Advertisement

Rapid Assessments of the Economic Implications of Terrorism Events Using a Regional CGE Model: Creating GRAD-ECAT (Generalized, Regional and Dynamic Economic Consequence Analysis Tool)

  • Peter B. DixonEmail author
  • Michael Jerie
  • Maureen T. Rimmer
  • Glyn Wittwer
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Spatial Science book series (ADVSPATIAL)

Abstract

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) considers the effects of hypothetical terrorism scenarios distinguished by many dimensions including: perpetrator; target; location; weapon; and delivery method. For each scenario, DHS requires a computationally rapid, in-house (secure) tool for translating impact effects or “driving variables” (e.g. capital destruction, clean-up expenditures, etc.) into economic implication variables (e.g. GDP in the short and long run, regional output in the short and long run, and economic welfare). We use a detailed, dynamic, multi-regional CGE model to generate elasticities E(s,d,v) of 9 implication variables (v) with respect to 14 driving variables (s) occurring as a result of incidents in any of the US’s 436 congressional districts (d). Equipped with these elasticities, DHS can apply trivial calculations to estimate the national and regional economic implications of an enormous variety of scenarios. Rose et al. (Economic consequence analysis tool (E-CAT), Springer, Tokyo, 2017) also propose a CGE-based rapid calculation tool for translating terrorism-related driving variables into economic implication variables. They refer to this tool as E-CAT (Economic Consequence Analysis Tool). Compared with E-CAT, our tool has a more general coverage of economic variables (both driving and implication variables) and introduces regional and dynamic dimensions. In view of the similarities and differences between our approach and E-CAT, we title the tool created here as GRAD-E-CAT (Generalized, Regional And Dynamic Economic Consequence Analysis Tool).

References

  1. Boisvert R (1992) Indirect losses from a catastrophic earthquake and the local, regional, and national interest. In: Indirect economic consequences of a catastrophic earthquake. FEMA, Washington, DC, pp. 204–266Google Scholar
  2. Chen Z, Rose A, Prager F, Chatterjee S (2017) Economic consequences of aviation systems disruptions: a reduced-form computable general equilibrium analysis. Transp Res A Policy Pract 95:207–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dixon PB, Rimmer MT (2002) Dynamic general equilibrium modelling for forecasting and policy: a practical guide and documentation of MONASH. Contributions to economic analysis 256, North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, pp xiv+338Google Scholar
  4. Dixon PB, Rimmer MT, Tsigas ME (2007) Regionalizing results from a detailed CGE model: macro, industry and state effects in the U.S. of removing major tariffs and quotas. Pap Reg Sci 86(1):31–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dixon PB, Lee B, Muehlenbeck T, Rimmer MT, Rose AZ, Verikios G (2010) Effects on the U.S. of an H1N1 epidemic: analysis with a quarterly CGE model. J Homel Secur Emerg Manag 7(1):Article 75Google Scholar
  6. Dixon PB, Johnson M, Rimmer MT (2011a) Economy-wide effects of reducing illegal immigrants in U.S. employment. Contemp Econ Policy 29(1):14–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dixon PB, Giesecke JA, Rimmer MT, Rose A (2011b) The economic costs to the U.S. of closing its borders: a computable general equilibrium analysis. Def Peace Econ 22(1):85–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dixon PB, Rimmer MT, Roberts BW (2014) Restricting employment of low-paid immigrants: a general equilibrium assessment of the social welfare implications for legal U.S. wage-earners. Contemp Econ Policy 32(3):639–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dixon PB, Jerie M, Rimmer MT, Wittwer G (2017a) Using a regional CGE model for rapid assessments of the economic implications of terrorism events: creating GRAD-ECAT (Generalized, regional and dynamic economic consequence analysis tool). CoPS/IMPACT Working Paper G280, April, p 77. https://www.copsmodels.com/ftp/workpapr/g-280.pdf
  10. Dixon PB, Rimmer MT, Wittwer G, Rose AZ, Heatwole N (2017b) Economic consequences of terrorism and natural disasters: the Computable General equilibrium approach, Chapter 8. In: Abbas A, von Winterfeldt D, Tambe M (eds) Improving homeland security decisions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 158–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Garnaut R (2016) Economic analysis versus business rent seeking: the eclipse of analysis in Australia, Chapter 3. In: Hill H, Menon J (eds) Managing globalization in the Asian century. ISEAS Yusof Ishak Institute, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  12. Giesecke JA, Burns W, Barret A, Bayrak E, Rose A, Slovic P, Suher M (2012) Assessment of the regional economic impacts of catastrophic events: CGE analysis of resource loss and behavioral effects of an RDD attack scenario. Risk Anal 32(4):583–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harrison M (2010) Valuing the future: the social discount rate in cost-benefit analysis. Productivity Commission, Australian Government, Canberra, pp IX + 175. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1599963
  14. Horridge M (2012) The TERM model and its database, Chapter 2. In: Wittwer G (ed) Economic modeling of water: the Australian CGE experience. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 13–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Horridge JM, Madden JR, Wittwer G (2005) Impact of the 2002-03 drought on Australia. J Policy Model 27(3):285–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Partnoy F (2012) The cost of a human life, statistically speaking. http://www.theglobalist.com/the-cost-of-a-human-life-statistically-speaking/
  17. Rose A (2017a) Benefit-cost analysis of economic resilience actions. In: Cutter S (ed) Oxford research encyclopedia of natural hazard science. Oxford, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Rose A (2017b) Economic resilience to terrorism and natural hazards, Chapter 9. In: Abbas A, von Winterfeldt D, Tambe M (eds) Improving homeland security decisions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 193–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rose A, Guha G (2004) Computable general equilibrium modeling of electric utility lifeline losses from earthquakes. In: Okuyama Y, Chang S (eds) Modeling spatial economic impacts of natural hazards. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 119–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rose A, Prager F, Chen Z, Chatterjee S (2017) Economic consequence analysis tool (E-CAT). Springer, TokyoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wittwer G (ed) (2017) Multi-regional dynamic general equilibrium modeling of the U.S. economy: USAGE-TERM development and applications. Springer, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter B. Dixon
    • 1
    Email author
  • Michael Jerie
    • 1
  • Maureen T. Rimmer
    • 1
  • Glyn Wittwer
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre of Policy StudiesVictoria UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations