Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1. Introduction
2. The Model
The authors are on the staff of the Foundation for Economic Research of the University of Amsterdam.
83
84
Table 1
Dependent variables
Notation
Description
Yl
Y2
Y3
Y4
Ys
Y6
Table 2
Explanatory variables
Notation
Description
x1
x2
x3
x4
x5
x6
x7
x8
x9
(1)
(2)
where
c o = ( I - B ) - 16,
C = (I-B)- lF
and
v = ( I - B ) - '~t.
Thus each equation o f the system (2) has the form
9
(3)
I=1
POPULATION
~ _ ~
o
~ _~~~- - _~~-_ ~
N~N~
.oo
~o~
85
86
(including the terms c4, x4) of the model such that the
model fits perfectly for 1981. Fixing these constant
terms on their new level we then plug in the values of
the explanatory variables x I to x 3 and x5 to x9 for
each year of the forecasting period involved to obtain
'raw' forecasts. Obviously these raw forecasts do not
take into account the possibility of a change of the
birth rate. Since the birth rate is changing over time
we have to make some adjustment. The correction
procedure we have applied is the following. Let b(t)
be the forecast of the birth rate in year t. The raw
forecast of the variable Yi for, say, 1985 is now
corrected by multiplying it by
1984
1980
b(t)/
t=i980
b(t)
t=i976
3. Forecasting
b(j)
91(0 = j=,-5
to- 1
".91(t),
E
b(j)
j=to-5
t-6
Y bO)
~2(t) = J=', 0 - 6 ~o
"')2(0,
j =to - 10
t-it
Z
b(j)
5
3~ ~- - t o - 1i
'x) 3(t)'
rt.
j=t_i
Z bO)
to-15
t-16
E
b(j)
~4(t) = j=,-2o
,o- 16
Z
j=to-20
~),(t).
b(j)
87
Table 4
Long Term Population Forecasts for Huizen on Basis of the Situation in 1971
Number of inhabitants in the age group:
Year
0-4
5-9
10-14
15--19
20-64
65 +
Total
Stock of
dwellings
1972
2400
2360
-1.6
2380
2270
-4.7
2170
2140
-1.5
1970
1970
0.0
1740
2080
19.5
2050
2150
5.0
1930
2190
13.2
2080
2290
10.7
2040
2240
9.8
2600
2670
2.8
2630
2650
0.8
2620
2650
1.4
2650
2620
--1.2
2700
2860
6.2
2850
3080
8,1
2820
3140
11.2
2760
3090
11.8
2650
2880
8.7
2340
2350
0.7
2380
2390
0.6
2500
2430
-3.0
2520
2440
-3.5
2690
2660
-1.3
2810
2940
4.7
2780
3040
9.4
2910
3110
6.9
2960
3070
3.7
2020
1960
3.1
2080
2000
-3.8
2130
2050
-3.8
2210
2090
-5.2
2250
2320
3.4
2300
2670
16.0
2360
2760
16.9
2510
2800
11.6
2620
2770
5.7
12910
12940
0.2
13120
12880
-1.8
13100
12850
-1.9
12980
12610
-2.8
13690
13620
-2.4
15210
14890
-2.1
15360
15070
-1.9
16170
15820
-2.2
16500
15900
-3.6
1930
1900
-1.7
2020
1960
-2.8
2140
2000
-6.6
2210
2000
-9.5
2270
2030
-10.5
2380
2360
-1.3
2440
2190
-10.3
2540
2240
-11.8
2570
2260
-12.1
24200
24190
-0.1
24600
24150
-1.9
24640
24100
-2.2
24540
23720
-3.3
25600
25570
-0.I
27600
28090
1.8
27690
28390
2.5
28980
29350
1.3
29340
29120
-0.7
6878
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
7005
7150
7161
7740
8481
8657
9175
9239
88
HERMAN
J. B I E R E N S A N D R O Y H O E V E R
2. Estimation
The usual method for estimating linear relationships
is the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) estimation
method. Writing a particular equation of our model
in matrix form as
Appendix
1. Specification testing
The reduced form model (3) consists of linear
regression equations. In order that these linear
equations represent the mathematical expectations of
the dependent variables conditional on the
explanatory variables, they should satisfy the usual
regression assumption that the expectation of the
error term v~ conditional on the vector x of regressors
equals zero with probability 1, i.e.
Ho: E(vilx)= 0 a.s. for i = 1, 2, ..., 6
y=Xfl+v
where Y'= (Yl ..... y,), v = (vt, v z..... v,), fl' = (/~x.....
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.74
0.50
0.73
0.99
0.94
0.61
0.95
0.82
1.00
0.98
1.06
0.81
1.02
1.03
1.07
0.98
1.02
0.98
1.00
1.02
1.03
0.99
1.01
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.01
0.99
1.00
1.00
1 ~
^2
L
n j=l uj"
R(/~/~,)=
(Yi-,=~lflix'j)
p
,
y
j=l
89
3,
and
x/r~(ff(~) - fl)->N[O, h(yo)(plim I X ' X ) - ' ]
n
in distr.
Thus ff(~) is the efficient robust M-estimator of ft.
All the six equations of our model have been
estimated by using OLS as well as the above robust
M-estimation method. From table A2 below we see
that in all cases the robust M-estimation method
performs better, for ~(~) is always smaller than b 2.
Only for equation 6, the equation concerning the
elderly, the difference between h(~) and b 2 is very
small, so that for this equation the OLS estimator is
Table A2
Equation
b2
h0))
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.001694
0.001401
0.001280
0.001895
0.013950
0.002580
0.001560
0.001305
0.001088
0.001135
0.011660
0.002578
h(y) < a 2,
hence in this case fl(y) is more efficient than the OLS
estimator ]7. Note that a positive kurtosis implies
that the tails of the error distribution are heavier
than those of the normal distribution.
The function h(y) can be estimated uniform
consistently by
~(~)_
j:
"(fijl~
J
where
Table A3
Equation
1
2
3
4
5
6
1.556
1.348
2.259
6.711
4.315
0.093
1
II1
n j-I
]\n
j=l
1.777
1.430
3.933
9.709
7.474
0.102
90
H E R M A N J. B I E R E N S A N D ROY H O E V E R
References