A Sub-national CGE Model for the European Mediterranean Countries
This chapter describes the methodology used to develop a Computable General Equilibrium model with sub-national detail for the Euro-Mediterranean area: Italy, France, Spain, Portugal and Greece. The main purpose of this exercise is to perform economic assessments of climate change impacts with a finer spatial resolution compared to that offered by standard CGE models and, in doing so, to increase the comparability of and the possibility to exchange information across economic and physical impact models. Indeed, aiming to represent the high spatial heterogeneity of climate drivers and environmental impacts, both climate models and physical process models (like e.g. land use, crop growth, flood risk models) are spatially detailed. This is not the case for macroeconomic models that typically feature large geo-political blocks or at best the country as the finest investigation units. Accordingly, when physical and economic models are interfaced to produce integrated assessments of climate change impacts, there is an unavoidable loss of richness both of input and output information. Developing a sub-national resolution for the economic analysis thus offers a first useful step to measure more accurately the economic consequences of climate change, to produce an information more relevant for local planners and businesses, and also to better capture the economic feedbacks between regions which can turn to be as important as the international ones. The study addresses conceptual and practical issues related to the regionalization process, and presents simple experiments aimed to test the robustness of the regionalized structure and understand the economic implications in terms of market integration.
KeywordsCGE models Regional economics
JEL CODEC68 D58 R11 R12 R13
The research leading to these results has received funding from the Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research and the Italian Ministry of Environment, Land and Sea under the GEMINA project.
The authors are the only responsible for errors and omissions in this work.
- Aaheim, A., Dokken, T., Hochrainer, S., Hof, A., Jochem, E., Mechler, R., et al. (2010). National responsibilities for adaptation strategies: Lessons from four modelling frameworks. In M. Hulme & H. Neufeld (Eds.), Making climate change work for us: European perspectives on adaptation and mitigation strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Bacharach, M. (1970). Biproportional matrices & input-output change. Number 16 in University of Cambridge Department of Applied Economics Monographs. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Böhringer, C., Fisher, C., & Rosendahl, K. E. (2010). The global effects of subglobal climate policies. Resources for the Future Discussion Paper, pp. 10–48.Google Scholar
- Bonfiglio, A. (2008). Evaluating implications of agricultural policies in a rural region through a CGE analysis, No 328, Working Papers, Universita’ Politecnica delle Marche, Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Sociali.Google Scholar
- Canning, P., & Tsigas, M. (2000). Regionalism, federalism, and taxation: A food and farm perspective. Technical Bulletin No. 1882, Economic Research Services, U.S. Department of agriculture.Google Scholar
- Darwin, R., & Tol, R. (2001). Estimates of the economic effects of sea level rise. Environmental & Resource Economics (European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists), 19(2), 113–129.Google Scholar
- Dixon, P., Rimmer, M., & Wittwer, G. (2012). USAGE-R51, a State-level Multi-regional CGE Model of the US Economy. https://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/resources/download/5933.pdf.
- Dubé, J., & Lemelin, A. (2005). Estimation Expérimentale des Flux d’Echanges Interrégionaux par la Méthode de Minimisation de l’Entropie Croisée. Revue Canadienne des Sciences Régionales/Canadian Journal of Regional Science, 28(3), 513–534.Google Scholar
- European Commission. (2008). Package of implementation measures for the EU’s objectives on climate change and renewable energy for 2020. Commission Staff working document SEC (2008) 85 II.Google Scholar
- European Commission. (2010). Analysis of options to move beyond 20% greenhouse gas emission reductions and assessing the risk of carbon leakage. Commission Staff working document SEC (2010) 650.Google Scholar
- Eurostat. (2016). Eurostat database. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/nuts/overview.
- Eurostat. (2017). Economic accounts for agriculture. http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do.
- Eurostat. (2017). Structural business statistics. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/structural-business-statistics/data/database.
- Hellenic Statistical Authority. Gross value added by industry 2000–2015. http://www.statistics.gr/en/statistics/-/publication/SEL45/-.
