CHAPTER 7Exercise Solutions141Chapter 7, Exercise Solutions, Principles of Econometrics, 3e 142EXERCISE 7.1(a) When a GPA is increased by one unit, and other variables are held constant, averagestarting salary will increase by the amount $1643 ( 4.66t =, and the coefficient is significant at α = 0.001). Students who take econometrics will have a starting salary which is $5033 higher, on average, than the starting salary of those who did not take econometrics (11.03t =, and the coefficient is significant at α = 0.001). The intercept suggests the starting salary for someone with a zero GPA and who did not take econometrics is $24,200. However, this figure is likely to be unreliable since there would be no one with a zero GPA . The R 2 = 0.74 implies 74% of the variation of starting salary is explained by GPA and METRICS(b) A suitably modified equation is 1234SAL GPA METRICS FEMALE e =β+β+β+β+ Then, the parameter 4β is an intercept dummy variable that captures the effect of genderon starting salary, all else held constant.()()1231423if = 0if = 1GPA METRICSFEMALE E SAL GPA METRICS FEMALE β+β+β⎧⎪=⎨β+β+β+β⎪⎩(c) To see if the value of econometrics is the same for men and women, we change the modelto 12345SAL GPA METRICS FEMALE METRICS FEMALE e =β+β+β+β+β×+ Then, the parameter 4β is an intercept dummy variable that captures the effect of genderon starting salary, all else held constant. The parameter 5β is a slope dummy variable that captures any change in the slope for females, relative to males.()()()12314235if = 0if = 1GPA METRICSFEMALE E SAL GPA METRICS FEMALE β+β+β⎧⎪=⎨β+β+β+β+β⎪⎩Chapter 7, Exercise Solutions, Principles of Econometrics, 3e 143EXERCISE 7.2(a) Considering each of the coefficients in turn, we have the following interpretations.Intercept : At the beginning of the time period over which observations were taken, on a day which is not Friday, Saturday or a holiday, and a day which has neither a full moon nor a half moon, the estimated average number of emergency room cases was 93.69.T : We estimate that the average number of emergency room cases has been increasing by 0.0338 per day, other factors held constant. This time trend has a t -value of 3.058 and a p -value = 0.0025 < 0.01.HOLIDAY : The average number of emergency room cases is estimated to go up by 13.86on holidays. The “holiday effect” is significant at the 0.05 level of significance. FRI and SAT : The average number of emergency room cases is estimated to go up by 6.9and 10.6 on Fridays and Saturdays, respectively. These estimated coefficients are both significant at the 0.01 level. FULLMOON : The average number of emergency room cases is estimated to go up by2.45 on days when there is a full moon. However, a null hypothesis stating that a full moon has no influence on the number of emergency room cases would not be rejected at any reasonable level of significance. NEWMOON : The average number of emergency room cases is estimated to go up by 6.4on days when there is a new moon. However, a null hypothesis stating that a new moon has no influence on the number of emergency room cases would not be rejected at the usual 10% level, or smaller. Therefore, hospitals should expect more calls on holidays, Fridays and Saturdays, and also should expect a steady increase over time.