Aggregate demand curves in general‐equilibrium macroeconomic models: Comparisons with partial‐equilibrium microeconomic demand curves∗

1987 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Dorian Owen
1979 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-115
Author(s):  
T. N. Srinivasan

The paper is too long for conveying the message that shadow pricing used as a method of analysis in micro-economic issues of project selection is also useful for analysing macro-economic issues, such as foreign and domestic borrowing by the government, emigration, etc. Much of the methodological discussion in the paper is available in a readily accessible form in several publications of each of the coauthors; In contrast, the specific application of the methodology to Pakistani problems is much too cavalier. While it is hard to disagree with the authors' claim that shadow pricing "constitutes a relatively informal attempt to capture general equilibrium effects" (p. 89, emphasis added), their depiction of traditional analysis is a bit of a caricature: essentially it sets up a strawman to knock down. After all in the traditional partial equilibrium analysis, the caveat is always entered that the results are possibly sensitive to violation of the ceteris paribus assumptions of the analysis, though often the analysts will claim that extreme sensitivity is unlikely. Analogously, the shadow pricing method presumes "stationarity" of shadow prices in the sense that they are “independent of policy changes under review" (p. 90). The essential point to be noted is that the validity of this assertion or of the "not too extreme sensitivity" assertion of partial equilibrium analysts can be tested only with a full scale general equilibrium model! At any rate this reviewer would not pose the issue as one of traditional partial equilibrium macro-analysis versus shadow pricing as an approximate general equilibrium analysis, but would prefer a description of project analysis as an approach in which a macro-general equilibrium model of a manageable size (implicit or explicit) is used to derive a set of key shadow prices which are then used in a detailed micro-analysis of projects.


1982 ◽  
Vol 21 (38) ◽  
pp. 37-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. H. HALL ◽  
M. L. TREADGOLD

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (7) ◽  
pp. 1228-1245
Author(s):  
V.I. Tsurikov ◽  

The mathematical model of the Giffen effect proposed in the article clearly demonstrates both the effect itself and the reasons for its manifestation. The main advantages of the model include its extreme simplicity, which opens up access to the widest circle of readers, the use of standard methods for solving the consumer choice problem, and the most important fundamental agreement with the results of the field experiment of Jensen and Miller. The model shows that any good for which there is a more expensive substitute can be of little value. This or that good is endowed with the appropriate property by a particular consumer due to his or her own preferences, income level and prevailing prices. Any good of little value, including those that can only be consumed by a high-income individual, may turn out to be Giffen’s goods. Therefore, the consumption of Giffen’s product cannot be considered as evidence of the low standard of living of the consumer. According to the model, an increase in demand for an increasingly expensive low-value good, which is the essence of the Giffen paradox, is the result of optimizing a set of goods, i.e. the result of rational consumer behavior. It is shown that for the manifestation of the Giffen effect, it is necessary that the amount of funds allocated by the consumer for the purchase of a low-value good and its more expensive substitute falls into a certain rather narrow range of values. The failures of numerous and long-term studies aimed at detecting empirical manifestations of Giffen behavior in various historical events are explained by the fact that the corresponding analysis was carried out on the basis of averaged rather than individual values of demand for all categories of consumers. As a result, the negative slope of the aggregate demand curve turned out to be dominant over the positive sections of certain individual demand curves.


2013 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michele Boldrin ◽  
David K Levine

The case against patents can be summarized briefly: there is no empirical evidence that they serve to increase innovation and productivity, unless productivity is identified with the number of patents awarded—which, as evidence shows, has no correlation with measured productivity. Both theory and evidence suggest that while patents can have a partial equilibrium effect of improving incentives to invent, the general equilibrium effect on innovation can be negative. A properly designed patent system might serve to increase innovation at a certain time and place. Unfortunately, the political economy of government-operated patent systems indicates that such systems are susceptible to pressures that cause the ill effects of patents to grow over time. Our preferred policy solution is to abolish patents entirely and to find other legislative instruments, less open to lobbying and rent seeking, to foster innovation when there is clear evidence that laissez-faire undersupplies it. However, if that policy change seems too large to swallow, we discuss in the conclusion a set of partial reforms that could be implemented


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kory Kroft ◽  
René Leal Vizcaíno ◽  
Matthew Notowidigdo ◽  
Ting Wang

Author(s):  
Uros Djuric ◽  
Michael Neugart

Abstract The effects of helicopter money on expectations and economic outcomes are empirically largely unexplored. We fielded a representative survey among the German population, randomly assigning respondents to various unconventional monetary policy scenarios that raise household income. We find that in all policy treatments people spend almost 40% of the transfer, which is a non-trivial share that could increase aggregate demand. Policies do not raise inflation expectations. Differences in how transfers are implemented appear to be mostly irrelevant because of idiosyncratic behaviour by households that largely does not take into account general equilibrium effects and governments’ future policies.


Author(s):  
Nuno Limao ◽  
Arvind Panagariya

Abstract An important question that has continued to elude trade economists is why trade interventions are biased in favor of import-competing rather than exportable sectors. Indeed, as Philip Levy (1999) points out, under a set of neutrality assumptions, the dominant political-economy model, Grossman and Helpman (1994), predicts a pro-trade bias. We demonstrate that if we replace the almost partial equilibrium model with a general equilibrium model in the Grossman-Helpman political economy model, anti-trade bias may emerge even if we assume symmetric technologies, endowments and preferences across sectors provided that the elasticity of substitution in production exceeds unity. In addition, we show that ceteris paribus, in general equilibrium, increases in the imports-to-GDP ratio lower the endogenously chosen tariff and the production share of the import sector in GDP has an ambiguous effect.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document