- Hertel, T. W. (Ed.). (1997). Global trade analysis: Modeling and applications. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Hertel, T. W., Lee, H., Rose, S., & Sohngen, B. (2009). Modelling land use related greenhouse gas sources and sinks and their mitigation potential. In T. W. Hertel, S. Rose, & R. Tol (Eds.), Economic analysis of land use in global climate change policy (Chapter 6). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- INE Spain. Contabilidad Regional de España 2000–2016. http://www.ine.es/dynt3/inebase/index.htm?type=pcaxis&path=/t35/p010/base2008&file=pcaxis.
- INE Portugal. Gross value added (€) of Enterprises by Geographic localization (NUTS - 2002) and Economic activity (Subclass - CAE Rev. 3); Annual—Statistics Portugal, Integrated business accounts. http://censos.ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpid=INE&xpgid=ine_indicadores&indOcorrCod=0006560&contexto=pti&selTab=tab10.
- INSEE. Valeurs Ajoutées régionales. http://www.insee.fr/fr/themes/detail.asp?reg_id=99&ref_id=pib-va-reg-base-2005.
- IPCC. (2014). In V. R. Barros, C. B. Field, D. J. Dokken, M. D. Mastrandrea, K. J. Mach, T. E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K. L. Ebi, Y. O. Estrada, R. C. Genova, B. Girma, E. S. Kissel, A. N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P. R. Mastrandrea, & L. L. White (Eds.), Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part B: Regional aspects. Contribution of working group II to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (688 pp). Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- ISTAT. Conti Economici Regionali. Anni 1995–2009. http://www.istat.it/it/archivio/12718.
- ISTAT. Agricoltura e Zootecnia. http://agri.istat.it/sag_is_pdwout/index.jsp.
- ISTAT. Valore Aggiunto ai Prezzi di Base dell’Agricoltura per Regione. Anni 1980–2011. http://www.istat.it/it/archivio/66513.
- Jansson, T. G., Kuiper, M. H., & Adenäuer, M. (2009). Linking CAPRI and GTAP. SEAMLESS report no. 39.Google Scholar
- Jean, S., & Laborde, D. (2004). The impact of multilateral liberalisation on European regions: A CGE assessment. CEPII Working Paper, No. 2004-20.Google Scholar
- Johansen, L. (1974). A multi-sectoral study of economic growth (2nd ed.). Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
- Lee, H., Hertel, T. W., Rose, S., & Avetisyan, M. (2009). An integrated global land use database for CGE analysis of climate policy options. In T. W. Hertel, S. Rose, & R. Tol (Eds.), Economic analysis of land use in global climate change policy (Chapter 4). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- McCallum, J. (1995). National borders matter: Canada-U.S. regional trade patterns. American Economic Review, 85(3), 615–623.Google Scholar
- McDougall, R. (1999). Entropy theory and RAS are friends. GTAP Working Papers 300, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University.Google Scholar
- Michetti, M., & Parrado, R. (2012). Improving land-use modelling within CGE to assess forest-based mitigation potential and costs. Working Paper 2012.19, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.Google Scholar
- Miller, R. E., & Blair, P. D. (1985). Input-output analysis: Foundations and extensions. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.Google Scholar
- Narayanan, B., Aguiar, A., & McDougall, R. (2012) Global trade, assistance, and production: The GTAP 8 Data Base. Center for Global Trade Analysis, Purdue University.Google Scholar
- Pant, H. (2007). GTEM: Global trade and environment model. ABARE Technical Report. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences.Google Scholar
- Peter, M. W., Horridge, M., Meagher, G. A., Naqvi, F., & Parmenter, P. R. (1996). The theoretical structure of MONASH-MRF. Centre of Policy Studies/IMPACT Centre Working Papers op-85, Monash University, Centre of Policy Studies/IMPACT Centre.Google Scholar
- Potters, L., Conte, A., Kancs, D., & Thissen, M. (2014). Data needs for regional modelling. A description of the data used in support of RHOMOLO. JRC Publication No: JRC80845.Google Scholar
- Shoven, J. B., & Whalley, J. (1992). Applying general equilibrium. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Standardi, G., & Eboli F. (2015). Sea level rise in the Italian regions: A macro-economic assessment, Research Papers CMCC, RP0251.Google Scholar
- Standardi, G., Bosello, F., & Eboli, F. (2014). A sub-national CGE model for Italy, Working Papers 2014.04, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.Google Scholar