicksian choice probabilities in random utility models that are nonlinear in income

By J. Dagsvik, Anders Karlström. 2005

122 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Foundations of Stated Preference Elicitation: Consumer Behavior and Choice-based Conjoint Analysis (2019, methodology): “The first is to use the solution CVa(ζa,∙) to (55), finding a Hicksian-like uniform transfer that keeps expected or “representative” utility constant for the class of consumers with tastes ζa but distributions of psychometric noise; see Dagsvik and Karlstrom (2005), McFadden (2014).”
Nonparametric Welfare Analysis for Discrete Choice (2014, unknown): “max fU (p 1; y S; ) ; U1 (y S p10; )g = max fU (p 1; y; ) ; U1 (y p11; )g , (17) max fU (p 1; y + S; ) ; U1 (y + S p11; )g = max fU (p 1; y; ) ; U1 (y p10; )g , (18) which are basically (5) and (6) with U0 ( ; ) replaced by the utility of the composite alternative U (p 1; ; ).”
Competition in the Audit Market: Policy Implications (2015, unknown): “Herriges and Kling (1999), and Dagsvik and Karlstrom (2005)), a necessary step for our welfare calculations below.”