IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Model linkage between CAPRI and MAGNET: An exploratory assessment




It is well-known that partial equilibrium (PE) and computable general equilibrium (CGE) models have structural differences both in terms of the data and the behavioural elements (i.e., explicit or implicit elasticities), which can generate divergent results, whilst previous precedents in the literature even show that CGE and PE can generate contradictory findings for the same scenario. Although this is well recognized within the modelling community, in the policy arena it can often be hard to reconcile the findings of both models when presenting a consistent story line for a given policy reform. In the past, previous work commissioned by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), Seville, on behalf of DG Agri, forged a ‘soft’ model linkage (Helming et al., 2010; Nowicki et al, 2006, 2009), such that both models generate a mutually consistent storyline. Typically, a soft linkage is driven by a more ad hoc assessment of the overall results (i.e., are the models broadly telling the same story?), whilst one plays to the strengths of each model to serve as a source of input to the other. For example, the CGE model, with an explicit or endogenous treatment of factor markets, world trade and macro aggregates, could conceivably be used within a PE model. Similarly, the sectoral detail and econometric foundation in supply response which serves some PE models well could be employed to assess and improve the veracity of the CGE model results. Under the auspices of project 154208-2014-A08-NL, entitled, "Scenar2030, parameters and model chain preparation", the Economic of Agriculture unit of the JRC requested a further look at this issue to better understand the merits of different model linkage options. More specifically, as part of technical specification for task 5 ('preparation of model chain'), two forms of model linkage, broadly labelled as 'soft' and 'hard' linkage are considered. The advantage of the soft approach is that it is relatively straightforward to implement in terms of the necessary modelling modifications. On the other hand, the ‘soft’ approach adopted in the Scenar2020 project through linkage of variables was, as noted above, implemented more on an ad hoc basis, rather than following a systematic framework. Thus, subject to the prejudices of the model scenario (i.e., the scenario design, the type of shocks etc.), the use of variable linkage could conceivably vary considerably. This, in turn, has led to the alternative choice of a ‘hard’ linkage which seeks to forge a union between the structural or behavioural elements of the model (see, for example, Britz and Hertel, 2011; Pelikan et al., 2015). Whilst this approach is intuitively appealing because it follows a very specific methodological approach, it requires considerably more modelling expertise to implement, whilst the potential robustness of the two models being linked is, at the current time, far from certain. A fuller exposition of the hard linkage approach is given in section four below with some reflections of its potential suitability for advanced policy analysis using the MAGNET model. For the purposes of the current (tentative experiments), in section two, a ‘test bed’ study is described, which considers a more systematic class of ‘soft’ model linkage between two well-known and respected models from the iMAP platform, namely, the Common Agricultural Policy Regionalised Impact (CAPRI) PE model and the Modular Applied GeNeral Equilibrium Tool (MAGNET) CGE model. In CAPRI, a standard CAP baseline is run, whilst in the MAGNET model, two specific experiments are implemented. The first runs a standard CAP baseline in the MAGNET model, whilst the second implements the same baseline shocks with the inclusion of model predictions of output taken from CAPRI. The aim of the exercise is simply to ascertain the extent to which the MAGNET model results (section three) diverge between the two experiments and assess the degree of compromise required in MAGNET to accommodate said changes. Clearly, if considerable divergences are found, and one considers that the CAPRI sectoral output results are superior, then this could potentially warrant the need for a more extensive research effort to provide a systematic, theoretically consistent and scientifically rigorous approach to model linkage for future policy impact assessments.

Suggested Citation

  • PHILIPPIDIS George & Helming John & Tabeau Andrzej, 2017. "Model linkage between CAPRI and MAGNET: An exploratory assessment," JRC Working Papers JRC106595, Joint Research Centre (Seville site).
  • Handle: RePEc:ipt:iptwpa:jrc106595

