Are CGE Models still useful in economic policy making?
This paper develops background considerations to help better framing the results of a CGE exercise. Three main criticisms are usually addressed to CGE efforts. First, they are too aggregate, their conclusions failing to shed light on relevant sectors or issues. Second, they imply huge data requirements. Timeliness is frequently jeopardised by out-dated sources, benchmarks referring to realities gone by. Finally, results are meaningless, as they answer wrong or ill-posed questions. Modelling demands end up by creating a rather artificial context, where the original questions lose content. In spite of a positive outlook on the first two, crucial questions lie in the third point. After elaborating such questions, and trying to answer some, the text argues that CGE models can come closer to reality. If their use is still scarce to give way to a fruitful symbiosis between negotiations and simulation results, they remain the only available technique providing a global, inter-related way of capturing economy-wide effects of several different policies. International organisations can play a major role supporting and encouraging improvements. They are also uniquely positioned to enhance information and data sharing, as well as putting people from various origins together, to share their experiences. A serious and complex homework is however required, to correct, at least, the most dangerous present shortcomings of the technique.
|Date of creation:||28 Feb 2008|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Praia de Botafogo 190, sala 1100, Rio de Janeiro/RJ - CEP: 22253-900|
Web page: http://epge.fgv.br
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Lloyd, P.J. & MacLaren, D., 1998.
"Measures of Trade Openness Using CGE Analysis,"
Department of Economics - Working Papers Series
659, The University of Melbourne.
- J Anderson & J.P. Neary, 1994.
"Measuring the Restrictiveness of Trade Policy,"
CEP Discussion Papers
dp0186, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
- Lloyd, P. J. & Schweinberger, A. G., 1988. "Trade expenditure functions and the gains from trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(3-4), pages 275-297, May.
- Lloyd, P. J. & Schweinberger, A. G., 1997. "Conflict generating product price changes: The imputed output approach," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1569-1587, August.
- J. Peter Neary & Albert G. Schweinberger, 1986.
"Factor Content Functions and the Theory of International Trade,"
Review of Economic Studies,
Oxford University Press, vol. 53(3), pages 421-432.
- Neary, J Peter & Schweinberger, Albert G, 1984. "Factor Content Functions and the Theory of International Trade," CEPR Discussion Papers 3, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Markusen, James R, 1989. "Trade in Producer Services and in Other Specialized Intermediate Inputs," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(1), pages 85-95, March.
- Steven R. Grenadier, 2000. "Option Exercise Games: The Intersection Of Real Options And Game Theory," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 13(2), pages 99-107.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fgv:epgewp:674. 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: (Núcleo de Computação da EPGE)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.