The MODEL Procedure


Example 26.21 A Translog Cost Function and Derived Demands

This example shows the use of iterated seemingly unrelated regression (ITSUR) to estimate a system of nonlinear derived demand equations that are based on a translog cost function. Data pertain to the United States textile manufacturing sector (standard industrial classification code 22). The series runs from 1949 to 2001 and contains real quantity indices, price indices, and cost measures for a single aggregate industry output and five aggregate inputs: capital (K), labor (L), energy (E), materials (M), and services (S). The original data and information about other industrial sectors can be obtained from the Multifactor Productivity home page of the Bureau of Labor Statistics at http://www.bls.gov/mfp/.

The demand equations that are derived from the translog cost function are expressed by using a cost share as the endogenous variable. Because these data do not contain explicit information about cost shares, the shares must be formed by taking the ratio of the value of each input and the cost measure. The following statements compute the cost share for each input:

data klems;
set klems;
   array values {5} vk vl ve vm vs;
   array costshares {5} sk sl se sm ss;
   cost = sum(vk,vl,ve,vm,vs);
   do i = 1 to 5;
      costshares{i} = values{i}/cost;
   end;
run;

The following statements produce a time series plot of quantity indices and generate further plots of price indices and cost shares:

   proc sgplot data = klems;
      series x = year y = k / markers markerattrs =(symbol=circle);
      series x = year y = l / markers markerattrs =(symbol=square);
      series x = year y = e / markers markerattrs =(symbol=star);
      series x = year y = m / markers markerattrs =(symbol=diamond);
      series x = year y = s / markers markerattrs =(symbol=hash);
      title 'Factor Quantities';
      yaxis label = 'Quantity';
   run;

Output 26.21.1 shows time series plots of quantity indices, price indices, and cost shares over time, indicating the dynamics of the US textile sector.

Output 26.21.1: Changes in Variables over Time

Changes in Variables over Time
External File:images/graphic1output1.png
External File:images/graphic1output2.png


Textile manufacturing was once a significant part of total manufacturing output in the United States. As international trade increased, many textile mills moved overseas, where labor costs are lower than they are in the United States. The first graph in Output 26.21.1 shows that labor use has steadily declined while use of other inputs has grown. Perhaps the textile industry adjusted to foreign competition by increasing use of inputs besides labor. The price of energy increased rapidly in the 1970s, reflecting what has commonly been called the “energy crisis.” As energy prices increased, energy use remained flat or declined. The result of these two movements is a higher cost share for energy in general. As labor use and cost shares declined in the sector, there were nearly coincident increases in the quantity indices and cost shares of capital and purchased services. This relationship suggests that capital and services can substitute for labor in the production of textiles.

Output 26.21.1 does not provide quantifiable measures of the relationship between input use and price or of input substitution. Price elasticities and substitution elasticities must be calculated from the parameters of the cost function or from factor demands. One benefit of the translog form is that the system of factor demands produces nearly the same information as the cost function. The only parameter of the cost function that is not captured by the derived demand system is the intercept term, which is not used in calculating the desired elasticities. Often, only the system of derived demands is estimated. In this example, the MODEL procedure is used to fit four derived demand equations. One of the equations (the derived demand equation for services) has been arbitrarily dropped from estimation; only $N-1$ of the factor demands are linearly independent because the dependent variables are cost shares, which must sum to one. The parameters of the dropped derived demand equation can be recovered after estimation through homogeneity and symmetry restrictions.

The following statements estimate the system of derived demand equations without imposing any restrictions. Likelihood ratio tests are performed to determine whether homogeneity and symmetry restrictions hold both singularly and jointly.

   proc model data = klems;
      parameters a_k gkk gkl gke gkm gks gky
                 a_l glk gll gle glm gls gly
                     a_e gek gel gee gem ges gey
                     a_m gmk gml gme gmm gms gmy;
      endogenous sk sl se sm;
      exogenous pk pl pe pm ps y;

