IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugttp/28704.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Introducing Monopolistic Competition Into The Gtap Model

Author

Listed:
  • Hertel, Thomas W.
  • Swaminathan, Padma V.

Abstract

1996, October This technical paper documents one approach to incorporating monopolistic competition into the GTAP Model. In this framework, consumer preferences are heterogeneous, leading to an apparent "love of variety" in the aggregate utility function for each region. The more heterogeneous are preferences, the smaller the elasticity of substitution in the aggregate utility function, and the greater the value placed on the addition of new varieties. The same is true for firms, which experience lower unit costs for differentiated, intermediate inputs, as the number of varieties on offer increases. In order to meet the diverse needs of consumers, firms differentiate their products through research and development (R&D) as well as advertising activities. These costs are assumed to be invariant to the total volume of sales for a given variety of product. With production occurring at constant returns to scale, this gives rise to declining average total costs. A zero profits equilibrium in this model is characterized by firms marking up their price over marginal costs by an amount sufficient to cover the fixed costs associated with establishing a new variety in the marketplace. Since the optimal markup is itself determined by the elasticity of substitution among varieties, this establishes a direct relationship between fixed costs and the degree of preference heterogeneity. The main differences between the monopolistically competitive sectors and the traditional GTAP sectors may be summarized as follows: We introduce two new variables: n, the number of firms in the industry and qof, the output per firm. Minimum expenditure and unit costs are declining in n. Average total costs are declining in output per firm. Unlike the Armington specification, foreign and domestic firms compete directly in the representative consumer's utility function. We illustrate this framework with a 2 commodity/3 region example in which we eliminate US antidumping duti
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Hertel, Thomas W. & Swaminathan, Padma V., 1996. "Introducing Monopolistic Competition Into The Gtap Model," Technical Papers 28704, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugttp:28704
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.28704
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/28704/files/tp06.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.28704?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Peter Dixon & Michael Jerie & Maureen Rimmer, 2016. "Modern Trade Theory for CGE Modelling: The Armington, Krugman and Melitz Models," Journal of Global Economic Analysis, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, vol. 1(1), pages 1-110, June.
    2. Eddy Bekkers & Alessandro Antimiani & Caitlyn Carrico & Dorothee Flaig & Lionel Fontagne & Jean Foure & Joseph Francois & Ken Itakura & Zornitsa Kutlina-Dimitrova & William Powers & Bert Saveyn & Robe, 2020. "Modelling Trade and Other Economic Interactions Between Countries in Baseline Projections," Journal of Global Economic Analysis, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, vol. 5(1), pages 273-345, June.
    3. Hanslow, Kevin, 2000. "A General Welfare Decomposition For Cge Models," Technical Papers 28724, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    4. Roberto Roson, 2006. "Introducing Imperfect Competition in CGE Models: Technical Aspects and Implications," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 28(1), pages 29-49, August.
    5. Sulamaa, Pekka & Widgrén, Mika, 2005. "Economic Effects of Free Trade between the EU and Russia," Discussion Papers 969, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    6. Glyn Wittwer & Marnie Griffith, 2011. "Modelling drought and recovery in the southern Murray‐Darling basin," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(3), pages 342-359, July.
    7. Swaminathan, Padma V. & Hertel, Thomas W. & Brockmeier, Martina, 1997. "European Union Enlargement: What Are The Agricultural Trade Models Missing?," 1997 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Toronto, Canada 21030, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    8. George Philippidis & Hubbard Lionel, 2003. "Varietal Utility and Patriotic Preference: The Cas of European Agriculture," Cahiers d'Economie et Sociologie Rurales, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 66, pages 5-25.
    9. L. J. Hubbard & G. Philippidis, 2001. "General Equilibrium and the Ban on British Beef Exports," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(3), pages 87-95, September.
    10. Thomas Hertel & David Hummels & Terrie L. Walmsley, 2014. "The vulnerability of the Asian supply chain to localized disasters," Chapters, in: Benno Ferrarini & David Hummels (ed.), Asia and Global Production Networks, chapter 3, pages 81-111, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Pekka Sulamaa & Mika Widgrén, 2004. "EU-Enlargement and Beyond: A Simulation Study on EU and Russia Integration," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 31(4), pages 307-323, December.
    12. Philippidis, G. & Hubbard, L. J., 2001. "The economic cost of the CAP revisited," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 25(2-3), pages 375-385, September.
    13. Wolfgang Britz & Roberto Roson, 2018. "Exploring Long Run Structural Change with a Dynamic General Equilibrium Model," Working Papers 2018: 12, Department of Economics, University of Venice "Ca' Foscari".
    14. Zeynep Akgul & Nelson B Villoria & Thomas W Hertel, 2016. "GTAP-HET: Introducing Firm Heterogeneity into the GTAP Model," Journal of Global Economic Analysis, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, vol. 1(1), pages 111-180, June.
    15. Alla A. Golub & Thomas W. Hertel, 2012. "Modeling Land-Use Change Impacts Of Biofuels In The Gtap-Bio Framework," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 3(03), pages 1-30.
    16. Li, Qiaomin & Scollay, Robert & Gilbert, John, 2017. "Analyzing the effects of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership on FDI in a CGE framework with firm heterogeneity," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 409-420.
    17. Joseph F. Francois & Olga Pindyuk & Julia Woerz, 2008. "Trade Effects of Services Trade Liberalization in the EU," FIW Research Reports series I-004, FIW.
    18. George Philippidis & Lionel Hubbard, 2003. "Modelling hierarchical consumer preferences: an application to global food markets," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(15), pages 1679-1687.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    International Relations/Trade;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ags:pugttp:28704. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gtpurus.html .

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gtpurus.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.