A Computable General Equilibrium Model for Climate and Trade Policy Analysis

  • Christoph Böhringer
  • Andreas Löschel
  • Joseph Francois
Part of the ZEW Economic Studies book series (ZEW, volume 26)


General equilibrium models provide a consistent framework for studying price-dependent interactions between all markets of the economy. The simultaneous explanation of the origin and spending of the economic agents’ income allows addressing both economy-wide efficiency effects and distributional implications of policy interference. Therefore, computable general equilibrium (CGE) models have become the standard tool for the analysis of the economy-wide impacts of climate and trade policies on resource allocation and the associated implications for incomes of economic agents (see e.g. Weyant, 1999 for a recent survey on applications to climate policy; Shoven and Whalley, 1984 and 1992, provide an introduction to trade policy analysis).


Computable General Equilibrium Final Demand Computable General Equilibrium Model Social Account Matrix Substitution Elasticity 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Armington, P.A. (1969), A Theory of Demand for Products Distinguished by Place of Production, IMF Staff Papers 16(1), 159–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Babiker, M.H., J.M. Reilly, M. Mayer, R.S. Eckaus, I.S. Wing, and R.C. Hyman (2001), The MIT Emissions Prediction and Policy Analysis (EPPA) Model: Revisions, Sensitivities, and Comparisons of Results, MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change Report.Google Scholar
  3. Babiker, M.H. and T.F. Rutherford (1997), Input-Output and General Equilibrium Estimates of Embodied Carbon: A Dataset and Static Framework for Assessment, Working Paper 97-2, University of Colorado, Boulder.Google Scholar
  4. Bergmann, L. (1990), The Development of Computable General Equilibrium Models, in: Bergman, L., D.W. Jorgenson, and E. Zalai (Eds.), General Equilibrium Modeling and Economic Policy Analysis, Oxford, 3–30.Google Scholar
  5. Böhringer, C, J. Jensen, and T.F. Rutherford (2000), Energy Market Projections and Differentiated Carbon Abatement in the European Union, in: Carraro, C. (Ed.), Efficiency and Equity of Climate Change Policy, Dordrecht, 199–220.Google Scholar
  6. Brooke, A., D. Kendrick, and A. Meeraus (1996), GAMS: A User’s Guide, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  7. DOE (2001), International Energy Outlook 2001, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  8. European Commission (1996), Energy in Europe — European Energy to 2020 — a Scenario Approach, European Commission, Brussels.Google Scholar
  9. Fehr, F. and W. Wiegard (1996), Numerische Gleichgewichtsmodelle: Grundstruktur, Anwendungen und Erkenntnisgehalt, Ökonomie und Gesellschaft, Jahrbuch 13, Frankfurt, 297–339.Google Scholar
  10. Ferris, M.C. and T.S. Munson (2000), Complementarity Problems in GAMS and the PATH Solver, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 24, 165–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grubb, M., J. Edmonds, P. ten Brink, and M. Morrison (1993), The Costs of Limiting Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions: A Survey and Analysis, Annual Review of Energy and Environment 18, 397–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hall, R.E. (1986), Market Structure and Macroeconomic Fluctuations, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity No. 2, 285–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harrison, G.W, T.F. Rutherford, and D.G. Tarr (1996), Increased Competition and Completion of the Market in the European Union: Static and Steady State Effects, Journal of Economic Integration 11(3), 332–365.Google Scholar
  14. Harrison, G.W, T.F. Rutherford, and D.G. Tarr (1997), Quantifying the Uruguay Round, Economic Journal 107, 1405–1430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. IEA (International Energy Agency) (1996), Energy Prices and Taxes: Energy Balances of OECD and Non-OECD-Countries, IEA publications, Paris.Google Scholar
  16. Kehoe, P.J. and T.J. Kehoe (1994), A Primer on Static Applied General Equilibrium Models, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Quarterly Review (Spring).Google Scholar
  17. Lloyd, P. (1994), Aggregation by Industry in High-Dimensional Models, Review of International Economics 2(2), 97–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mathiesen, L. (1985), Computation of Economic Equilibrium by a Sequence of Linear Complementarity Problems, in: Manne, A. (Ed.), Economic Equilibrium — Model Formulation and Solution, 144–162.Google Scholar
  19. McDougall, R.A., A. Elbehri, and T.P. Truong (1998), Global Trade, Assistance and Protection: The GTAP 4 Data Base, Center for Global Trade Analysis, West Lafayette.Google Scholar
  20. Martins, J.O., S. Scarpetta, and D. Pilat (1996), Markup Ratios in Manufacturing Industries: Estimates for 14 OECD Countries, OECD Working Papers 4(24).Google Scholar
  21. Peireira, A.M and J.B. Shoven (1992), Survey of Dynamic Computational General Equilibrium Models for Tax Policy Evaluation, Journal of Policy Modeling 10, 401–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Reinert, K.A., and D.W. Roland-Hoist (1997), Social Accounting Matrices, in: Francois, J. F. and K.A. Reinert (Eds.), Applied Methods for Trade Policy Analysis: A Handbook, New York, 94–121.Google Scholar
  23. Roeger, W. (1995), Can Imperfect Competition Explain the Difference Between Primal and Dual Productivity Measures? Estimates for US Manufacturing, Journal of Political Economy 103(2), 316–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rutherford, T.F. (1995), Constant Elasticity of Substitution Functions: Some Hints and Useful Formulae, Notes prepared for GAMS General Equilibrium Workshop in Boulder, Colorado.Google Scholar
  25. Rutherford, T.F. (1998), Economic Equilibrium Modelling with GAMS: An Introduction to GAMS/MCP and GAMS/MPSGE, GAMS Development Corp., Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  26. Rutherford, T.F. (1999), Applied General Equilibrium Modelling with MPSGE as a GAMS Subsystem: An Overview of the Modelling Framework and Syntax, Computational Economics 14, 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shoven, J.B. and J. Whalley (1984), Applied General Equilibrium Models of Taxation and International Trade: An Introduction and Survey, Journal of Economic Literature 22, 1007–1051.Google Scholar
  28. Shoven, J.B. and J. Whalley (1992), Applying General Equilibrium, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  29. USITC (United States International Trade Commission) (1998), The Year in Trade: Operation of the Trade Agreements Program during 1997, USITC Publication 3103, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  30. Weyant, J. (Ed.) (1999), The Costs of the Kyoto Protocol: A Multi-Model Evaluation, The Energy Journal Special Issue.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christoph Böhringer
    • 1
  • Andreas Löschel
    • 1
  • Joseph Francois
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for European Economic ResearchMannheimGermany
  2. 2.Tinbergen Institute RotterdamPA RotterdamNetherlands

Personalised recommendations