AÇIĞA ÇIKARILAN TERCİHLER: TEORİ VE UYGULAMA

Öz

Türkiye’deki hanehalkları için açığa çıkarılan tercih teorisinin geçerliliğinin test edilmesinin, tüketici tercihlerindeki rasyonelliğin belirlenmesinin ve rasyonalitenin ihlal edilmesi durumunda ortaya çıkan refah kayıplarının ölçülmesinin amaçlandığı bu çalışmada, açığa çıkarılan tercih aksiyomları parametrik olmayan yöntemler kullanılarak yatay-kesit verileri üzerinden test edilmiştir.Türkiye ölçeğinde tüketici davranışlarının analiz edildiği uygulamada, 2004-2017 dönemi Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu Hanehalkı Bütçe Anketi veri seti kullanılmıştır. Hanehalkı seçimleri üniter ve kolektif tüketim modeli varsayımı altında ele alınarak oluşturulan seçim yapılarına ilişkin açığa çıkarılan tercih aksiyom ihlal oranları ve rasyonellik endeksleri hesaplanmıştır. Elde edilen bulgular, hanehalklarının aksiyomlar ile yüksek oranda tutarlı davranışlar sergilediğini göstermektedir. Ayrıca hanelerin analiz dönemi boyunca gelirlerini etkin kullandığı, fiyatlardaki beklenmeyen değişimlerin tüketici rasyonelliği üzerinde önemli bozucu etkiler yarattığı ve bu durumun hanelerde ortalama olarak %25 seviyesinde refah kaybına neden olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Kolektif tüketim modeli varsayımı altında oluşturulan tercihlerin rasyonaliteyi daha az ihlal ettiği ve daha az refah kaybına neden olduğu görülmüştür. Son olarak, bireylere ait yaş, eğitim, cinsiyet ve gelir durumu gibi sosyoekonomik değişkenlerin tercih rasyonelliği üzerindeki etkili olduğu belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Açığa Çıkarılan Tercih
• Etkinlik Endeksleri
• WARP
• SARP
• GARP

REVEALED PREFERENCES: THEORY AND APPLICATION

Abstract

In this study which aims to test validity of the revealed preference theory for Turkish households, determine the rationality in consumer preferences and measure welfare loss in case of violation of rationality, the revealed preference axioms are analyzed by using non-parametric methods over cross-sectional data. In the application where consumer behaviors of Turkish households are analyzed, 2004-2017 period Turkey Statistical Institute Household Budget Survey data set is used. The revealed preference axiom violation rates and rationality indices are calculated by considering preferences of households under the assumption of a unitary and collective consumption model. Findings show that households exhibit highly consistent behaviors with axioms. In addition, it is obtained that households used their incomes effectively during the analysis period, unexpected changes in prices have significant negative effects on consumer rationality and this causes an average welfare loss of 25% in households. It is also seen that the preferences created under the assumption of collective consumption model are less violating rationality and caused less loss of wealth. Finally, it is determined that socioeconomic variables such as age, education, gender and income status of individuals have an impact on preference rationality.

Keywords

• Revealed Preference
• Power Measures Index
• WARP
• SARP
• GARP

References

1. Afriat, S.N. (1967), The Construction of Utility Functions from Expenditure Data, International Economic Review, 8(1), 67-77.
2. Afriat, S.N. (1972), Efficiency Estimation of Production Functions, International Economic Review, 13(3), 568-598.
3. Andreoni, J., Gillen, B.J., ve Harbaugh, W.T. (2013). The power of revealed preference tests: Ex-post evaluation of experimental design. Unpublished manuscript.
4. Banks, J., Carvalho, L.S., ve Perez-Arce (2019), Education, Decision Making, and Economic Rationality, Review of Economics and Statistics, 101(3), 428-441.
5. Beatty, T.K. ve Crawford, I.A. (2011), How Demanding is the Revealed Preference Approach to Demand?, American Economic Review, 101(6), 2782-95.
6. Becker, G. S. (1962), Irrational Behavior and Economic Theory, Journal of Political Economy, 70(1), 1-13.
7. Bronars, S.G. (1987), The Power of Nonparametric Tests of Preference Maximization, Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 55(3), 693-698.
8. Browning, M. (1989), A Nonparametric Test of the Life-Cycle Rational Expections Hypothesis, International Economic Review, 66(6), 979-992.

