Durable good

Abstract: THIS PAPER DEVELOPS some models for limited dependent variables.2 The distinguishing feature of these variables is that the range of values which they may assume has a lower bound and that this lowest value occurs in a fair number of observations. This feature should be taken into account in the statistical analysis of observations on such variables. In particular, it renders invalid use of the usual regression model. The second section of this paper develops several models for such variables. Like Tobin's [10] model, they are extensions of the multiple probit analysis model.3 They differ from that model by allowing the determination of the size of the variable when it is not zero to depend on different parameters or variables from those determining the probability of its being zero. Estimation and discrimination in the models are considered in Section 3. The models, like their prototypes, seem particularly intractable to exact analysis and large sample approximations have to be used. The adequacy of inferences based on these procedures is explored in Section 4 through a small sampling experiment. Limited dependent variables arise naturally in the study of consumer purchases, particularly purchases of durable goods. When a durable good is to be purchased, the amount spent may vary in fine gradations, but for many durables it is probably the case that most consumers in a particular period make no purchase at all. In Section 5 we apply the models to the demand for durable goods to provide an application of the techniques.

Abstract: In this paper, we document a structural break in the volatility of U.S. GDP growth in the first quarter of 1984 and provide evidence that this break emanates from a reduction in the volatility of durable goods production. Further, the reduction in durables volatility corresponds to a decline in the share of durable goods accounted for by inventories. We find no evidence of increased stability in the nondurables, services or structures sectors of the economy. Our evidence is compatible with a scenario in which changes in inventory management techniques in the durable goods sector have reduced the variability of aggregate output.

Abstract: This paper reports on the first randomized evaluation of the impact of introducing the standard microcredit group-based lending product in a new market. In 2005, half of 104 slums in Hyderabad, India were randomly selected for opening of a branch of a particular microfinance institution (Spandana) while the remainder were not, although other MFIs were free to enter those slums. Fifteen to 18 months after Spandana began lending in treated areas, households were 8.8 percentage points more likely to have a microcredit loan. They were no more likely to start any new business, although they were more likely to start several at once, and they invested more in their existing businesses. There was no effect on average monthly expenditure per capita. Expenditure on durable goods increased in treated areas, while expenditures on “temptation goods” declined. Three to four years after the initial expansion (after many of the control slums had started getting credit from Spandana and other MFIs ), the probability of borrowing from an MFI in treatment and comparison slums was the same, but on average households in treatment slums had been borrowing for longer and in larger amounts. Consumption was still no different in treatment areas, and the average business was still no more profitable, although we find an increase in profits at the top end. We found no changes in any of the development outcomes that are often believed to be affected by microfinance, including health, education, and women’s empowerment. The results of this study are largely consistent with those of four other evaluations of similar programs in different contexts.

Abstract: This paper reports results from the randomized evaluation of a group-lending microcredit program in Hyderabad, India. A lender worked in 52 randomly selected neighborhoods, leading to an 8.4 percentage point increase in takeup of microcredit. Small business investment and profits of preexisting businesses increased, but consumption did not significantly increase. Durable goods expenditure increased, while “temptation goods” expenditure declined. We found no significant changes in health, education, or women’s empowerment. Two years later, after control areas had gained access to microcredit but households in treatment area had borrowed for longer and in larger amounts, very few significant differences persist. (JEL G21, G31, O16, O12, L25, I38)