1 / 23

India-EU trade reforms: Comments on modelling and policy analysis

India-EU trade reforms: Comments on modelling and policy analysis. Agricultural Trade Policies and Development. R. Jongeneel (LEI-WU) Agricultural Trade Project 25 April 2008 LEI Seminar. Contents. Introduction Some experiences & lessons Reasons for scrutiny post-model analyses

nasnan
Download Presentation

India-EU trade reforms: Comments on modelling and policy analysis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. India-EU trade reforms: Comments on modelling and policy analysis Agricultural Trade Policies and Development R. Jongeneel (LEI-WU) Agricultural Trade Project 25 April 2008 LEI Seminar

  2. Contents • Introduction • Some experiences & lessons • Reasons for scrutiny post-model analyses • Specific issues India application • Concluding remarks

  3. Introduction

  4. Science/models: Looking for an appropriate map

  5. Why use models ? • Need for ‘systematics’ in the analysis • Need for quantification • Need for explicitizing assumptions • Need for framework to discuss disagreements • Need to clarify costs and benefits (welfare impacts) from policy changes • Need to explore policy options …

  6. Why use models ? • Check for alternative policy scenario’s • Check for all kind of impacts (income, welfare, markets, budget, environment, … • Do sensitivity analysis about uncertainties and show impacts

  7. Qualifications (i) • Models simplify reality • Models often hide uncertainties • Models use a lot of basic assumptions and supplementary assumptions • Models are weak in accounting for changes in behavior • Models are often too restrictive wrt market structure (e.g. deviations from full competition such as monopolistic comp., etc)

  8. Qualifications • Model closure (and non-considered feedback links) are important • Models don’t prescribe policy, but can be easily abused for this • Institutional issues are often downplayed or presumed • It is difficult to include the full real world dynamics (expectations, non-linearities, comparative static)

  9. Some experiences and lessons

  10. Some examples • Use models for their strengths not their weaknesses • Power of GTAP and its ‘family’-members lies in world-wide impact analysis of trade policy changes • See overview partial (Harbinson) (slide 1) and full trade liberalisation analysis (slide 2) (source J-C. Bureau)

  11. Model use and WTO /TrLib (i)

  12. Models and WTO/TrLib (ii) Even with same model and same scenario different researchers come up with differentresults

  13. Lessons from modelling WTO/TrLib (i) • Only a few model families are used • Caution needed for artifical consensus • More liberalisation leads to larger gains: already by assumption • Gains are actually quite small (0.x% of GDP) • In particular developing countries gain relatively little (although they did in older studies).

  14. Lessons from modelling WTO/TrLib (ii) • More recent model version show smaller impacts due to better data (applied tariffs, TRQ-treatment, other NTBs) • Better desaggregation of DC (still weak on impacts of binding overhang, tariff data precision, somtimes simplistic assumptions wrt consumer surplus changes offsetting producer surplus changes) • Few models still take the relationship between intervention prices, tariffs and export subsidies properly into account (EU)

  15. Post-modeling analysis

  16. Model use matters • Model have limited direct impact, but large and increasing indirect impact • Models are (more) used in trade panels (with country focus!) • Need for good quality management & accountability about performance and limitations • When focus on specific country-market-impacts post-model analysis is required

  17. Post-modeling analysis • Models are calibrated: lack empirical testing • Specification errors (aggregation, heterogeneity, down-scaling, macro-micro, lacking detail in policy implementation) • No market power • Instantaneous adjustments (signal transmission, responsiveness) • Dynamics & structural change not well-captured • Balance of trade-closure Also plea for pre-modeling analysis

  18. Specific issues wrt India

  19. Comments/questions on analysis • Modeling assumptions • BoP closure rule => dX = dM • Factor mobility assumption • Meat import fixation

  20. Comments/questions on analysis • Context: quantitative assessment of India-EU FTA • Q1 : PTA or FTA? • Q2 : ‘external’ tariff assumption? • Q3: TC and TD (how to explain) • Q4: TRQ treatment • Scenario design

  21. Comments/questions on analysis • Post-modeling analysis (fed/state level desagr?) • Check for main affected products • Padi rice • Processed rice • Sugar cane, sugar beet? • Textiles and leather? • Wool, silkworm cocoons? • (Manufactures) • Analyse in detail • Policy representation • Price transmission

  22. Concluding remarks

  23. Some conclusions • GTAP contains lot and still increasing amount of expertise on modeling, trade volume, price and policy data • CGE is encompassing but captures not everything properly and with proper detail • Plea for (pre-) and post-modeling analysis • (scenario design) • (scenario implementation: policy transl.) • interpretation and modification of results • derived impact analysis

More Related