IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/deg/conpap/c015_059.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Modeling Household Behavior in a CGE Model: Linear Expenditure System or Indirect Addilog?

Author

Listed:
  • Paul de Boer

Abstract

We try to argue that in a computable general equilibrium model, household preferences should be modeled by the indirect addilog system (IAS), exhibiting constant differences of elasticity of substitution (CDES), rather than by the frequently used linear expenditure system (LES). Both systems have the same data requirement and are as easy to implement, but IAS provides for a richer description of preferences. Contrarily to LES, its Engel curves are non-linear and it allows for inferior commodities, elastic demand and gross substitution. LES assigns zero utility to households with expenditure below a positive minimum value, whereas IAS assigns a positive utility, provided zero expenditure is replaced by a small positive number. In micro simulation models where the results of a macro CGE model (with one representative household) are used at micro level, this constitutes a clear advantage of IAS. In the framework of an expenditure survey, we find overwhelming statistical evidence that the IAS indirect utility function is likely to be (much) closer to the true indirect utility function than LES. Consequently, expenditure elasticities and welfare changes are likely to be (much) better estimated by IAS. Simulations with a CGE model for Palestine show that price responses and equivalent variation are considerably higher for IAS than for LES.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul de Boer, 2010. "Modeling Household Behavior in a CGE Model: Linear Expenditure System or Indirect Addilog?," DEGIT Conference Papers c015_059, DEGIT, Dynamics, Economic Growth, and International Trade.
  • Handle: RePEc:deg:conpap:c015_059
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://degit.sam.sdu.dk/papers/degit_15/c015_059.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marco Missaglia & Paul de Boer, 2004. "Food-For-Work versus Cash-For-Work: Emergency Assistance in Palestine," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(4), pages 367-390.
    2. Somermeyer, W. H. & Langhout, A., 1972. "Shapes of Engel curves and demand curves: Implications of the expenditure allocation model, applied to Dutch data," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 351-386, November.
    3. Arjan Lejour & Paul Veenendaal & Gerard Verweij & Nico van Leeuwen, 2006. "Worldscan; a model for international economic policy analysis," CPB Document 111, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    4. C. E. V. Leser, 1941. "Family Budget Data and Price-Elasticities of Demand," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 9(1), pages 40-57.
    5. Vuong, Quang H, 1989. "Likelihood Ratio Tests for Model Selection and Non-nested Hypotheses," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(2), pages 307-333, March.
    6. Paul De Boer & Richard Paap, 2009. "Testing non‐nested demand relations: linear expenditure system versus indirect addilog," Statistica Neerlandica, Netherlands Society for Statistics and Operations Research, vol. 63(3), pages 368-384, August.
    7. repec:dau:papers:123456789/6497 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. F. J. H. Don & J. P. Verbruggen, 2006. "Models and methods for economic policy: 60 years of evolution at CPB," Statistica Neerlandica, Netherlands Society for Statistics and Operations Research, vol. 60(2), pages 145-170, May.
    9. Jeffrey Reimer & Thomas Hertel, 2004. "Estimation of International Demand Behaviour for Use with Input-Output Based Data," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(4), pages 347-366.
    10. Paul de Boer & Marco Missaglia, 2006. "Economic consequences of intifada," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(1), pages 97-106.
    11. Deaton,Angus & Muellbauer,John, 1980. "Economics and Consumer Behavior," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521296762, October.
    12. Murty, K N, 1982. "Theoretical Restrictions on the Parameters of Indirect Addilog Demand Equations-A Comment," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(1), pages 225-227, January.
    13. Hanoch, Giora, 1975. "Production and Demand Models with Direct or Indirect Implicit Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 43(3), pages 395-419, May.
    14. Heij, Christiaan & de Boer, Paul & Franses, Philip Hans & Kloek, Teun & van Dijk, Herman K., 2004. "Econometric Methods with Applications in Business and Economics," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199268016.
    15. Paul de Boer & Marco Missaglia, 2010. "Predicting Negative Effects Of The Second Intifada: An Ex-Post Evaluation Of Some Models," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(2), pages 193-199.
    16. John Cranfield & Paul Preckel & James Eales & Thomas Hertel, 2000. "On the estimation of 'an implicitly additive demand system'," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(15), pages 1907-1915.
    17. Clarke, Kevin A., 2007. "A Simple Distribution-Free Test for Nonnested Model Selection," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(3), pages 347-363, July.
    18. Paul de Boer & Bjarne S. Jensen, 2005. "The Expenditure System of CDES Indirect Utility Functions," DEGIT Conference Papers c010_036, DEGIT, Dynamics, Economic Growth, and International Trade.
    19. Harris, John R & Todaro, Michael P, 1970. "Migration, Unemployment & Development: A Two-Sector Analysis," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 60(1), pages 126-142, March.
    20. Mohamed Hedi Bchir & Yvan Decreux & Jean-Louis Guérin & Sébastien Jean, 2002. "MIRAGE, a Computable General Equilibrium Model for Trade Policy Analysis," Working Papers 2002-17, CEPII research center.
