IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/wtodps/10.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Demystifying modelling methods for trade policy

Author

Listed:
  • Piermartini, Roberta
  • Teh, Robert

Abstract

In recent years, quantitative analysis of the effects of policies on economic outcomes has grown sharply. These exercises in quantification have been made possible by advances in theory and analytical techniques, and no less importantly, by the dramatically increased computational and data processing power of computers. This paper focuses on two classes of quantitative tools - computable general equilibrium (CGE) models and gravity models. These are perhaps the most commonly encountered quantitative analytical techniques in the area of trade. The primary purpose of this paper is to offer a non-technical explanation of CGE and gravity models to trade policymakers. We try to capture the essence of the analytical techniques, explaining the requirements of the models and computational procedures. We also seek to identify as clearly as possible the strengths and limitations of these analytical techniques. A second objective of the paper is to survey a range of studies based on CGE, particularly simulations of multilateral trade negotiations, and gravity models. The survey is useful in conveying a sense of how results can vary depending on what goes into the models by way of their structure and data, emphasizing the importance of judicious, critical interpretation. The main benefit of CGE models is that they offer a rigorous and theoretically consistent framework for analysing trade policy questions. The numbers that come out of the simulations should only be used to give a sense of the order of magnitude that a change in policy can mean for economic welfare or trade. Much more can be done to create confidence in the results. The simulations should benefit from more systematic and informative employment of sensitivity analysis. Ex-post validation of CGE models is needed to increase confidence in the numerical results. Correctly specified gravity models can illuminate questions that are important for trade policymakers. For example, what are the trade effects of WTO membership? How does entering a proposed preferential trade arrangement (PTA) affect a country's trade? How is non-members' trade affected? Does more trade lead to faster growth? Does trade improve the environment? Three important theoretical requirements that need to be taken into account in gravity models are highlighted in this study. First is the importance of relative distance and trade costs. Second is that liberalization, whether multilateral or regional, creates new trading relationships and not just increases the volume of existing trade. Third, trade is dynamic and this shows itself in new products and new firms that enter international commerce.

Suggested Citation

  • Piermartini, Roberta & Teh, Robert, 2005. "Demystifying modelling methods for trade policy," WTO Discussion Papers 10, World Trade Organization (WTO), Economic Research and Statistics Division.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:wtodps:10
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/107045/1/wto-discussion-paper_10.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Will Martin & Kym Anderson, 2006. "Agricultural Trade Reform and the Doha Development Agenda," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 6889, December.
    2. Powell, Alan A. & Snape, Richard H., 1993. "The contribution of applied general equilibrium analysis to policy reform in Australia," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 393-414, August.
    3. Tamim Bayoumi & Barry Eichengreen, 1997. "Is Regionalism Simply a Diversion? Evidence from the Evolution of the EC and EFTA," NBER Chapters, in: Regionalism versus Multilateral Trade Arrangements, pages 141-168, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. David H. Romer & Jeffrey A. Frankel, 1999. "Does Trade Cause Growth?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 379-399, June.
    5. Alan V. Deardorff, 2011. "Determinants of Bilateral Trade: Does Gravity Work in a Neoclassical World?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Robert M Stern (ed.), Comparative Advantage, Growth, And The Gains From Trade And Globalization A Festschrift in Honor of Alan V Deardorff, chapter 24, pages 267-293, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    6. Soloaga, Isidro & Alan Wintersb, L., 2001. "Regionalism in the nineties: what effect on trade?," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 1-29, March.
    7. Kym Anderson, 2005. "On the Virtues of Multilateral Trade Negotiations," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 81(255), pages 414-438, December.
    8. Drusilla K. Brown & Alan V. Deardorff & Robert M. Stern, 2003. "Multilateral, Regional and Bilateral Trade‐Policy Options for the United States and Japan," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(6), pages 803-828, June.
    9. World Bank, 2005. "Global Economic Prospects 2005 : Trade, Regionalism and Development," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 14783, December.
    10. Subramanian, Arvind & Wei, Shang-Jin, 2007. "The WTO promotes trade, strongly but unevenly," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 151-175, May.
    11. Hertel, Thomas, 1997. "Global Trade Analysis: Modeling and applications," GTAP Books, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, number 7685, December.
    12. J. Francois & H. van Meijl & F. van Tongeren, 2003. "Trade Liberalization and Developing Countries under the Doha Round," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 03-060/2, Tinbergen Institute, revised 30 Aug 2003.
    13. Simon J. Evenett & Wolfgang Keller, 2002. "On Theories Explaining the Success of the Gravity Equation," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 110(2), pages 281-316, April.
    14. James E. Anderson & Eric van Wincoop, 2004. "Trade Costs," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(3), pages 691-751, September.
    15. Jean-Marc Burniaux & Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, 1991. "Trade Policies in a Global Context: Technical Specifications of the Rural/Urban-North/South (RUNS) Applied General Equilibrium Model," OECD Development Centre Working Papers 48, OECD Publishing.
    16. Jeffrey A. Frankel & Andrew K. Rose, 2005. "Is Trade Good or Bad for the Environment? Sorting Out the Causality," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 87(1), pages 85-91, February.
    17. McKibbin, W.J. & Wilcoxen, J.P., 1992. "G-Cubec: A Dynamic Multi-Sector General Equilibrium Model of the Global economy (Quantifying the Cost of Curbing CO2 Emissions)," Papers 98, Brookings Institution - Working Papers.
    18. James E. Anderson & Eric van Wincoop, 2003. "Gravity with Gravitas: A Solution to the Border Puzzle," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(1), pages 170-192, March.
    19. Nguyen, Trien & Perroni, Carlo & Wigle, Randall, 1993. "An Evaluation of the Draft Final Act of the Uruguay Round," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 103(421), pages 1540-1549, November.
    20. Robert E. Baldwin, 2000. "Trade and Growth: Still Disagreement about the Relationships," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 264, OECD Publishing.
    21. Andrew K. Rose, 2004. "Do We Really Know That the WTO Increases Trade?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(1), pages 98-114, March.
    22. Jonathan Eaton & Samuel Kortum, 2002. "Technology, Geography, and Trade," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(5), pages 1741-1779, September.
    23. Hans M. Amman & David A. Kendrick, . "Computational Economics," Online economics textbooks, SUNY-Oswego, Department of Economics, number comp1.
    24. Sébastien Jean & David Laborde & Will Martin, 2005. "Consequences of Alternative Formulas for Agricultural Tariff Cuts," Working Papers 2005-15, CEPII research center.
    25. Dixon, Peter B. & Parmenter, B.R., 1996. "Computable general equilibrium modelling for policy analysis and forecasting," Handbook of Computational Economics, in: H. M. Amman & D. A. Kendrick & J. Rust (ed.), Handbook of Computational Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 1, pages 3-85, Elsevier.
    26. Bernard Hoekman, 2000. "The next round of services negotiations: identifying priorities and options," Review, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, vol. 82(Jul), pages 31-52.
    27. Martin,Will & Winters,L. Alan (ed.), 1996. "The Uruguay Round and the Developing Countries," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521586016.
    28. Gerard Debreu, 1963. "On a Theorem of Scarf," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 30(3), pages 177-180.
    29. Bergstrand, Jeffrey H, 1990. "The Heckscher-Ohlin-Samuelson Model, the Linder Hypothesis and the Determinants of Bilateral Intra-industry Trade," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 100(403), pages 1216-1229, December.
    30. Kehoe, Timothy J., 2002. "An Evaluation of the Performance of Applied General Equilibrium Models of the Impact of NAFTA," Conference papers 331066, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    31. Nguyen, T. & Perroni, C. & Wigle, R., 1993. "An Evaluation of the Final Act of the Uruguay Round," Working Papers 93003, Wilfrid Laurier University, Department of Economics.
    32. Werner Antweiler & Brian R. Copeland & M. Scott Taylor, 2001. "Is Free Trade Good for the Environment?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(4), pages 877-908, September.
    33. Anderson, James E, 1979. "A Theoretical Foundation for the Gravity Equation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(1), pages 106-116, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Baier, Scott L. & Bergstrand, Jeffrey H., 2007. "Do free trade agreements actually increase members' international trade?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 72-95, March.
    2. Theo S. Eicher & Christian Henn, 2011. "One Money, One Market: A Revised Benchmark," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(3), pages 419-435, August.
    3. Jacqueline Karlsson & Helena Melin & Kevin Cullinane, 2018. "The impact of potential Brexit scenarios on German car exports to the UK: an application of the gravity model," Journal of Shipping and Trade, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 1-22, December.
    4. Anna Golovko & Hasan Sahin, 2021. "Analysis of international trade integration of Eurasian countries: gravity model approach," Eurasian Economic Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 11(3), pages 519-548, September.
    5. Mario Larch & Yoto V. Yotov, 2016. "General Equilibrium Trade Policy Analysis with Structural Gravity," CESifo Working Paper Series 6020, CESifo.
    6. Juan Felipe Mejía Mejía & Andrés Ramírez Hassan, 2013. "Solving the Puzzle: A New Measure of Trade Distance In The Gravity Equation," Documentos de Trabajo CIEF 11556, Universidad EAFIT.
    7. Elhanan Helpman & Marc Melitz & Yona Rubinstein, 2008. "Estimating Trade Flows: Trading Partners and Trading Volumes," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 123(2), pages 441-487.
    8. Cardamone, Paola, 2007. "A Survey of the Assessments of the Effectiveness of Preferential Trade Agreements using Gravity Models," Economia Internazionale / International Economics, Camera di Commercio Industria Artigianato Agricoltura di Genova, vol. 60(4), pages 421-473.
    9. Costinot, Arnaud & Rodríguez-Clare, Andrés, 2014. "Trade Theory with Numbers: Quantifying the Consequences of Globalization," Handbook of International Economics, in: Gopinath, G. & Helpman, . & Rogoff, K. (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 0, pages 197-261, Elsevier.
    10. Huang, Rocco R., 2007. "Distance and trade: Disentangling unfamiliarity effects and transport cost effects," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 161-181, January.
    11. Melitz, Jacques, 2007. "North, South and distance in the gravity model," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 51(4), pages 971-991, May.
    12. A. Cheptea & A. Gohin & Marilyne Huchet, 2008. "Applying the gravity approach to sector trade: who bears the trade costs?," Post-Print hal-00742046, HAL.
    13. Gabriel J Felbermayr & Wilhelm Kohler, 2014. "Exploring the Intensive and Extensive Margins of World Trade," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: European Economic Integration, WTO Membership, Immigration and Offshoring, chapter 4, pages 115-148, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    14. Jacks, David S. & Meissner, Christopher M. & Novy, Dennis, 2011. "Trade booms, trade busts, and trade costs," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 185-201, March.
    15. Elhanan Helpman & Marc Melitz & Yona Rubinstein, 2006. "Trading Partners and Trading Volumes," DEGIT Conference Papers c011_022, DEGIT, Dynamics, Economic Growth, and International Trade.
    16. Yilmazkuday, Hakan, 2009. "How Important is Technology? A Counterfactual Analysis," MPRA Paper 16838, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Denis Medvedev, 2010. "Preferential trade agreements and their role in world trade," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 146(2), pages 199-222, June.
    18. Vollrath, Thomas L. & Hallahan, Charles B., 2011. "Reciprocal Trade Agreements: Impacts on Bilateral Trade Expansion and Contraction in the World Agricultural Marketplace," Economic Research Report 102755, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    19. Cipollina, Maria & Salvatici, Luca, 2007. "EU and developing countries: an analysis of preferential margins on agricultural trade flows," Working Papers 7219, TRADEAG - Agricultural Trade Agreements.
    20. Daniel Lederman & Çaglar Özden, 2007. "Geopolitical Interests And Preferential Access To U.S. Markets," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(2), pages 235-258, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:wtodps:10. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/wtoerch.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.