IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Numbers for Pascal: explaining differences in the estimated benefits of the Doha Development Agenda

Listed author(s):
  • Hess, Sebastian
  • Cramon-Taubadel, Stephan von
  • Sperlich, Stefan

Economists use partial and general equilibrium trade simulation models to estimate the impact of changes in domestic policies and international trade rules. During the WTO Doha Development Agenda (DDA) negotiations economists have produced many different estimates of the gains that would result from global trade liberalisation scenarios. However, these estimates differ quite widely even for apparently similar liberalisation scenarios. The result is confusion about the true magnitude of the gains from trade liberalisation, and a reduction in the perceived credibility of the theories and models that economists use. We apply meta-analysis to a dataset extracted from 110 studies that present simulated assessments of global trade liberalisation scenarios under the DDA. Initial meta-regression analysis demonstrates that covariates that capture model characteristics, the nature of the data used in the modelling exercise, and the nature of the simulated liberalisation scenarios can explain roughly one-third of the variance in the dependent variable ‘simulated global welfare change’. We test whether additional explanatory power can be obtained by adding information about the authors of the simulation studies. We find significant fixed effects for the top 20 authors in the field. We interpret this as evidence that leading authors in the field employ model specifications that reflect their individual preferences and beliefs about how economies function and the impact of liberalisation, specifications that are hidden in the complex interactions of simulations models and therefore difficult to capture in a meta-analysis. We use these results to generate a confidence interval for the gains that would result from trade liberalisation under the DDA.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE) in its series DARE Discussion Papers with number 1001.

in new window

Date of creation: 2010
Handle: RePEc:zbw:daredp:1001
Contact details of provider: Postal:
Platz der Göttinger Sieben 5, D-37073 Göttingen

Web page:

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.:

in new window

  1. Thomas W. Hertel & Roman Keeney & Maros Ivanic & L. Alan Winters, 2007. "Distributional effects of WTO agricultural reforms in rich and poor countries," Economic Policy, CEPR;CES;MSH, vol. 22, pages 289-337, April.
  2. Hertel, Thomas W., 1999. "Future Directions in Global Trade Analysis," GTAP Working Papers 298, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University.
  3. Matthew Adler & Claire Brunel & Gary Clyde Hufbauer & Jeffrey J. Schott, 2009. "What’s on the Table? The Doha Round as of August 2009," Working Paper Series WP09-6, Peterson Institute for International Economics.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:daredp:1001. 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: (ZBW - German National Library of Economics)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.