Measuring the Income Elasticity of Water Demand: The Importance of Publication and Endogeneity Biases

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. We present the first meta-analysis of the income elasticity of water demand that accounts for the effects of publication selection (the preferential reporting of estimates that are in-tuitive and statistically significant). Paradoxically, more affected by publication selection are the otherwise preferable estimates that control for endogeneity. Because such estimates tend to be smaller and less precise, they are often statistically insignificant, which leads to more intense specification searching and bias. Correcting simultaneously for publication and endogeneity biases, we find that the underlying elasticity is approximately 0.15 or less. The result is robust to controlling for 30 other characteristics of the estimates and using Bayesian model averaging to account for model uncertainty. The differences in the reported estimates are systematically driven by differences in the tariff structure, regional coverage, data granularity, and control for temperature in the demand equation. Terms of use: Documents in

Firm Size and Stock Returns: A Quantitative Survey

“…We collect point estimates and standard errors from the studies that satisfy the criteria described above to test for the selective reporting bias. Many authors recognize this bias as a serious issue in economics research (Ashenfelter and Greenstone, 2004;Stanley, 2005;Havranek, 2015;Havranek and Kokes, 2015;Havranek et al, 2018aHavranek et al, , 2018bHavranek et al, , 2018c that arises from researchers' tendency to primarily report the estimates that display the sign predicted by the theory and consistent with prior studies, along with those that are statistically significant.…”

Tuition Fees and University Enrolment: A Meta‐Regression Analysis

“…Table reports the results of . In panel A, we present four different specifications applied to the unweighted sample: simple OLS, an instrumental variable specification in which the instrument for the standard error is the inverse of the square root of the number of observations (as in, for example, Stanley, ; Havranek, Irsova and Vlach, ); OLS, in which the standard error is replaced by the aforementioned instrument (as in Havranek, ); and study‐level between‐effect estimation . In panel B, we weight all estimates by their precision, which assigns greater importance to more precise results and directly corrects for heteroscedasticity (Stanley and Jarrell, ), and furthermore, we weight all estimates by the inverse of the number of observations per study, which treats small and large studies equally.…”

Exchange rate comovements, hedging and volatility spillovers on new EU forex markets

“…2 Furthermore, we use conditional variances and covariances estimated from the DCC model to compute hedge ratios and portfolio weights of individual currencies in an optimal portfolio. Our results may help foreign investors recognize whether new EU countries should be treated as whole or whether it is preferential to select assets individually from each country to improve portfolio diversification.…”