      /*System of Derived Demand Equations*/
      sk = a_k + gkk*log(pk) + gkl*log(pl) + gke*log(pe) + gkm*log(pm) + gks*log(ps)
               + gky*log(y);
      sl = a_l + glk*log(pk) + gll*log(pl) + gle*log(pe) + glm*log(pm) + gls*log(ps)
               + gly*log(y);
      se = a_e + gek*log(pk) + gel*log(pl) + gee*log(pe) + gem*log(pm) + ges*log(ps)
               + gey*log(y);
      sm = a_m + gmk*log(pk) + gml*log(pl) + gme*log(pe) + gmm*log(pm) + gms*log(ps)
               + gmy*log(y);

      fit sk sl se sm / itsur;

      test "Homogeneity"
         gkk+gkl+gke+gkm+gks=0,
         glk+gll+gle+glm+gls=0,
         gek+gel+gee+gem+ges=0,
         gmk+gml+gme+gmm+gms=0, / lr;

      test "Symmetry"
         gkl=glk,
         gke=gek,
         gkm=gmk,
         glm=gml,
         gle=gel,
         gem=gme, / lr;

      test "Joint Homogeneity and Symmetry"
         gkk+gkl+gke+gkm+gks=0,
         glk+gll+gle+glm+gls=0,
         gek+gel+gee+gem+ges=0,
         gmk+gml+gme+gmm+gms=0,
         gkl=glk,
         gke=gek,
         gkm=gmk,
         glm=gml,
         gle=gel,
         gem=gme, / lr;
   run;

The summary of residual errors provides fit statistics for each of the estimated demand equations and is shown in Output 26.21.2. In this case, the model fits the data well based on R-squared values.

Output 26.21.2: Residual Summary

The MODEL Procedure

Nonlinear ITSUR Summary of Residual Errors 
Equation DF Model DF Error SSE MSE Root MSE R-Square Adj R-Sq Label
sk 7 46 0.00118 0.000026 0.00506 0.9519 0.9457 Capital Share
sl 7 46 0.00449 0.000098 0.00988 0.9565 0.9508 Labor Share
se 7 46 0.000079 1.724E-6 0.00131 0.9847 0.9827 Energy Share
sm 7 46 0.00436 0.000095 0.00973 0.9146 0.9035 Materials Share



Because the form of the elasticities is somewhat complicated, it can be difficult to interpret the values and signs of parameter estimates. It is far easier to compute the elasticities directly. The test results in Output 26.21.3 indicate that both symmetry and homogeneity are rejected. A common practice is to assume that such restrictions hold and to impose them in estimation.

Output 26.21.3: Tests of Symmetry and Homogeneity

Test Results
Test Type Statistic Pr > ChiSq Label
Homogeneity L.R. 114.22 <.0001 gkk+gkl+gke+gkm+gks=0, glk+gll+gle+glm+gls=0, gek+gel+gee+gem+ges=0, gmk+gml+gme+gmm+gms=0
Symmetry L.R. 109.72 <.0001 gkl=glk, gke=gek, gkm=gmk, glm=gml, gle=gel, gem=gme
Joint Homogeneity and Symmetry L.R. 240.80 <.0001 gkk+gkl+gke+gkm+gks=0, glk+gll+gle+glm+gls=0, gek+gel+gee+gem+ges=0, gmk+gml+gme+gmm+gms=0, gkl=glk, gke=gek, gkm=gmk, glm=gml, gle=gel, gem=gme



The following code imposes both symmetry and homogeneity restrictions on the underlying model:

   proc model data = klems;
       parameters a_k gkk gkl gke gkm gks gky
                  a_l glk gll gle glm gls gly
                  a_e gek gel gee gem ges gey
                  a_m gmk gml gme gmm gms gmy;
       endogenous sk sl se sm;
       exogenous pk pl pe pm ps y;
       restrict /*Homogeneity Restrictions*/
                gks+gkk+gkl+gke+gkm=0,
                gls+gkl+gll+gle+glm=0,
                ges+gke+gle+gee+gem=0,
                gms+gkm+glm+gem+gmm=0,
                /*Symmetry Restrictions*/
                gkl=glk, gke=gek, gkm=gmk, gle=gel, glm=gml, gem=gme;

       /*System of Derived Demand Equations*/
       sk = a_k + gkk*log(pk) + gkl*log(pl) + gke*log(pe) + gkm*log(pm) + gks*log(ps)
                + gky*log(y);
       sl = a_l + glk*log(pk) + gll*log(pl) + gle*log(pe) + glm*log(pm) + gls*log(ps)
                + gly*log(y);
       se = a_e + gek*log(pk) + gel*log(pl) + gee*log(pe) + gem*log(pm) + ges*log(ps)
                + gey*log(y);
       sm = a_m + gmk*log(pk) + gml*log(pl) + gme*log(pe) + gmm*log(pm) + gms*log(ps)
                + gmy*log(y);

       fit sk sl se sm / itsur chow = (24) outest=est;

       test "Constant Returns to Scale"
          gky=0,
          gly=0,
          gey=0,
          gmy=0, / lr;
   run;

The symmetry restriction shrinks the number of parameters of the model considerably. This shrinkage is particularly useful when the time series is not long and degrees of freedom need to be conserved. Output 26.21.4 shows the parameter estimates of the MODEL procedure.

