Hans Ehrbar asked (26mar09): [quote] Can one also argue that CGE models are
being misused ? Is it possible to use them in the right way? [end quote]
COMMENT:
I have an interest in forecasting and simulation but no specific expertise in
CGE models (Computable General Equilibrium Models). My answer to the two
questions raised by Hans Ehrbar tends to be a double affirmative: CGE models
can be misused and they can be used in the right way. That is parallel to the
old thing with statistics - yes, statistics can be misused and statistics can
be used the right way. Therefore, CGE models (like statistics) can (and should)
always be subjected to ideology critique.
I read the example of a CGE model mentioned by Hans, namely:
http://www.beaconhill.org/BHIStudies/WCI-2009/WCIReportFinal090323.pdfThat
report of a CGE modeling exercise concludes that jobs will be lost by the year
2020 due to cap and trade. The report has very much a flavour of propaganda for
the energy and transportation industries.
One possible line of attack is a general one - namely, critiquing CGE models in
general, for example, questioning the forecasting capability of such models (as
does Dorman in the blog mentioned by Ehrbar). That can be done, just like one
can criticize statistics in general; but that does not bring much in a specific
practical case. In this case, you want to win a public debate about cap and
trade. In the context of such a debate it would be very effective to (a) expose
all the biases and limitations of the presented model and its results, and
(b)develop a counter-model. (Just like in another situation where you reject
somebody's statistics, you would expose the flaws in the given statistics and
present counter statistics.)
Here are some critical comments on the above-mentioned Beaconhill study:(a) The
report does not reveal all the assumptions used in the modeling exercise. For a
full critique, one requires a more comprehensive report.(b) The report treats
cap and trade as a taxation problem and nothing but, i.e., the effect of cap
and trade on the energy and transportation industries is seen as an additional
tax on those industries. That tax will destroy (X) number of jobs in those
industries. The government collects (Y) number of dollars as additional revenue
and can hire (Z) number of additional public servants for that money. The
number (X) of private sector jobs destroyed will be greater than the number (Z)
of public sector jobs created (they say). What are their assumptions about
public sector jobs created? Did they consider that the government could use
those additional revenues for supporting alternative green industries? Do they
simply plug the average wage of all public servants into their model in order
to estimate the number of public sector jobs expected?(c) Other detailed
critical questions can be raised about this particular study, including
questions regarding their assumptions about petroleum prices and their
development; technological response within businesses to a cap and trade
regime; and others.(d) A counter-model would be nice to have. Change some of
their assumptions, plug in some other variables of interest, insert some other
logical connections (algorithms, formulae, etc.)- and voila - you _ prove _ the
opposite of their conclusion. From a scientific point of view, such an exercise
may not be of much interest, but it would a valuable tool in public debate.Some
thirty years ago, Herrera et al. did a magnificent job of developing a complex
leftist model in the context of the limits-to-growth debate (the so-called
Bariloche model).
Gernot
_________________________________________________________________
Experience all of the new features, and Reconnect with your life.
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9650730
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