(b)There are very little changes in the remaining coefficients, or their standard errors, when FULLMOON and NEWMOON are omitted. The equation goodness-of-fit statistic decreases slightly, as expected when variables are omitted. Based on these casual observations the consequences of omitting FULLMOON and NEWMOON are negligible. (c) The null and alternative hypotheses are067:0H β=β= 167: or is nonzero.H ββThe test statistic is()2(2297)R U U SSE SSE F SSE −=−whereR SSE = 27424.19 is the sum of squared errors from the estimated equation with FULLMOON and NEWMOON omitted and U SSE = 27108.82 is the sum of squared errors from the estimated equation with these variables included. The calculated value of the F statistic is 1.29. The .05 critical value is (0.95,2,222) 3.307F =, and corresponding p -value is0.277. Thus, we do not reject the null hypothesis that new and full moons have no impact on the number of emergency room cases.Chapter 7, Exercise Solutions, Principles of Econometrics, 3e 144EXERCISE 7.3(a) The estimated coefficient of the price of alcohol suggests that, if the price of pure alcohol goes up by $1 per liter, the average number of days (out of 31) that alcohol is consumed will fall by 0.045.(b) The price elasticity at the means is given by24.780.0450.3203.49q pp q∂=−×=−∂(c) To compute this elasticity, we need q for married black males in the 21-30 age range. It is given by4.0990.04524.780.00005712425 1.6370.8070.0350.5803.97713q =−×+×+−+−=Thus, the price elasticity is24.780.0450.2803.97713q p p q ∂=−×=−∂ (d)The coefficient of income suggests that a $1 increase in income will increase the averagenumber of days on which alcohol is consumed by 0.000057. If income was measured in terms of thousand-dollar units, which would be a sensible thing to do, the estimated coefficient would change to 0.057.(e) The effect of GENDER suggests that, on average, males consume alcohol on 1.637 moredays than women. On average, married people consume alcohol on 0.807 less days than single people. Those in the 12-20 age range consume alcohol on 1.531 less days than those who are over 30. Those in the 21-30 age range consume alcohol on 0.035 more days than those who are over 30. This last estimate is not significantly different from zero, however. Thus, two age ranges instead of three (12-20 and an omitted category of more than 20), are likely to be adequate. Black and Hispanic individuals consume alcohol on 0.580 and 0.564 less days, respectively, than individuals from other races. Keeping in mind that the critical t -value is 1.960, all coefficients are significantly different from zero, except that for the dummy variable for the 21-30 age range.Chapter 7, Exercise Solutions, Principles of Econometrics, 3e 145EXERCISE 7.4(a) The estimated coefficient for SQFT suggests that an additional square foot of floor spacewill increase the price of the house by $72.79. The positive sign is as expected, and the estimated coefficient is significantly different from zero. The estimated coefficient for AGE implies the house price is $179 less for each year the house is older. The negative sign implies older houses cost less, other things being equal. The coefficient is significantly different from zero.(b) The estimated coefficients for the dummy variables are all negative and they becomeincreasingly negative as we move from D92 to D96. Thus, house prices have been steadily declining in Stockton over the period 1991-96, holding constant both the size and age of the house.(c) Including a dummy variable for 1991 would have introduced exact collinearity unless theintercept was omitted. Exact collinearity would cause least squares estimation to fail. The collinearity arises between the dummy variables and the constant term because the sum of the dummy variables equals 1; the value of the constant term.Chapter 7, Exercise Solutions, Principles of Econometrics, 3e 146EXERCISE 7.5(a)The estimated marginal response of yield to nitrogen is()()8.0112 1.9440.5677.444 3.888when 16.877 3.888when 26.310 3.888when 3E YIELD NITRO PHOS NITRO NITRO PHOS NITRO PHOS NITROPHOS ∂=−××−×∂=−==−==−=The effect of additional nitrogen on yield depends on both the level of nitrogen and the level of phosphorus. For a given level of phosphorus, marginal yield is positive for small values of NITRO but becomes negative if too much nitrogen is applied. The level