Output 26.21.4: Restricted Model

The MODEL Procedure

Nonlinear ITSUR Parameter Estimates
Parameter Estimate Approx Std Err t Value Approx
Pr > |t|
Label
a_k 0.109996 0.0219 5.02 <.0001 SK Intercept
gkk 0.062014 0.00357 17.38 <.0001 SK K Price
gkl -0.01898 0.00725 -2.62 0.0118 SK L Price
gke -0.00179 0.000836 -2.15 0.0369 SK E Price
gkm -0.03872 0.00610 -6.35 <.0001 SK M Price
gks -0.00252 0.00342 -0.74 0.4648 SK S Price
gky -0.00104 0.00496 -0.21 0.8354 SK Output
a_l 0.865473 0.0903 9.58 <.0001 SL Intercept
glk -0.01898 0.00725 -2.62 0.0118 SL K Price
gll -0.00999 0.0360 -0.28 0.7826 SL L Price
gle -0.00106 0.00420 -0.25 0.8013 SL E Price
glm -0.06766 0.0248 -2.73 0.0087 SL M Price
gls 0.097692 0.0214 4.57 <.0001 SL S Price
gly -0.11488 0.0200 -5.74 <.0001 SL Output
a_e 0.012747 0.00984 1.30 0.2013 SE Intercept
gek -0.00179 0.000836 -2.15 0.0370 SE K Price
gel -0.00106 0.00420 -0.25 0.8013 SE L Price
gee 0.029876 0.00112 26.76 <.0001 SE E Price
gem -0.01954 0.00275 -7.12 <.0001 SE M Price
ges -0.00748 0.00325 -2.30 0.0257 SE S Price
gey 0.005808 0.00217 2.68 0.0101 SE Output
a_m -0.08173 0.0701 -1.17 0.2492 SM Intercept
gmk -0.03872 0.00610 -6.35 <.0001 SM K Price
gml -0.06766 0.0248 -2.73 0.0087 SM L Price
gme -0.01954 0.00275 -7.12 <.0001 SM E Price
gmm 0.146849 0.0222 6.62 <.0001 SM M Price
gms -0.02092 0.0103 -2.03 0.0477 SM S Price
gmy 0.113729 0.0157 7.27 <.0001 SM Output
Restrict0 -563.453 242.8 -2.32 0.0187 gks+gkk+gkl+gke+gkm=0
Restrict1 82.23307 193.0 0.43 0.6747 gls+gkl+gll+gle+glm=0
Restrict2 321.7446 689.2 0.47 0.6455 ges+gke+gle+gee+gem=0
Restrict3 -279.71 211.0 -1.33 0.1879 gms+gkm+glm+gem+gmm=0
Restrict4 -261.228 196.3 -1.33 0.1860 gkl=glk
Restrict5 -1041.84 755.0 -1.38 0.1700 gke=gek
Restrict6 -27.855 219.3 -0.13 0.9005 gkm=gmk
Restrict7 -880.821 742.7 -1.19 0.2396 gle=gel
Restrict8 259.513 215.6 1.20 0.2326 glm=gml
Restrict9 1103.343 320.8 3.44 0.0003 gem=gme



The majority of the parameter estimates are significant, and insignificant parameters are statistically equivalent to 0. When the $g_{ij}$ are all 0, the translog cost function reduces to the Cobb-Douglas cost function. Statistically insignificant parameter estimates imply that corresponding elasticities of substitution are equal to the Cobb-Douglas value of 1.

A TEST statement is used to determine whether this industry exhibits constant returns to scale in the range of the sample. The CHOW option in the FIT statement performs a Chow test for a structural break at the 24th year of the sample (1973). In October of that year the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) declared an oil embargo. Markets were affected by significant shocks to oil prices, and gasoline in the United States was rationed. Output 26.21.5 shows the results of the two tests.

Output 26.21.5: CRS and Chow Test Results

Test Results
Test Type Statistic Pr > ChiSq Label
Constant Returns to Scale L.R. 74.27 <.0001 gky=0, gly=0, gey=0, gmy=0

Structural Change Test
Test Break Point Num DF Den DF F Value Pr > F
Chow 24 23 2 0.28 0.9560



The null hypothesis of constant returns to scale is rejected. The null hypothesis of the Chow test cannot be rejected. Even with the turmoil of the oil embargo, there is no evidence of a structural break in 1973.

