Model Specification

Download as ppt, pdf, or txt
Download as ppt, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 10

Empirical Testing of Structure-Conduct (Strategy)- Performance

• Model Specification

 In practice, researchers estimate a statistical model of


the following form where data are aggregated to the
industry level:

 Industry Profit Rates = f (Concentration, Barriers to


Entry, Demand …)

3–1
Empirical Testing of Structure-Conduct (Strategy)- Performance

• Model Specification

 Multiple regression analysis seeks to evaluate the degrees


to which deviations of the dependent variable (and in this
course our focus has been on profit rates as the dependent
variable) from its mean are “explained by” or associated with
variations in each of a set of independent or explanatory
variables (e.g., concentration, barriers to entry, demand, etc.)

3–2
Empirical Testing of Structure-Conduct (Strategy)- Performance

• Model Specification

 The nature of this association is captured by regression


coefficients relating the profit rates in the industry of each
independent variable, allowing us to determine the effect,
for example, of a 10% increase in seller concentration on
profit rates, holding all other explanatory variables constant
(i.e., “ceteris paribus”)

3–3
Empirical Testing of Structure-Conduct (Strategy)- Performance


S tru c tu re -C o n d u c t-P e rfo rm a n c e

Model Specification In d u s try S tru c tu re


• N u m b e r o f b u y e rs
a n d s e lle r s
F ir m C o n d u c t


P r ic in g
A d v e r t is in g
P e rfo rm a n c e
• E c o n p r o f it s
• A c c o u n t in g
• D e g re e o f p ro d u c t • R & D p r o f it s ( r a t io s )
d if f e r e n t ia t io n • I n v e s t m e n t in
• B a r r ie r s t o e n t r y p la n t a n d • N P V /D C F
• C o s t s tru c tu re s e q u ip m e n t
• V e r t ic a l in t e g r a t io n • M V A /E V A

Variable Predicted Sign Reason


• A llia n c e s • T o b in ’s Q

CR4 + Higher concentration


enables higher prices
CAP/S + Capital-cost barrier to entry
A/S + Advertising intensity as a
product differentiation
barrier to entry
R&D/S + Technological know-how
GROW + Demand growth leads to
less likely price wars
3–4
Empirical Testing of Structure-Conduct (Strategy)- Performance

• Model Specification

 Note that the multiple regression results are consistent with


(but do not prove!) the structure-conduct-performance model.

 As you probably are aware from your statistics classes, there


are many potential problems that can interfere with the
reliable estimation of regression models, leading to incorrect
inference about the statistical significance and economic
importance of explanatory variables.
Empirical Testing of Structure-Conduct (Strategy)- Performance

(1) Mis-specification Problems:

 Important Variables Omitted. In our regression, the impact


of substitute products, and the power of buyers and suppliers
have not been included in the model specification.

 Irrelevant Variables Included. If you believe in “perfect


capital markets” then you may question the idea of capital
cost entry barriers and therefore you would question the
inclusion of the independent variable [CAP/S] in the model.
Empirical Testing of Structure-Conduct (Strategy)- Performance

(1) Mis-specification Problems:

 Model assumes a linear relationship. Since the regression


assumes a linear relationship, this may turn out to be a poor
approximation if some of the explanatory variables (e.g., ADV/S)
influence the dependent variable (i.e., ROE) in a non-linear way.

 Independent variable may not be truly independent.


For example, not only can increased concentration affect
profit rates but profit rates may affect industry
concentration.

 Multicollinearity. If independent variables such as


(ADV/S) and {R&D/S) are highly correlated, then the
validity of the t-statistics come into question.
Empirical Testing of Structure-Conduct (Strategy)- Performance

(2) Measurement Problems:

• For example, CR4 may not be the best measure of


industry concentration, where the HHI is a better measure.
Perhaps some performance measure other than ROE
would also be better for testing the theory.

Note: If the evidence is not consistent with the theory it is not


necessarily the case that we abandon the theory. One of the
many possibilities is that we do not have good measures of the
theoretical concepts.
Empirical Testing of Structure-Conduct (Strategy)- Performance

(3) Identification Problems:

- These problems are related to the idea that “correlation


does not imply causality.”

 For example, you might maintain that high


advertising/sales is a barrier to entry (product
differentiation) strategy that causes high profit rates.
The regression is consistent with Porter’s (1980) theory.

3-9
Empirical Testing of Structure-Conduct (Strategy)- Performance

(3)
(3 Identification Problems

 However, one might argue instead that high profit rates


allow more discretionary spending in marketing and thus,
high profit rates cause high advertising/sales. The empirical
evidence is also consistent with this theory. Thus, we have
an “identification problem.” The data are consistent with
multiple theories and we must find more refined tests and
better econometric methods in order to advance our scientific
knowledge in strategic management.

You might also like