of NITRO that achieves maximum yield for a given level of PHOS is obtained by setting the first derivative equal to zero. For example, when PHOS = 1 the maximum yield occurs when NITRO = 7.444/3.888 = 1.915. The larger the amount of phosphorus used, the smaller the amount of nitrogen required to attain the maximum yield. (b)The estimated marginal response of yield to phosphorous is()()4.80020.7780.5674.233 1.556when 13.666 1.556when 23.099 1.556when 3E YIELD PHOS NITRO PHOS PHOS NITRO PHOS NITRO PHOSNITRO ∂=−××−×∂=−==−==−= Comments similar to those made for part (a) are also relevant here.(c)(i) We want to test 0246:20H β+β+β= against the alternative 1246:20.H β+β+β≠The value of the test statistic is ()24624627.367se 2b b b t b b b ++===++At a 5% significance level, the critical t -value is c t ± where (0.975,21) 2.080c t t ==. Since t > 2.080 we reject the null hypothesis and conclude that the marginal product ofyield to nitrogen is not zero when NITRO = 1 and PHOS = 1.(ii) We want to test 0246:40H β+β+β= against the alternative 1246:40H β+β+β≠.The value of the test statistic is()2462464 1.660se 4b b b t b b b ++===−++Since |t| < 2.080 (0.975,21)t =, we do not reject the null hypothesis. A zero marginal yieldwith respect to nitrogen is compatible with the data when NITRO = 1 and PHOS = 2.Chapter 7, Exercise Solutions, Principles of Econometrics, 3e 147Exercise 7.5(c) (continued)(c)(iii) We want to test 0246:60H β+β+β= against the alternative 1246:60H β+β+β≠.The value of the test statistic is()24624668.742se 6b b b t b b b ++===−++Since |t| > 2.080 (0.975,21)t =, we reject the null hypothesis and conclude that themarginal product of yield to nitrogen is not zero when NITRO = 3 and PHOS = 1.(d) The maximizing levels NITRO ∗ and PHOS ∗ are those values for NITRO and PHOS suchthat the first-order partial derivatives are equal to zero.()()35620E YIELD PHOS NITRO PHOS ∗∗∂=β+β+β=∂()()24620E YIELD NITRO PHOS NITRO ∗∗∂=β+β+β=∂The solutions and their estimates are 253622645228.011(0.778) 4.800(0.567)1.7014(0.567)4( 1.944)(0.778)NITRO ∗ββ−ββ××−−×−===β−ββ−−×−−34262264522 4.800( 1.944)8.011(0.567)2.4654(0.567)4( 1.944)(0.778)PHOS ∗ββ−ββ××−−×−===β−ββ−−×−−The yield maximizing levels of fertilizer are not necessarily the optimal levels. Theoptimal levels are those where the marginal cost of the inputs is equal to the marginal value product of those inputs. Thus, the optimal levels are those for which()()PHOS PEANUTS E YIELD PRICE PHOS PRICE ∂=∂ and ()()NITROPEANUTSE YIELD PRICE NITRO PRICE ∂=∂Chapter 7, Exercise Solutions, Principles of Econometrics, 3e 148EXERCISE 7.6(a) The model to estimate is()()112323ln +PRICE UTOWN SQFT SQFT UTOWN AGE POOL FPLACE e=β+δ+β+γ×β+δ+δ+The estimated equation, with standard errors in parentheses, isn ()()()()()()ln 4.46380.33340.035960.003428(se)0.02640.03590.001040.001414PRICE UTOWN SQFT SQFT UTOWN =++−×()()()20.0009040.018990.0065560.86190.0002180.005100.004140AGE POOL FPLACER −++=(b) In the log-linear functional form 12ln(),y x e =β+β+ we have21dy dx y=β or 2dydx y =β Thus, a 1 unit change in x leads to a percentage change in y equal to 2100×β.In this case2311PRICE UTOWNSQFT PRICE PRICE AGE PRICE∂=β+γ∂∂=β∂Using this result for the coefficients of SQFT and AGE , we find that an additional 100 square feet of floor space increases price by 3.6% for a house not in University town; a house which is a year older leads to a reduction in price of 0.0904%. Both estimated coefficients are significantly different from zero. (c) Using the results in Section 7.5.1a,()2ln()ln()100100%poolnopool PRICEPRICE PRICE −×=δ×≈Δan approximation of the percentage change in price due to the presence of a pool is 1.90%. Using the results in Section7.5.1b,()21001100pool nopool nopool PRICE PRICE e PRICE δ⎛⎞−×=−×⎜⎟⎜⎟⎝⎠the exact percentage change in price due to the presence of a