<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Lucas Lima | Macro Paper Warehouse</title><link>https://macropaperwarehouse.com/authors/lucas-lima/</link><description>Lucas Lima</description><generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator><language>en-us</language><atom:link href="https://macropaperwarehouse.com/authors/lucas-lima/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Counterfactual Analysis for Structural Dynamic Discrete Choice Models</title><link>https://macropaperwarehouse.com/papers/counterfactual-analysis-for-structural-dynamic-discrete-choice-models/</link><guid>https://macropaperwarehouse.com/papers/counterfactual-analysis-for-structural-dynamic-discrete-choice-models/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Research Question.&lt;/strong&gt; Discrete choice data identify only &lt;em&gt;differences&lt;/em&gt; in agents&amp;rsquo; utilities, not utility levels. In dynamic discrete choice (DDC) models this means many policy-relevant counterfactuals — those requiring knowledge of utility in levels — are not point-identified. Kalouptsidi, Kitamura, Lima, and Souza-Rodrigues ask: how much can researchers learn about counterfactual outcomes under mild, verifiable restrictions, without imposing the strong normalizations that are standard in applied work but often hard to justify and potentially sign-reversing in their effects?&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>