Derivations of the Hicks-Allen elasticity of substitution, the Morishima elasticity of substitution, and the price elasticity of demand for the translog cost function can be found in Chambers (1988). The elasticities are evaluated at the sample mean, so the MEANS procedure is used in the following statements to produce data that contain the sample means of the cost shares:

proc means data = klems noprint mean;
   variables sk sl se sm ss;
   output out = meanshares mean = sk sl se sm ss;
run;

Because some of the parameters are not estimated, their values must be backed out through application of homogeneity and symmetry restrictions. The IML procedure is used in the following statements to read in parameter estimates and then calculate elasticities:

   proc iml;
      /*Read in parameter estimates*/
      use est;
      read all var {gkk gkl gke gkm gks};
      read all var {gll gle glm gls};
      read all var {gee gem ges};
      read all var {gmm gms};
      close est;

      /*Calculate S parameter based on homogeneity constraint*/
      gss=0-gks-gls-ges-gms;

      /*Read in mean cost shares and construct vector*/
      use meanshares;
      read all var {sk sl se sm ss};
      close meanshares;

      w = sk//sl//se//sm//ss;

     print w;

     /*Construct matrix of parameter estimates*/
     gij = (gkk||gkl||gke||gkm||gks)//
           (gkl||gll||gle||glm||gls)//
           (gke||gle||gee||gem||ges)//
           (gkm||glm||gem||gmm||gms)//
           (gks||gls||ges||gms||gss);
    
      print gij;

      nk=ncol(gij);
      mi = -1#I(nk);    /*Initialize negative identity matrix*/
      eos = j(nk,nk,0); /*Initialize Marshallian EOS Matrix*/
      mos = j(nk,nk,0); /*Initialize Morishima EOS Matrix*/
      ep  = j(nk,nk,0); /*Initialize Price EOD Matrix*/

      /*Calculate Marshallian EOS and Price EOD Matrices*/
      i=1;
      do i=1 to nk;
      j=1;
      do j=1 to nk;
          eos[i,j] = (gij[i,j]+w[i]#w[j]+mi[i,j]#w[i])/(w[i]#w[j]);
          ep[i,j] = w[j]#eos[i,j];
      end;
      end;

      /*Calculate Morishima EOS Matrix*/
      i=1;
      do i=1 to nk;
      j=1;
      do j=1 to nk;
         mos[i,j] = ep[i,j]-ep[j,j];
      end;
      end;

   run;

Output 26.21.6 shows the elasticity matrices that are generated by the IML procedure.

Output 26.21.6: Elasticity Matrices

Price Elasticities of Demand
  Capital Labor Energy Materials Services
Capital -0.338 0.227 0.0183 0.0593 0.0335
Labor 0.0650 -0.630 0.0315 0.231 0.303
Energy 0.0606 0.364 -0.0915 -0.170 -0.163
Materials 0.0167 0.227 -0.0145 -0.233 0.00367
Services 0.0679 2.148 -0.1000 0.0265 -2.142

Hicks-Allen Elasticities of Substitution
  Capital Labor Energy Materials Services
Capital -2.993 0.575 0.536 0.148 0.600
Labor 0.575 -1.594 0.921 0.574 5.435
Energy 0.536 0.921 -2.679 -0.423 -2.925
Materials 0.148 0.574 -0.423 -0.579 0.0658
Services 0.600 5.435 -2.925 0.0658 -38.437

Morishima Elasticities of Substitution
  Capital Labor Energy Materials Services
Capital 0 0.857 0.110 0.292 2.176
Labor 0.403 0 0.123 0.463 2.445
Energy 0.399 0.994 0 0.0627 1.979
Materials 0.355 0.857 0.0771 0 2.146
Services 0.406 2.778 -0.0084 0.259 0



Own price elasticities are all negative as expected. Based on the price elasticity of demand, all pairs of inputs are substitutes except energy and services and energy and materials. The matrix of Hicks-Allen elasticities is symmetric by design. In general, most of the elasticities are less than 1 in absolute value and the degree of substitution is low. However, the elasticity between labor and services is high, indicating that the textile industry might have responded to increased competition from foreign firms that have low labor cost by shifting away from labor to greater use of services. The Morishima elasticities support this interpretation, but there are subtle differences between the two measures. The relationship between capital and services is more elastic when the Morishima elasticity is used. The estimation of elasticities thoroughly describes production in this industry and produces quantifiable measures of the relationships between inputs.