pool is 1.92%.Chapter 7, Exercise Solutions, Principles of Econometrics, 3e 149Exercise 7.6 (continued)(d) From Section 7.5.1a,()3ln()ln()100100%fireplacenofireplace PRICEPRICE PRICE −×=δ×≈Δan approximation of the percentage change in price due to the presence of a fireplace is 0.66%.From Section 7.5.1b,()31001100fireplace nofireplace nofireplace PRICE PRICE e PRICE δ⎛⎞−×=−×⎜⎟⎜⎟⎝⎠the exact percentage change in price due to the presence of a fireplace is also 0.66%. (e)In this case the difference in log-prices is given by()n ()n ()2525ln ln 0.33340.003428250.33340.003428250.2477utown noutown SQFT SQFT PRICE PRICE UTOWN UTOWN ==−=−××=−×= and the percentage change in price attributable to being near the university, for a 2500square-feet home, is()0.2477110028.11%e−×=Chapter 7, Exercise Solutions, Principles of Econometrics, 3e 150EXERCISE 7.7(a) The estimated equation isn ()()()()()()()2ln 8.9848 3.7463 1.1495 1.2880.4237 (se)0.64640.57650.44860.60530.1052 1.4313 0.84280.1562SAL1APR1APR2APR3DISP DISPAD R =−++++=(b) The estimates of2β, 3β and 4β are all significant and have the expected signs. The sign of 2β is negative, while the signs of the other two coefficients are positive. These signs imply that Brands 2 and 3 are substitutes for Brand 1. If the price of Brand 1 rises, then sales of Brand 1 will fall, but a price rise for Brand 2 or 3 will increase sales of Brand 1. Furthermore, with the log-linear function, the coefficients are interpreted as proportionalchanges in quantity from a 1-unit change in price. For example, a one-unit increase in the price of Brand 1 will lead to a 375% decline in sales; a one-unit increase in the price of Brand 2 will lead to a 115% increase in sales. These percentages are large because prices are measured in dollar units. If we wish toconsider a 1 cent change in price – a change more realistic than a 1-dollar change – then the percentages 375 and 115 become 3.75% and 1.15%, respectively. (c) There are three situations that are of interest. (i) No display and no advertisement{}11234exp SAL1APR1APR2APR3Q =β+β+β+β=(ii) A display but no advertisement{}{}2123455exp exp SAL1APR1APR2APR3Q =β+β+β+β+β=β(iii) A display and an advertisement{}{}3123466exp exp SAL1APR1APR2APR3Q =β+β+β+β+β=βThe estimated percentage increase in sales from a display but no advertisement isn n n 210.423751exp{}100100(1)10052.8%Q b Q SAL1SAL1e Q SAL1−−×=×=−×=Chapter 7, Exercise Solutions, Principles of Econometrics, 3e 151Exercise 7.7(c) (continued)(c) The estimated percentage increase in sales from a display and an advertisement isn n n 311.431361exp{}100100(1)100318%Q b Q SAL1SAL1e Q SAL1−−×=×=−×=The signs and relative magnitudes of 5b and 6b lead to results consistent with economiclogic. A display increases sales; a display and an advertisement increase sales by an even larger amount.(d) The results of these tests appear in the table below.Part 0H Test Value Degrees of Freedom 5% Critical ValueDecision(i) β5 = 0 t = 4.03 46 2.01 Reject H 0 (ii) β6 = 0 t = 9.17 46 2.01 Reject H 0 (iii) β5 = β6 = 0 F = 42.0 (2,46) 3.20 Reject H 0 (iv)β6 ≤ β5t = 6.8646 1.68 Reject H 0(e) The test results suggest that both a store display and a newspaper advertisement will increase sales, and that both forms of advertising will increase sales by more than a store display by itself.Chapter 7, Exercise Solutions, Principles of Econometrics, 3e 152EXERCISE 7.8(a) The estimated equation, with standard errors in parentheses, isn 215.45970.2698 2.35820.4391(se) (0.2537)(0.0868)(0.2629)PRICEAGE NET R =+−=All estimated coefficients are significantly different from zero. The intercept suggests thatthe average price of CDs that have a 1999 copyright and are not sold on the internet is $15.46. For every year the copyright date is earlier than 1999, the price increases by 27 cents. For CDs sold through the internet, the price is $2.36 cheaper. The positive coefficient of AGE supports Mixon and Ressler’s hypothesis. (b) The estimated equation, with standard errors in parentheses, isn 215.52880.7885 2.35690.4380(se) (0.2424)(0.2567) (0.2632)PRICEOLD NET R =+−=Again, all estimated coefficients are significantly different from zero. They suggest thatthe average price of new releases, not sold on the internet, is $15.53. If the CD is not a new release, the price is 79 cents higher. If it is purchased over the internet, the price is $2.36 less. The positive coefficient of OLD supports Mixon and Ressler’s hypothesis.Chapter 7, Exercise Solutions, Principles of Econometrics, 3e 153EXERCISE 7.9The estimated coefficients and their standard errors (in parenthesis) for the various parts ofthis question are given in the following table.Variable (a) (b) (c) (f) (g) Constant (β1) 128.98* 342.88* 161.47 109.72 98.48(34.59) (72.34) (120.7) (135.6) (179.1)2()AGE β −7.5756* −2.9774 −2.0383 −1.7200 (2.317) (3.352) (3.542) (4.842) 3()INC β 1.4577* 2.3822* 9.0739* 18.325 22.104(0.5974) (0.6036) (3.670) (11.49) (40.26)4()AGE INC ×β −0.1602 −0.6115 −0.9087 (0.0867) (0.5381) (3.079)25()AGE INC ×β 0.0055 0.0131 (0.0064) (0.0784)36()AGE INC ×β −0.000065 (0.000663) SSE 819286 635637 580609 568869 568708 N K − 38 37 36 35 34* indicates a t -value greater than 2.(a) See table.(b) The signs of the estimated coefficients suggest that pizza consumption responds positivelyto income and negatively to age, as we would expect. All estimated coefficients are greater than twice their standard errors, indicating they are significantly different from zero using one or two-tailed tests. We note that scaling the income variable (dividing by 1000) has increased the coefficient 1000 times. (c) To comment on the signs we need to consider the marginal effects()()24E PIZZA INC AGE ∂=β+β∂()34E PIZZA AGE INC∂=β+β∂We expect β3 > 0 and β4 < 0 implying that the response of pizza consumption to incomewill be positive, but that it will decline with age. The estimates agree with these expectations. Negative signs for b 2 and b 4 imply that, as someone ages, his or her pizza consumption will decline, and the decline will be greater the higher the level of income.Chapter 7, Exercise Solutions, Principles of Econometrics, 3e 154Exercise 7.9(c) (continued)(c) The t value for the age-income interaction variable is t = −0.1602/0.0867 = −1.847.Critical values for a 5% significance level and one and two-tailed tests are, respectively, (0.05,36) 1.688t =− and (0.025,36) 2.028t =−. Thus, if we use the prior information β4 < 0, thenwe find the interaction coefficient is significant. However, if a two-tailed test is employed, the estimated coefficient is not significant. The coefficients of INC and (INC × AGE ) have increased 1000 times due to the effects of scaling.(d) The hypotheses areH 0: β2 = β4 = 0andH 1: β2 ≠ 0 and/or β4 ≠ 0The value of the F statistic under the assumption that H 0 is true is()()()81928658060927.4058060936R U U SSE SSE J F SSE T -K −−===The 5% critical value for (2, 36) degrees of freedom is F c = 3.26 and the p -value of the testis 0.002. Thus, we reject H 0 and conclude that age does affect pizza expenditure. (e) The marginal propensity to spend on pizza is given by()34E PIZZA AGE INC∂=β+β∂Point estimates, standard errors and 95% interval estimates for this quantity, for different ages, are given in the following table.Point Standard Confidence Interval AgeEstimate Error Lower Upper20 5.870 1.977 1.861 9.878 30 4.268 1.176 1.882 6.653 40 2.665 0.605 1.439 3.892 50 1.063 0.923 −0.8092.935The interval estimates were calculated using (0.975,36) 2.0281c t t ==. As an example of how the standard errors were calculated, consider age 30. We have()n ()n ()n ()n ()23434344var 30var 30var 230cov ,13.4669000.0075228600.31421 