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. K. Anderson & R. Tyers, 1993. "More On Welfare Gains To Developing Countries From Liberalizing World Food Trade," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(2), pages 189-204, May.
    2. Boulanger, Pierre & Philippidis, George, 2015. "The EU budget battle: Assessing the trade and welfare impacts of CAP budgetary reform," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 119-130.
    3. Diewert, W. E. & Wales, T. J., 1988. "A normalized quadratic semiflexible functional form," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 327-342, March.
    4. Gocht, Alexander & Britz, Wolfgang, 2011. "EU-wide farm type supply models in CAPRI--How to consistently disaggregate sector models into farm type models," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 146-167, January.
    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. Sébastien Jean & David Laborde & Will Martin, 2008. "Choosing Sensitive Agricultural Products in Trade Negotiations," Working Papers 2008-18, CEPII research center.
    2. Louhichi, Kamel & Ciaian, Pavel & Espinosa, Maria & Colen, Liesbeth & Perni, Angel & Paloma, Sergio, 2015. "The Impact of Crop Diversification Measure: EU-wide Evidence Based on IFM-CAP Model," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211542, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. W. Erwin Diewert & Robert C. Feenstra, 2021. "Estimating the Benefits of New Products," NBER Chapters, in: Big Data for Twenty-First-Century Economic Statistics, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. 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.
    5. Klaus Mittenzwei & Wolfgang Britz, 2018. "Analysing Farm‐specific Payments for Norway using the Agrispace Model," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(3), pages 777-793, September.
    6. Diewert, W, Erwin & Feenstra, Robert, 2017. "Estimating the Benefits and Costs of New and Disappearing Products," working papers tina_marandola-2017-12, Vancouver School of Economics, revised 19 Dec 2017.
    7. Alexander Gocht & Pavel Ciaian & Maria Bielza & Jean-Michel Terres & Norbert Röder & Mihaly Himics & Guna Salputra, 2016. "Economic and environmental impacts of CAP greening: CAPRI simulation results," JRC Working Papers JRC102519, Joint Research Centre (Seville site).
    8. Kym Anderson, 2003. "Trade Liberalization, Agriculture, and Poverty in Low-income Countries," WIDER Working Paper Series DP2003-25, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    9. Viaggi, Davide & Raggi, Meri & Gomez y Paloma, Sergio, 2011. "Farm-household investment behaviour and the CAP decoupling: Methodological issues in assessing policy impacts," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 127-145, January.
    10. Mark Christopher Navin & J. M. Dieterle, 2018. "Cooptation or solidarity: food sovereignty in the developed world," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 35(2), pages 319-329, June.
    11. Alexander Gocht & Pavel Ciaian & Maria Bielza & Jean-Michel Terres & Norbert Röder & Mihaly Himics & Guna Salputra, 2017. "EU-wide Economic and Environmental Impacts of CAP Greening with High Spatial and Farm-type Detail," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(3), pages 651-681, September.
    12. Hala Abou-Ali & Mohammed Belhaj, 2008. "Cost Benefit Analysis of Desert Locusts Control: A Multicountry Perspective," Working Papers 801, Economic Research Forum, revised 01 Jan 2008.
    13. Britz, Wolfgang & Ciaian, Pavel & Gocht, Alexander & Kanellopoulos, Argyris & Kremmydas, Dimitrios & Müller, Marc & Petsakos, Athanasios & Reidsma, Pytrik, 2021. "A design for a generic and modular bio-economic farm model," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    14. Roeder, Norbert & Gocht, Alexander, 2011. "Municipality Disaggregation Of German'S Agricultural Sector Model Raumis," 122nd Seminar, February 17-18, 2011, Ancona, Italy 99248, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Diewert, Erwin, 2009. "Cost of Living Indexes and Exact Index Numbers," Economics working papers erwin_diewert-2009-6, Vancouver School of Economics, revised 13 Feb 2009.
    16. Julián Ramajo Hernández, 1994. "Estimación de respuestas renta de los consumidores: una aplicación del modelo de regresión lineal discontinua a tramos," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 1, pages 61-86, Junio.
    17. Garrone, Maria & Emmers, Dorien & Olper, Alessandro & Swinnen, Johan, 2019. "Jobs and agricultural policy: Impact of the common agricultural policy on EU agricultural employment," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-1.
    18. Sckokai, Paolo, 2001. "The Common Agricultural Policy In Econometric Models," Working Papers 14800, National Institute of Agricultural Economics, Italy - INEA, Osservatorio Sulle Politiche Agricole dell'UE.
    19. Bernard Hoekman & Kym Anderson, 2000. "Developing-Country Agriculture and the New Trade Agenda," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 49(1), pages 171-180.
    20. Jansson, Torbjörn & Heckelei, Thomas & Gocht, Alexander & Basnet, Shyam Kumar & Zhang, Yinan & Neuenfeldt, Sebastian, 2014. "Analysing impacts of changing price variability with estimated farm risk-programming models," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182665, European Association of Agricultural Economists.

    More about this item


    modelling; Common agricultural policy;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:ipt:iptwpa:jrc106595. 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: .

    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: Publication Officer (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.