I found the following results in Hanemann (1984) which I cannot find a proof for. I checked through simulation that it is right, but I would like to see an analytical proof...

Hanemann, W. M. (1984). Discrete/continuous models of consumer demand. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 541-561.

He considers a discrete choice with $i=1,...,N$ options. The value of a choice is the sum of an intercept that is specific to each option $v_i$ and a random draw: $V_{i}^{F} = v_i + \zeta_{i} $ where $\zeta_{i} $ is an idiosyncratic taste shock.

He defines with $M_i$ for the set of values of the vector $\zeta$ such that the option $i$ yields to highest to the agent, i.e. $A_i \equiv \left\{\zeta \mid V_{i}^{F}\geq V_{j}^{F}, \; \forall j \right\} $.

He further considers the case where $\zeta$ is a vector of i.i.d. random variables distributed Type 1 Extreme Value with scale/dispersion parameter $\sigma$. Note that ${P}(\zeta \in A_{i})$ is the probability that option $i$ is actually chosen.

Hanemann (1984) states the following results in equation (3.15) and I was wondering if one knew where to find the proof. \begin{equation} {E}\left\{e^{t \zeta_{i}} \mid \zeta \in A_{i}\right\} = \Gamma(1-\sigma t) \times \beta_{i}^{\sigma t}; \quad \text{ where } \beta^{-1}_{i} = {P}(\zeta \in A_{i}). \end{equation}

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Could you rewrite the question without using economic terms? $\endgroup$
    – Xi'an
    Commented Jan 23, 2021 at 14:58

1 Answer 1


Let $\boldsymbol{\zeta} = [\zeta_i]_{1 \leq i \leq N}$ be a random vector with i.i.d. components $\zeta_i$ being Gumbel with location $\mu = 0$ and scale $\sigma$. Let $B_i = \{\ \boldsymbol{\zeta} \in A_i\}$ be the event "$\zeta_i$ is the largest of the $N$ r.vs. $\zeta_j$". Then the claim is that $$ \mathbb{E}\{ e^{t\zeta_i} \vert B_i \} = \Gamma(1 - \sigma t) \times \beta_i^{\sigma t} $$ where $\beta_i = 1 / \text{Pr}(B_i)$.

Note that since the r.vs $\zeta_i$ are i.i.d we have $\beta_i = N$ because each of the $N$ r.vs $\zeta_i$ has the same probability of being the largest. With $M := \max_i \{\zeta_i\}$ we have for any $t$ $$ \mathbb{E}\{ e^{t\zeta_i} \vert B_i \} = \mathbb{E}\{ e^{t M} \vert B_i \} = \mathbb{E}\{ e^{t M} \} $$ because the distribution of $M$ conditional on $B_i$ does not depend on the specific index $i$ where the maximum is reached.

Moreover it easy to see that $M$ is Gumbel with location $\mu = \sigma \log N$ and scale $\sigma$. Using the moment generating function of the Gumbel distribution with location $\mu$ and scale $\sigma$ as given in Wikipedia, that is $$ \mathbb{E}\{ e^{tM} \} = \Gamma(1 - \sigma t) \times e^{\mu t}, $$ we get the wanted result because $e^{\mu t} = e^{\sigma t \log N} = N^{\sigma t}$.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.