01.02.2015 Views

Producer Price Index Manual: Theory and Practice ... - METAC

Producer Price Index Manual: Theory and Practice ... - METAC

Producer Price Index Manual: Theory and Practice ... - METAC

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

1. An Introduction to PPI Methodology<br />

probabilities proportional to their revenue shares in<br />

the first period. As shown in Section F of Chapter<br />

20, with this method of selection, the simple geometric<br />

average of the sample price relatives—that<br />

is, the Jevons index—may be expected to provide<br />

an approximation to the underlying economic index.<br />

1.162 However, for PPIs the assumption of unit<br />

cross-product elasticities of substitution with equal<br />

revenues in both periods is not consistent with producer<br />

economic theory. Revenue-maximizing producers<br />

will produce more of the sampled products<br />

with above-average price increases, so their share<br />

of revenue cannot be expected to be constant. Indeed<br />

the Jevons index, in assuming constant revenue<br />

shares, will understate price changes under<br />

such revenue-maximizing behavioral assumptions.<br />

The Jevons index allows implicit quantities to fall<br />

as relative prices increase, to maintain equal revenue<br />

share, rather than allowing an increase. There is<br />

not an accepted unweighted price index number formula<br />

that incorporates such substitution behavior,<br />

although the Jevons index has been shown to be unsuitable<br />

under producer revenue-maximizing assumptions.<br />

1.163 Alternatively, suppose that the production<br />

technology is such that, at least in the short term,<br />

there is no substitution in response to relative price<br />

changes, <strong>and</strong> the relative quantities remain fixed. In<br />

this case, the true economic index would be a<br />

Laspeyres-type index. If the products were sampled<br />

with probabilities proportional to the revenue shares<br />

in the first period, a simple arithmetic average of<br />

the price relatives—that is, the Carli index—would<br />

approximate to it 14 . However, assuming no substitution<br />

is unreasonable <strong>and</strong> counterfactual in general,<br />

although it may occur exceptionally.<br />

1.164 Thus, using the economic approach, under<br />

one set of conditions the Jevons index would provide<br />

an approximation to the underlying economic<br />

index, while under another set of conditions the<br />

Carli index would do so. In most cases, the actual<br />

conditions seem likely to be closer to those required<br />

14 Notice that the Dutot index cannot be used when the<br />

products are not homogeneous, since an arithmetic average<br />

of the prices of different kinds of products is both arbitrary<br />

<strong>and</strong> economically meaningless. If a Laspeyres index is estimated<br />

as a simple average of the price relatives—that is, assuming<br />

equal revenue shares—the implied quantities cannot<br />

be equal because they vary inversely with the prices.<br />

for the Jevons to estimate the underlying index than<br />

for the Carli, since the cross-elasticities of substitution<br />

seem much more likely to be close to unity<br />

than zero for industries whose pricing behavior is<br />

dem<strong>and</strong> driven. Thus, the economic approach provides<br />

some support for the use of Jevons rather than<br />

Carli, at least in most situations. However, if producer<br />

revenue-maximizing behavior is believed to<br />

dominate an industry use of the Jevons index is not<br />

supported.<br />

1.165 Another alternative is suggested in Section<br />

G of Chapter 20. If products are sampled according<br />

to fixed revenue shares in each period, then the resulting<br />

sample can be used with the Carli formula<br />

(P C ) to estimate the Laspeyres index, <strong>and</strong> the harmonic<br />

mean formula (P H ) to calculate the Paasche<br />

index. By taking the geometric average of these two<br />

formulas, as suggested by Carruthers, Sellwood,<br />

Ward (1980), <strong>and</strong> Dalén (1992a), a Fisher index<br />

would result:<br />

(1.18) P CSWD<br />

= P C<br />

× P H<br />

.<br />

1.166 However, since statistical offices would<br />

not have the revenue shares for the current period,<br />

an approximation to the Fisher index is obtained by<br />

assuming they are not too different from those used<br />

in the base period 0. A similar assumption would<br />

justify the use of a Jevons index (P J ,) as an approximation<br />

to a Törnqvist index. Again recall, that<br />

these approximations result when the observations<br />

are sampled in proportion to revenue shares.<br />

1.167 One lesson to be drawn is that, when trying<br />

to decide on the most appropriate form of the price<br />

index for an elementary aggregate, it is essential to<br />

pay attention to the characteristics of the products<br />

within the aggregate <strong>and</strong> not rely on a priori generalizations.<br />

In particular, the Dutot index should be<br />

used only when the products are homogeneous <strong>and</strong><br />

measured in exactly the same units. When the products<br />

are heterogeneous, the choice between the<br />

Carli <strong>and</strong> the Jevons index turns on the extent to<br />

which, <strong>and</strong> the nature of, substitution behavior that<br />

is likely to occur in response to relative price<br />

changes. In many cases, the Jevons is likely to be<br />

preferred. Because Jevons is also the preferred index<br />

on axiomatic grounds, it seems likely to be the<br />

most suitable form of elementary index in most<br />

situations, although the circumstances underlying<br />

its use should be carefully established.<br />

31

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!