9. Browning, M. ve Chiappori, P.A. (1998), Efficient Intra-Household Allocations: A General Characterization and Empirical Tests, Econometrica, 66(6), 1241-1278.
10. Blow, L., Browning, M., ve Crawford, I. (2008), Revealed Preference Analysis of Characteristics Models, The Review of Economic Studies, 75(2), 371-389.
11. Burton, M. P. ve Young, T. (1991), Non-Parametric Tests for Changes in Consumer Preferences for Meat in Great Britain”, Journal of Agricultural Economics, 42(2), 138-145.
12. Chambers, C.P., ve Echenique, F. (2017), Revealed Preference Theory. Cambridge University Press, 56, (71-80)
13. Cherchye, L., De Rock, B., ve Vermeulen, F. (2010), An Afriat Theorem for the Collective Model of Household Consumption, Journal of Economic Theory, 145(3), 1142-1163
14. Cherchye, L., Demuynck, T., ve De Rock, B. (2011), Testable Implications of General Equilibrium Models: An Integer Programming Approach, Journal of Mathematical Economics, 47, 564-575.
15. Cherchye, L., De Rock, B., ve Vermeulen, F. (2012), Collective Household Consumption Behavior: Revealed Preference Analysis, Foundations and Trends in Econometrics, 4(4), 225-312.
16. Cherchye, L., Demuynck, T., ve De Rock, B. (2018), Normality of Demand in A Two-Goods Setting, Journal of Economic Theory, 173, 361-382.
17. Cherchye, L. ve Vermeulen, F. (2008), Nonparametric Analysis of Household Labor Supply: Goodness-of-Fit and Power of The Unitary and The Collective Model, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 90(2), 267-274.
18. Chiappori, P.A. (1988), Rational Household Labor Supply, Econometrica, 56, 63–90.
19. Chiappori, P.A. (1992), Collective Labor Supply and Welfare, Journal of Political Economy, 100(3), 437–467.
20. Chiappori, P. A., Fortin, B., ve Lacroix, G. (2002), Marriage Market, Divorce Legislation, and Household Labor Supply, Journal of Political Economy, 110(1), 37-72.
21. Choi, S., Fisman, R., Gale, D. M., ve Kariv, S. (2007), Revealing Preferences Graphically: An Old Method Gets a New Tool Kit, American Economic Review, 97(2), 153-158.
22. Choi, S., Kariv, S., Müller, W., ve Silverman, D. (2014), Who is (More) Rational?, American Economic Review, 104(6), 1518-1550.
23. Cosaert, S. (2017), What Types are There?, Computational Economics, 53(2), 533-554.
24. Demuynck, T.ve Hjertstrand, P. (2019), Samuelson's Approach to Revealed Preference Theory: Some Recent Advances, Paul Samuelson: Master of Modern Economics. Palgrave Macmillan, London.
25. Echenique, F., Lee, S., ve Shum, M. (2011), The Money Pump as a Measure of Revealed Preference Violations, Journal of Political Economy, 119(6)1201-1223.
26. Famulari, M. (1995), A Household-Based, Nonparametric Test of Demand Theory, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 77(2), 372-382.
27. Famulari, M. (2006), Household Labor Supply and Taxes: A Nonparametric, Revealed Preference Approach”, http: //econ.ucsd.edu/~mfamular/pdfs/GARPLaborSupply.pdf (25.11.2019).
28. Fleissig, A. R. ve Whitney, G. (2011), A Revealed Preference Test of Rationing, Economics Letters, 113(3), 234-236.
29. Grosskopf, S. ve Hayes, K. (1983), Do Local Governments Maximize Anything?, Public Finance Quarterly,11(2), 202-216
30. Jehle, G. A. ve Reny, P. J. (1998), Advanced Microeconomic Theory, India: Pearson Education.
31. Kim, H. B., Choi, S., Kim, B., ve Pop-Eleches, C. (2018), The Role of Education Interventions in Improving Economic Rationality, Science, 362(6410), 83-86.
32. Koo, A. ve Hasenkamp, G. (1972), Structure of Revealed Preference: Some Preliminary Evidence, Journal of Political Economy, 80(4), 724-744.
33. Samuelson, P. A. (1938), A Note on the Pure Theory of Consumer’s Behaviour, Economica, 5(17), 61-71.
34. Samuelson, P. A. (1948), Consumption Theory in Terms of Revealed Preference, Economica, 15(60), 243-253.
35. Selten, R. (1991), “Properties of a Measure of Predictive Success”, Mathematical Social Sciences, 21(2), 153-167.
36. Selten, R. ve Krischker, W. (1983), Comparison of Two Theories for Characteristic Function Experiments, In Aspiration Levels in Bargaining and Economic Decision Making, Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg, 259-264.
37. Swofford, J. L. ve Whitney, G. A. (1986), Flexible Functional Forms and the Utility Approach to the Demand for Money: A Nonparametric Analysis: Note, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 18(3), 383-389.
38. Heufer, J. ve Hjertstrand, P. (2019), Homothetic Efficiency: Theory and Applications, Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 37(2), 235-247.
39. Houthakker, H. S. (1950), Revealed Preference and the Utility Function, Economica, 17(66), 159-174.
40. Houtman, M. ve Maks, H. J. A. (1985), Determining All Maximal Data Subsets Consistent with Revealed Preference, Kwantitatieve Methoden, 19(1), 89–104.
41. Varian, H. R. (1982), The Nonparametric Approach to Demand Analysis, Econometrica, 50(4), 945-973.
42. Varian, H. R. (1983), Non-Parametric Tests of Consumer Behaviour, The Review of Economic Studies, 50(1), 99-110.
43. Varian, H. R. (1985), Non-Parametric Analysis of Optimizing Behavior with Measurement Error, Journal of Econometrics, 30(1), 445-458.
44. Varian, H.R. (2006), Revealed Preference, Samuelsonian Economics and the Twenty-First Century, 99-115.