Showing 1 - 10 of 24
In their IZA Discussion Paper 10247, Johansson and Lee claim that the main result (Proposition 3) in Abbring and Van den Berg (2003b) does not hold. We show that their claim is incorrect. At a certain point within their line of reasoning, they make a rather basic error while transforming one...
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10011543629
In their IZA Discussion Paper 10247, Johansson and Lee claim that the main result (Proposition 3) in Abbring and Van den Berg (2003b) does not hold. We show that their claim is incorrect. At a certain point within their line of reasoning, they make a rather basic error while transforming one...
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10011559676
In a large class of hazard models with proportional unobserved heterogeneity, the distribution of the heterogeneity …
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10011349195
adapted to prove identifiability of an MHT model with observed regressors and unobserved heterogeneity. We discuss inference …
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10011372965
Often, a treatment and the outcome of interest are characterized by the moment they occur, and these moments are realizations of stochastic processes with dependent unobserved determinants. We develop a simple and intuitive method for inference on the treatment effect. The method can be...
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10011575203
specification with regressors, and the risks are dependent by way of the unobserved heterogeneity, or frailty, components. We show …
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10011303866
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10001769072
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10001776071
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10001654063
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10001863264