International Journal of Human Capital in Urban Management
Quarterly Publication

Comparison and analysis of tariff reduction of infrastructural sectors and its economic impact: ACGE approach

Document Type : ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE

Authors

S.Sh. Hossain
H. Delin

The Institute of Agricultural Economics and Development, The Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, China

https://doi.org/10.22034/IJHCUM.2021.03.04
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The reduction of tariffs in Public infrastructure sectors is believed to be one of the key factors in addressing the socio-economic challenges of high unemployment, income inequality, and poverty. The primary objective of this paper is to design a general equilibrium model for infrastructural sectors among Germany, France, Italy, United Kingdom, China, USA, Australia, Japan and Korea, and evaluate potential economic impact of tariff reduction.
METHODS: The research method of this paper was to construct a Computational General Equilibrium model to assess the economic effects. The global trade analysis project model was calibrated and discussed in this paper. The global trade analysis project database was used to validate the model.
FINDINGS: Simulation result showed that tariff removal in infrastructure has the most significant effects in China, Japan, and Korea’s economic growth and employment than other countries. Gross Domestic Product, output price, and social welfare increase significantly in China compared to other countries. Gross Domestic Product increases in China by 616%, decreases in Japan and Korea 77% and 7% after mutual tariff reduction on infrastructure sectors. Meanwhile, China’s export on infrastructural sector increases by 1.71%, Japan and Korea’s export increases by 0.75% and 0.05%. On the other hand, export decreases in Germany, France, Italy, UK, USA and Australia. Finally, social welfare increases in China by $2.26 billion and Japan by $239 million.
CONCLUSION: The presence of tariff reduction in infrastructure sectors will likely strengthen the market share of most of the simulated regions. These findings may provide policy-makers with crucial information for better understanding about new tariff policy. Computable General Equilibrium analysis in infrastructure sectors had paid little attention in past and this paper tries to fill the gaps and attempts to find the benefit of mutual tariff policy among countries based on global trade analysis project model.

Keywords

Economic growth
Global trade analysis project
Infrastructure
Regions
Subjects

COPYRIGHTS
©2021 The author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, as long as the original authors and source are cited. No permission is required from the authors or the publishers. 

Aguira, A.; Narayanan, B.; Mcdougall, R., (2016). An outline of the GTAP 9 database. J. Global Econ. Anal., 1(1): 181- 208 (28 pages).
Arman, S.A.; Manesh, A.S.; Izady, A.T., (2015). Design of a CGE model to evaluate investment in transport infrastructures: an application for Iran. Asian Econ. Financ. Rev., 5(3): 532-545 (14 pages).
Annala, C.N.; Batina, R.G., Feehan, J.P., (2008). Empirical impact of public infrastructure on the Japanese economy. Jpn. Econ. Rev., 59(4): 419-437 (19 pages).
Boccanfuso, D.; Joanis, M.; Richard, P.; Savard, L., (2014). A comparative analysis of funding schemes for public infrastructure spending in Quebec. Appl. Econ., 46(22): 2653–2664 (13 page).
Bougheas, S.; Demetriades, P.O.; Morgenroth, E.L.W., (1999). Infrastructure, transport costs and trade. J. Int. Econ., 47(1): 169-189 (21 pages).
Bronzini, R.; Piselli, P., (2009). Determinants of long-run regional productivity with geographical spillovers: The role of R&D, human capital and public infrastructure. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ., 39(2): 187-199 (13 pages).
Canning, D.; Pedroni, P., (2004), The Effect of infrastructure on long run economic growth. Department of economics working papers. Williams College (30 pages).
Crescenzi, R.; Rodríguez-Pose, A., (2012). Infrastructure and regional growth in the European Union. Pap. Reg. Sci., 91 (3): 487-513 (27 pages).
Démurger, S., (2001). Infrastructure development and economic growth: an explanation for regional disparities in China? J. Comp. Econ, 29(1): 95-117 (23 pages).
Esfahani, H.S.; Ramı́rez, M.T., (2003). Institutions, infrastructure, and economic growth. J. Dev. Econ., 70(2): 443-477 (35 pages).
Ferreira, P.C.; Vargas, F.G.; Do Nascimento, L.G., (2006). Welfare and growth effects of alternative fiscal rules for infrastructure investment in Brazil (40 pages).
Fan, S.; Chan-Kang, C., (2004). Returns to investment in less-favored areas in developing countries: a synthesis of evidence and implications for Africa. Food Policy, 29(4): 431–444 (14 pages).
Garcia-Mila, T.; McGuire, T.J.; Porter, R.H., (1996). The effect of public capital in state-level production functions reconsidered. Rev. Econ. Stat., 78(1): 177-180 (4 pages).
Garcia-Milà, T.; McGuire, T.J., (1992). The contribution of publicly provided inputs to states’ economies. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ., 22(2): 229-241 (13 pages).
Graham, S., (2000). Constructing premium network spaces: reflections on infrastructure networks and contemporary urban development. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res., 24(1):183-200 (18 pages).
Hertel, W.T., (1999).Future Directions in global trade analysis. Working papers 283437, Purdue University, center for global trade analysis, global trade analysis project (20 pages).
Haynes, K.E.; Xie, Q.; Ding, L., (2004). Political geography, public policy and the rise of policy analysis. Appl. Geogr., 69-93 (25 pages).
Jalan, J.; Ravallion, M., (2002). Geographic poverty traps? A micro model of consumption growth in rural China. J. Appl. Econ., 17(4): 329-346 (18 pages).
Li, Y., (2015). Public infrastructure investment in China: a recursive dynamic CGE analysis (67 pages).
Limão, N.; Venables, A.J., (2001). Infrastructure, geographical disadvantage, transport Costs, and trade. World Bank Econ. Rev., 15(3): 451-479 (29 pages).
McDaniel, C.A.; Balistreri, E.J., (2002). A discussion on Armington trade substitution elasticities. USITC Office of Economics Working Paper, (2002-01).
Partridge, M.D.; Rickman, D.S., (1998). Regional computable general equilibrium modeling: a survey and critical appraisal. Int. Reg. Sci. Rev., 21(3): 205-248 (44 pages).
Rioja, F.K., (2001). Growth, welfare, and public infrastructure: a general equilibrium analysis of Latin American economies. J. Econ. Dev., Dev., 26(2): pages 119-130 (12 pages).
Rutherford, T.F., (1998). GTAP in gams: the dataset and static model (40 pages).
Stewart, F.; Yermo, J., (2012).Infrastructure investment in new markets: challenges and opportunities for pension funds, OECD working papers on finance, insurance and private pensions, No. 26, OECD publishing (29 pages).
Sloboda, B.W.; Yao, V.W., (2008). Interstate spillovers of private capital and public spending. Ann. Reg. Sci., 42(3): 505-518 (14 pages).
Sahoo, P.; Dash, R.K.; Nataraj, G., (2010). Infrastructure development and economic growth in China. Ide discussion paper No. 261 (34 pages).
Seung, C.K.; Kraybill, D.S., (2001). The effects of infrastructure investment: a two sector dynamic computable general equilibrium analysis for Ohio. Int. Reg. Sci. Rev., 24(2): 261–281 (21 pages).
Savard, L., (2010). Scaling up infrastructure spending in the Philippines: a CGE top-down bottom-up microsimulation approach. International Journal of Microsimulation, 3(1): 43-59 (17 pages).
Zou, P.X.W.; Wang, S.; Fang, D., (2008). A life‐cycle risk management framework for ppp infrastructure projects. J. Financial Manag. Prop. Constr., 13(2): 123-142 (20 pages).
Walmsley, T.L., (2006). A baseline scenario for the dynamic GTAP Model. Revised paper for the GTAP 6 database (14 pages).  

LETTERS TO EDITOR

International Journal of Human Capital in Urban Management (IJHCUM) welcomes letters to the editor for the post-publication discussions and corrections which allows debate post publication on its site, through the Letters to Editor. Letters pertaining to manuscript published in IJHCUM should be sent to the editorial office of IJHCUM within three months of either online publication or before printed publication, except for critiques of original research. Following points are to be considering before sending the letters (comments) to the editor.


[1] Letters that include statements of statistics, facts, research, or theories should include appropriate references, although more than three are discouraged.

[2] Letters that are personal attacks on an author rather than thoughtful criticism of the author’s ideas will not be considered for publication.

[3] Letters can be no more than 300 words in length.

[4] Letter writers should include a statement at the beginning of the letter stating that it is being submitted either for publication or not.

[5] Anonymous letters will not be considered.

[6] Letter writers must include their city and state of residence or work.

[7] Letters will be edited for clarity and length.

Send comment about this article
Enter Name.
Enter a valid email address.
Enter a vaid affiliation.
Enter comments (At leaset 10 words)
CAPTCHA Image
Enter Security Code Correctly.
International Journal of Human Capital in Urban Management
Volume 6, Issue 3 - Serial Number 23
Summer 2021
Pages 253-262

  • