The Effect Of Armington Structure On Welfare Evaluations In Global Cge-Models
In this paper, the welfare results in trade liberalisation scenarios in global CGE models (like GTAP) are analysed. The default modeling strategy in trade is the Armington assumption with bilateral trade flows in industries. The negative terms of trade effects that often dominate the negative welfare outcome in simulation experiments are decomposed to imports and exports price effects. The numerical examples show that even in unilateral liberalisation with decreasing import tariffs, the welfare effects are dominated by domestic price level changes that also drive the exports prices. The numerical examples are built around simple GTAP tariff cut experiments with 3x3 country and commodity aggregation. The inherent feature in this type of models is that they support arguments for unilateral market access, like preferences, at the expense of multilateral trade liberalisation.
|Date of creation:||2008|
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.eaae.org|
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Donald R. Davis, 1996.
"Trade Liberalization and Income Distribution,"
NBER Working Papers
5693, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Donald R. Davis, 1996. "Trade Liberalization and Income Distribution," Harvard Institute of Economic Research Working Papers 1769, Harvard - Institute of Economic Research.
- Brown, Drusilla K., 1987. "Tariffs, the terms of trade, and national product differentiation," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 503-526.
- Hertel, Thomas, 1997. "Global Trade Analysis: Modeling and applications," GTAP Books, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, number 7685, November.
- Arvind Panagariya, 2000. "Preferential Trade Liberalization: The Traditional Theory and New Developments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 287-331, June. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:eaa107:6397. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.