Sunday 8 August 2010

Chapter 7 Alternative Model Formulations--Gordon

Introduction (Section edited and 3rd para added for this post)

This chapter is about some of the recent practical and theoretical developments in spatial equilibrium modelling which are aids to practitioners in applying such models to real world policy problems. Consideration will be given to a variety of formulations of the models that take into account economic policy mechanisms such as subsidies, taxes, exchange rates, and fixed and ad valorem tariffs and price pooling. Finally, some formulations that are non-competitive in character will be developed along with more sophisticated nonlinear models which include balance of payment type constraints and dynamic formulations.

The work of Takayama and Judge (1971) provides the substantive starting point and has extensive documentation of various spatial equilibrium models. However, work by Enke (1951) and also Samuelson (1952) laid the early foundation for these models. In modern usage, the most important and distinctive feature of spatial equilibrium models is that the direction of trade is not pre-determined and that there is an intermediate position for which no trade takes place between the two regions. These two characteristics provide the basic reason why such models are likely to be useful. When these issues are not important then other, and possibly simpler, techniques may be more appropriate. However, the spatial equilibrium model, in the form presented in Chapter 4, is very efficient in terms of data and therefore can be built quite rapidly and easily.


There is one further feature of spatial equilibrium models in what is known as the primal-dual forms. In a primal-dual structure there is a price or shadow price associated with each constraint. This provides a very clear picture of the economic structure, in both price and quantity terms, of complex trading systems. Particularly is this the case when there are nonlinear constraints, say, in the physical domain, that must have an equivalent in the price domain. The direct incorporation of the Lagrangian variables (prices) into the structure of a maximisation problem allows for the combining into one model relationships between both price and quantity variables. This opens up a whole array of new model forms that can be modelled with a greater richness and directed toward defining a more useful but still abstract representation of the real world. Such models will always rely on a degree of abstraction so as to deal with the essence of a problem rather than with the impossibility of representing the detail of the whole world.

5 comments:

Scriveners said...

Hi Gordon - that was a Mighty read! I enjoyed getting a glimpse into your current writing. I followed you pretty well except for a few places where the references eluded me or I had to invent definitions for the jargon. I imagine this wouldn't be an issue for your intended audience.

My only suggestion would be one you've heard from me before! - about keeping the language as simple as possible. For example, sorting through gerunds or long "ization" words can be an impediment to the reader's ease of understanding, as in your sentence: "The direct incorporation of the Lagrangian variables (prices) into the structure of a maximisation problem allows for the combining into one model relationships between both price and quantity variables." How about: "If we incorporate the Lagrangian variables into a .... problem, we can combine .... etc." When I studied technical writing, the rule was to try keep it live and relevant with personal pronouns and references.

sue moffitt said...

This is challenging to comment on but here goes. The first para I followed and understood in principle. I also got the second half of the final para. I'm I struggled to understand the rest. I agree with Heather, if you can make it more friendly it would be easier to digest. Is this all Introduction?

Scriveners said...

Kerry says:
Good on you. And don't feel you have to tell us we won't understand. Either we will or we won't. And if you want us as non-economists to comprehend then make the writing less dense. Depends where your intended audience is coming from.
Two comments - 3rd paragraph, I found the construction of first sentence clumsy. Are we talking feature or type? And further down - difficult to start a sentence with "Particularly is".

Peta said...

hi Gordon, wow. Not sure at all how much I understood and this may sway my comments I guess - from a reading perspective I found some of the sentences a bit long. You refer in para 2 to simpler techniques perhaps being appropriate - if you are dealing with this elsewhere in more detail maybe a cross reference could assist readers interested in this specifically. The final sentence of the piece left me perplexed but I suspect that is not understanding the bigger picture!

Thanks for sharing this with us Gordon. It was a bit of a challenge for some one with little knowledge of the greater work not to mention understanding but I can certainly appreciate the intellectual application required to put this together.

Rick said...

A challenging read Gordon. I did my best to make a bit of sense out of it, but as expected it was a bit esoteric. Well done on getting it written.