1.38392se 30 1.1763b b b b b b b b +=++×=+×−×=+==The corresponding interval estimate is4.268 ± 2.028 × 1.176 = (1.882, 6.653)Chapter 7, Exercise Solutions, Principles of Econometrics, 3e 155Exercise 7.9(e) (continued)(e)The point estimates for the marginal propensity to spend on pizza decline as age increases, as we would expect. However, the confidence intervals are relatively wide indicating that our information on the marginal propensities is not very reliable. Indeed, all the confidence intervals do overlap. (f) This model is given by212345+PIZZA INC AGE AGE INC AGE INC e =ββ+β+β×+β×+The marginal effect of income is now given by()2245+E PIZZA AGE AGE INC∂=β+ββ∂If this marginal effect is to increase with age, up to a point, and then decline, then β5 < 0. The sign of the estimated coefficient b 5 = 0.0055 did not agree with this anticipation. However, with a t value of t = 0.0055/0.0064 = 0.86, it is not significantly different from zero.(g)Two ways to check for collinearity are (i) to examine the simple correlations between each pair of variables in the regression, and (ii) to examine the R 2 values from auxiliary regressions where each explanatory variable is regressed on all other explanatory variables in the equation. In the tables below there are 3 simple correlations greater than 0.94 in part (f) and 5 in part (g). The number of auxiliary regressions with R 2s greater than 0.99 is 3 for part (f) and 4 for part (g). Thus, collinearity is potentially a problem. Examining the estimates and their standard errors confirms this fact. In both cases there are no t -values which are greater than 2 and hence no coefficients are significantly different from zero. None of the coefficients are reliably estimated. In general, including squared and cubed variables can lead to collinearity if there is inadequate variation in a variable.Simple CorrelationsAGE AGE INC ×2AGE INC × 3AGE INC ×INC 0.4685 0.9812 0.9436 0.8975 AGE0.5862 0.6504 0.6887 AGE INC × 0.9893 0.9636 2AGE INC ×0.9921R 2 Values from Auxiliary RegressionsLHS variableR 2 in part (f) R 2 in part (g)INC0.99796 0.99983 AGE0.68400 0.82598 AGE INC × 0.99956 0.99999 2AGE INC × 0.99859 0.999993AGE INC × 0.99994Chapter 7, Exercise Solutions, Principles of Econometrics, 3e 156EXERCISE 7.10(a) The estimated equation with gender (FEMALE ) included, and with standard errors written in parentheses, isn ()()()()461.86408.18280.0024190.2581 (se)51.3441 1.55010.000427.7681PIZZA AGE INCOME FEMALE =−+−The t -value for gender is 190.258127.7681 6.8517t =−=− indicating that it is a relevantexplanatory variable. Including it in the model has led to substantial changes in the coefficients of the remaining variables.(b) When level of educational attainment is included the estimated model, with the standarderrors in parentheses, becomesn ()()()()317.38988.30140.002990.7944 (se)83.3909 2.32630.000757.8402PIZZAAGE INCOME HS =−++()()1.680273.204762.662192.0859COLLEGE GRAD−−None of the dummy variable coefficients are significant, casting doubt on the relevance of education as an explanatory variable. Also, including the education dummies has had little impact on the remaining coefficient estimates. To confirm the lack of evidence supporting the inclusion of education, we need to use an F test to jointly test whether the coefficients of HS, COLLEGE and GRAD are all zero. The value of this statistic is()()()63563753944632.020*********R U U SSE SSE J F SSE N K −−===−The 5% critical value for (3, 34) degrees of freedom is F c = 3.05; the p -value is 0.13. Wecannot conclude that level of educational attainment influences pizza consumption. (c) To test this hypothesis we estimate a model where the dummy variable gender (FEMALE ) interacts with every other variable in the equation. The estimated equation, with standard errors in parentheses, isn ()()()()451.36059.36320.0036208.3393 (se)63.9450 1.91550.000796.5078PIZZA AGE INCOME FEMALE =−+−()()2.83370.00183.08710.0008AGE×FEMALE INCOME×FEMALE−Chapter 7, Exercise Solutions, Principles of Econometrics, 3e 157Exercise 7.10(c) (continued)(c)To test the hypothesis that the regression equations for males and females are identical, we test jointly whether the coefficients of FEMALE , AGE ×FEMALE , INCOME ×FEMALE are all zero. Note that individual t tests on each of these coefficients do not suggest gender is relevant. However, when we take all variables together, the F value for jointly testing their coefficients is()()()635636.7244466.5318.1344244466.534R U U SSE SSE J F SSE N K −−===−This value is greater than F c = 2.866 which is the 5% critical value for (3, 36) degrees offreedom. The p -value is 0.0000. Thus, we reject the null hypothesis that males and females have identical pizza expenditure equations. This result implies different equations should be used to model pizza expenditure for males, and that for females. It does not say how the equations differ. For example, all their coefficients could be different, or simply modelling different intercepts might be adequate.Chapter 7, Exercise Solutions, Principles of Econometrics, 3e 158EXERCISE 7.11(a) The estimated result, with standard errors in parentheses, isn ()()()()161.4654 2.97740.009070.00016(se)120.6634 3.35210.003670.0000867PIZZA AGE INCOME INCOME×AGE =−+−This is identical to the result reported in 7.4.(b) From the sample we obtain average age = 33.475 and average income = 42,925. Thus, the required marginal effect of income isn ()0.009070.0001633.4750.00371E PIZZA INCOME∂=−×=∂Using computer software, we find the standard error of this estimate to be 0.000927, and the t value for testing whether the marginal effect is significantly different from zero is t =0.003710.000927 4.00=. The corresponding p -value is 0.0003 leading us to conclude that the marginal income effect is statistically significant at a 1% level of significance.(c) A 95% interval estimate for the marginal income effect is given by0.00371 ± 2.0281 × 0.000927 = (0.00183, 0.00559)(d) The marginal effect of age for an individual of average income is given byn ()()E PIZZA AGE ∂∂= −2.9774 − 0.00016INCOME = −2.9774 − 0.00016 × 42,925 = −9.854 Using computer software, we find the standard error of this estimate to be 2.5616, and thet value for testing whether the marginal effect is significantly different from zero is 9.8542.5616 3.85t =−=−The p -value of the test is 0.0005, implying that the marginal age effect is significantlydifferent from zero at a 1% level of significance. (e) A 95% interval estimate for the marginal age effect is given by −9.854 ± 2.0281 × 2.5616 = (−15.05, −4.66)Chapter 7, Exercise Solutions, Principles of Econometrics, 3e 159Exercise 7.11 (continued)(f)Important pieces of information for Gutbusters are the responses of pizza consumption to age and income. It is helpful to know the demand for pizzas in young and old communities and in high and low income areas. A good starting point in an investigation of this kind is to evaluate the responses at average age and average income. Such an evaluation will indicate whether there are noticeable responses, and, if so, give some idea of their magnitudes. The two responses are estimated asn ()E PIZZA INCOME ∂∂ = 0.0037n ()()E PIZZA AGE ∂∂ = −9.85Both these estimates are significantly different from zero at a 1% level of significance. They suggest that increasing income will increase pizza consumption, but, as a community ages, its demand for pizza declines. Interval estimates give an indication of the reliability of the estimated responses. In this context, we estimate that the income response lies between 0.0018 and 0.0056, while the age response lies between −15.05 and −4.66.。
