2017
DOI: 10.3982/ecta12679
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An Econometric Model of Network Formation With Degree Heterogeneity

Abstract: I introduce a model of undirected dyadic link formation which allows for assortative matching on observed agent characteristics (homophily) as well as unrestricted agent‐level heterogeneity in link surplus (degree heterogeneity). Like in fixed effects panel data analyses, the joint distribution of observed and unobserved agent‐level characteristics is left unrestricted. Two estimators for the (common) homophily parameter, β0, are developed and their properties studied under an asymptotic sequence involving a s… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
187
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 201 publications
(188 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
1
187
0
Order By: Relevance
“…17 This model is very similar to a number of network formation models in the statistics and econometrics literature (see, e.g., Fafchamps and Gubert (2007), Graham (2017), McCormick 17 See Supplemental Material Appendix C for simulations that demonstrate this on empirical network data. 17 This model is very similar to a number of network formation models in the statistics and econometrics literature (see, e.g., Fafchamps and Gubert (2007), Graham (2017), McCormick 17 See Supplemental Material Appendix C for simulations that demonstrate this on empirical network data.…”
Section: What Kinds Of Network Exhibit Stuckness?mentioning
confidence: 70%
“…17 This model is very similar to a number of network formation models in the statistics and econometrics literature (see, e.g., Fafchamps and Gubert (2007), Graham (2017), McCormick 17 See Supplemental Material Appendix C for simulations that demonstrate this on empirical network data. 17 This model is very similar to a number of network formation models in the statistics and econometrics literature (see, e.g., Fafchamps and Gubert (2007), Graham (2017), McCormick 17 See Supplemental Material Appendix C for simulations that demonstrate this on empirical network data.…”
Section: What Kinds Of Network Exhibit Stuckness?mentioning
confidence: 70%
“…As has previously been noted (see, e.g., Graham, ; Kim, ), the fact that the econometrician does not observe A i or A j poses an important threat to identification in the context of our problem, as omitting these physician fixed effects can result in biased estimates of our parameters θ =( γ , β ). , Moreover, the sparsity of real‐world social networks makes it problematic to estimate the unobserved fixed effects directly because most agents within these networks have few links (low degree).…”
Section: Empirical Approachmentioning
confidence: 83%
“…3 Chandrasekhar and Jackson (2014) propose a different approach where the network is generated from overlapping sub-graphs. Also, some recent papers consider the estimation of dyadic link formation models (i.e., without link externalities) with a focus on disentangling homophily and node-specific heterogeneity (Graham 2017, Dzemski 2014.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1 See Graham (2015) and de Paula (forthcoming) for recent surveys. 2 Boucher and Mourifié (forthcoming) develop a method that is similar to Leung (2015) but bypasses the issue of multiplicity.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%