Computable General Equilibrium Modelling in Regional Science

  • Grant J. AllanEmail author
  • Patrizio Lecca
  • Peter G. McGregor
  • Stuart G. McIntyre
  • J. Kim Swales
Part of the Advances in Spatial Science book series (ADVSPATIAL)


Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) modelling has a long and distinguished history in regional science. In the past decade or so, improvements in computation have led to more elaborate and detailed CGE models being developed and used in a range of different policy areas. Against a backdrop of these advances, this chapter seeks to identify and review a number of areas where we see the potential for significant developments in CGE modelling in the years ahead. Specifically, we first consider potential improvements in computation, model specification and methodology, before looking in more detail at three areas where these models are used, or could be used, with a view to identifying avenues where model improvements would be valuable. These three areas are: urban and spatial modelling, model integration with other systems and models, and regional fiscal issues. CGE modelling has a bright future in regional science, but to remain at the forefront of economic research in regional science it must continue to adapt and evolve as, historically it has done, and we hope that the directions identified in this chapter are helpful to the future direction of this field.


Public Spending Computable General Equilibrium Computable General Equilibrium Model Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors acknowledge funding from the ESRC under The Constitutional Future of Scotland and the United Kingdom pre and post Referendum Initiative (grant ES/L003325/1) and from ClimateXChange, the Scottish Government-funded Centre of Expertise in Climate Change. The authors are solely responsible for the content of the paper. The views expressed are purely those of the authors and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission or Scottish Government. The authors are grateful to the editors for comments on an earlier draft.


  1. Anas A (2013) A summary of the applications to date of RELUTRAN, a microeconomic urban computable general equilibrium model. Environ Plann B Plann Des 40(6):959–970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bohringer C (1998) The synthesis of bottom-up and top-down in energy policy modelling. Energy Econ 20(3):233–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bottazi G, Secchi A (2003) Why are distributions of firm growth rates tent-shaped. Econ Lett 80(3):415–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Canova F (1994) Statistical inference in calibrated models. J Appl Econ 9:123–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Canova F (1995) Sensitivity analysis and model evaluation in simulated dynamic general equilibrium economies. Int Econ Rev 36(2):477–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Canova F, Marrinan J (1998) Sources and propagation of international output cycles: common shocks or transmission? J Int Econ 46(1):133–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Choi KW, Sjoquist DL (2015) Economic and spatial effects of land value taxation in an urban area: an urban computable general equilibrium approach. Land Econ 91(3):536–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Deepak MS, West CT, Spreen TH (2001) Local government portfolios and regional growth: some combined dynamic CGE/optimal control results. J Reg Sci 41(2):219–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dixon PB, Jorgenson D (2013) Handbook of computable general equilibrium modelling. North-Holland, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. England RW (2003) State and local impacts of a revenue-neutral shift from a uniform property to a land value tax: results of a simulation study. Land Econ 79(1):38–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. England RW, Zhao MQ (2005) Assessing the distributive impact of a revenue neutral shift from a uniform property tax to a two-rate property tax with a uniform credit. Natl Tax J 58:247–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ferguson L, Learmonth D, McGregor PG, Swales JK, Turner K (2007) The impact of the Barnett formula on the Scottish economy: endogenous population and variable formula proportions. Environ Plan A 39(12):3008–3027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fortes P, Pereira R, Pereira A, Seixas J (2014) Integrated technological-economic modelling platform for energy and climate policy analysis. Energy 73:716–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Giesecke JA (2008) A top-down framework for regional historical analysis. Spat Econ Anal 3:45–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Giesecke JA, Madden J (2006) A CGE evaluation of a university’s effects on a regional economy: an integrated assessment of expenditure and knowledge impacts. Rev Urb Reg Dev Stud 18:229–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Giesecke JA, Madden J (2013) Regional computable general equilibrium modeling, chap. 7. In: Dixon PB, Jorgenson DW (eds) Handbook of computable general equilibrium modelling. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 379–475Google Scholar
  17. Glynn J et al (2015) Economic impacts of future changes in the energy system—National perspectives. pp. 359–387. In: Giannakidis et al (ed) Informing energy and climate policies using energy systems models. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  18. Groenewold N, Madden JR, Hagger AJ (2003) The effects of interregional transfers: a political economy CGE approach. Pap Reg Sci 82:535–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harrigan F, McGregor PG, Dourmashkin N, Perman R, Swales K, Yin YP (1991) AMOS: a macro-micro model of Scotland. Econ Model 8(4):424–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harrigan F, McGregor PG, Swales JK, Dourmashkin N (1992) Imperfect competition in regional labour markets: a computable general equilibrium analysis. Environ Plan A 24(10):1463–1481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hermannsson K, Lecca P, Lisenkova K, McGregor PG, Swales JK (2014) The regional economic impact of more graduates in the labour market: a “micro-to-macro” analysis for Scotland. Environ Plan A 42(2):471–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hourcade J-C, Jaccard M, Bataille C, Ghersi F (2006) Hybrid modelling: new answers to old challenges. Hybrid Model Energy Environ Policies, Special issue of Energy J 27:1–11Google Scholar
  23. Kannan R, Strachan N (2008) Hybrid modelling of longterm carbon reduction scenarios for the UK. Energy Econ 30:2947–2963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kilkenny M (1999) Explicitly spatial rural-urban computable general equilibrium. Am J Agric Econ 81(3):647–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kim E, Hewings GJ, Lee C (2016) Impact of educational investments on economic losses from population ageing using an interregional CGE-population model. Econ Model 54:126–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Laibson D (1998) Life-cycle consumption and hyperbolic discount functions. Eur Econ Rev 42(3–5):861–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lecca P, McGregor PG, Swales JK (2013) Forward-looking versus myopic regional CGEs: how significant is the difference? Econ Model 31:160–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lecca P, McGregor PG, Swales JK, Yin YP (2014) Balanced budget multipliers for small open regions within a federal system: evidence from the Scottish variable rate of income tax. J Reg Sci 54(3):402–421Google Scholar
  29. Lecca P, McGregor PG, Swales JK (2015) Scotland-no detriment, no danger: the interregional impact of a balanced budget fiscal expansion, IPPI Policy Paper.
  30. Lecca, P, McGregor PG. and Swales JK (2016) Taxes and spending, Chap. 2. In: Keating M (ed) A wealthier, fairer Scotland: the political economy of constitutional change. Oxford, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  31. Lisenkova K, McGregor PG, Pappas N, Swales JK, Turner K, Wright RE (2010) Scotland the grey: a linked demographic—computable general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the impact of population ageing and decline. Reg Stud 44(10):1351–1368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lisenkova K, Sanchez-Martinez M, Sefton J (2015) The sustainability of Scottish public finances: a generational accounting approach. NIESR Discussion Paper No 456Google Scholar
  33. McGregor P, Swales JK, Yin YP (1996) A long-run interpretation of regional input-output analyses. Journal of Regional Science 36(3):479–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McKibbin WJ, Sachs JD (1989) The McKibbin-Sachs global model: theory and specification. NBER paper 3100Google Scholar
  35. Meyeres I, Van Regemorter D (2008) Modelling the health related benefits of environmental policies and their feedback effects: a CGE analysis for the EU countries using GEM-E3. Energy J 29(1):135–150Google Scholar
  36. Nechyba T (1996a) A computable general equilibrium model of intergovernmental aid. J Public Econ 62(3):363–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nechyba T (1996b) Fiscal federalism and local public finance: a computable general equilibrium (CGE) framework. Int Tax Public Financ 3(2):215–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nechyba TJ (1997) Existence of equilibrium and stratification in local and hierarchical Tiebout economies with property taxes and voting. Econ Theory 10(2):277–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Partridge M, Rickman D (1998) Regional computable general equilibriuim modelling: a survey and critical appraisal. Int Reg Sci Rev 21:205–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Partridge M, Rickman D (2010a) Computable general equilibrium (CGE) modelling for regional economic development analysis. Reg Stud 44(10):1311–1328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Santos GF, Haddad EA, Hewings GJ (2013) Energy policy and regional inequalities in the Brazilian economy. Energy Econ 36:241–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Grant J. Allan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Patrizio Lecca
    • 2
  • Peter G. McGregor
    • 1
  • Stuart G. McIntyre
    • 1
  • J. Kim Swales
    • 1
  1. 1.Fraser of Allander Institute and Department of Economics, Strathclyde Business SchoolUniversity of StrathclydeGlasgowUK
  2. 2.European Commission, DG Joint Research CentreSevilleSpain

Personalised recommendations