    21. Deaton, Angus S & Muellbauer, John, 1980. "An Almost Ideal Demand System," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(3), pages 312-326, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bouët, Antoine & Femenia, Fabienne & Laborde, David, 2014. "On the role of demand systems in CGE simulations of trade reforms," Conference papers 332443, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    2. da Motta, Glaucia Possas & Perobelli, Fernando Salgueiro & Domingues, Edson Paulo, 2017. "Avaliação do Padrão de Consumo de Bens e Serviços de Saúde: Uma Abordagem de Equilíbrio Geral Computável para a Economia Brasileira," Revista Brasileira de Economia - RBE, EPGE Brazilian School of Economics and Finance - FGV EPGE (Brazil), vol. 71(4), December.
    3. Gharibnavaz, M. Reza & Waschik, Robert, 2012. "A General Equilibrium Analysis of Alternative Scenarios for Food and Energy Subsidy Reforms in Iran," Conference papers 332241, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    4. Ole Boysen, 2019. "When does specification or aggregation across consumers matter for economic impact analysis models? An investigation into demand systems," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 137-172, January.
    5. Faíña, Andrés & López-Rodríguez, Jesús & Varela-Candamio, Laura, 2013. "Reinterpreting the Frisch parameter in the field of personal taxation: A link between taxable capacity and social marginal utility in Optimal Taxation," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 118(1), pages 81-83.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Paul De Boer & Richard Paap, 2009. "Testing non‐nested demand relations: linear expenditure system versus indirect addilog," Statistica Neerlandica, Netherlands Society for Statistics and Operations Research, vol. 63(3), pages 368-384, August.
    2. de Boer, P.M.C. & Missaglia, M., 2005. "Introducing the indirect addilog system in a computable general equilibrium model: a case study for Palestine," Econometric Institute Research Papers EI 2005-25, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Economics (ESE), Econometric Institute.
    3. Paul de Boer & Bjarne S. Jensen, 2005. "The Expenditure System of CDES Indirect Utility Functions," DEGIT Conference Papers c010_036, DEGIT, Dynamics, Economic Growth, and International Trade.
    4. Bjarne Jensen & Paul Boer & Jan Daal & Peter Jensen, 2011. "Global restrictions on the parameters of the CDES indirect utility function," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 217-235, April.
    5. de Boer, P.M.C. & Brocker, J. & Jensen, B.S. & van Daal, J., 2006. "Theoretical restrictions on the parameters of the indirect addilog system revisited," Econometric Institute Research Papers EI 2006-11, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Economics (ESE), Econometric Institute.
    6. Shojaeddini, Ensieh & Schreiber, Andrew & Wolverton, Ann & Marten, Alex, 2024. "Consumer demand and the economy-wide costs of regulation: Modeling households with empirically estimated flexible functional forms," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    7. Ole Boysen, 2019. "When does specification or aggregation across consumers matter for economic impact analysis models? An investigation into demand systems," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 137-172, January.
    8. de Boer, P.M.C. & Missaglia, M., 2006. "Estimation of income elasticities and their use in a CGE model in Palestine," Econometric Institute Research Papers EI 2006-12, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Economics (ESE), Econometric Institute.
    9. Yu, Wusheng & Hertel, Thomas W. & Preckel, Paul V. & Eales, James S., 2004. "Projecting world food demand using alternative demand systems," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 99-129, January.
    10. Wang, Qingbin & Halbrendt, Catherine & Johnson, Stanley R., 1996. "A non-nested test of the AIDS vs. the translog demand system," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 139-143, May.
    11. Yu, Wusheng & Hertel, Thomas W. & Preckel, Paul V. & Eales, James S., 2004. "Projecting world food demand using alternative demand systems," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 99-129, January.
    12. Mun Ho & Wolfgang Britz & Ruth Delzeit & Florian Leblanc & Roberto Roson & Franziska Schuenemann & Matthias Weitzel, 2020. "Modelling Consumption and Constructing Long-Term Baselines in Final Demand," Journal of Global Economic Analysis, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, vol. 5(1), pages 63-108, June.
    13. Paul Preckel & J. A. L. Cranfield & Thomas Hertel, 2010. "A modified, implicit, directly additive demand system," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(2), pages 143-155.
    14. Diego Comin & Danial Lashkari & Martí Mestieri, 2021. "Structural Change With Long‐Run Income and Price Effects," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 89(1), pages 311-374, January.
    15. Jeffrey J. Reimer & Thomas W. Hertel, 2010. "Nonhomothetic Preferences and International Trade," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(2), pages 408-425, May.
    16. Gohin, Alexandre & Laborde, David, 2006. "Simulating trade policy reforms at the detailed level: some practical solutions," Conference papers 331557, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    17. Kesavan, Thulasiram, 1988. "Monte Carlo experiments of market demand theory," ISU General Staff Papers 198801010800009854, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    18. Prof. Denis Conniffe, 2002. "A New System of Consumer Demand Equations," NIRSA Working Paper Series 4, National Institute for Regional and Spatial Analysis (NIRSA), NUI Maynooth, Ireland..
    19. E.A. Selvanathan, 1987. "The Economic Theory of the Consumer," Economics Discussion / Working Papers 87-05, The University of Western Australia, Department of Economics.
    20. Denis Conniffe, 2004. "Generalised Translation of Indirect Utility Functions," Economics Department Working Paper Series n1390804, Department of Economics, National University of Ireland - Maynooth.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:deg:conpap:c015_059. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Jan Pedersen (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iehhsdk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.