2020
DOI: 10.1920/wp.cem.2020.420
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Econometric Models of Network Formation

Abstract: This article provides a selective review on the recent literature on econometric models of network formation. The survey starts with a brief exposition on basic concepts and tools for the statistical description of networks. I then offer a review of dyadic models, focussing on statistical models on pairs of nodes and describe several developments of interest to the econometrics literature. The article also presents a discussion of nondyadic models where link formation might be influenced by the presence or abs… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 75 publications
(110 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Traditionally, the endogeneity of network formation received rather limited attention and treatment in studies that rely mostly on restrictions on the structure of interactions and uses of control variables, including fixed effects, with an identification underlined by Bramoullé et al's (2009) results, such as Bifulco et al (2011);Calvó-Armengol et al (2009); Patacchini and Zenou (2016); DeGiorgi et al (2010). A different strand of the literature takes a structural approach that explicitly models the formation of network based on assumptions on individuals' interactions and expectations, and derives identification conditions from the model, including recent developments such as Mele (2017); Badev (forthcoming); Goldsmith- Pinkham and Imbens (2013), as reviewed by De Paula (2017Paula ( , 2020, Graham (2015), and Graham and De Paula (2020). 5 Different from those approaches, ours relies on a source of variation that draws its exogeneity and validity from design, not modeling assumptions, and then uses a relatively simple and transparent IV strategy to identify the LATE.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Traditionally, the endogeneity of network formation received rather limited attention and treatment in studies that rely mostly on restrictions on the structure of interactions and uses of control variables, including fixed effects, with an identification underlined by Bramoullé et al's (2009) results, such as Bifulco et al (2011);Calvó-Armengol et al (2009); Patacchini and Zenou (2016); DeGiorgi et al (2010). A different strand of the literature takes a structural approach that explicitly models the formation of network based on assumptions on individuals' interactions and expectations, and derives identification conditions from the model, including recent developments such as Mele (2017); Badev (forthcoming); Goldsmith- Pinkham and Imbens (2013), as reviewed by De Paula (2017Paula ( , 2020, Graham (2015), and Graham and De Paula (2020). 5 Different from those approaches, ours relies on a source of variation that draws its exogeneity and validity from design, not modeling assumptions, and then uses a relatively simple and transparent IV strategy to identify the LATE.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%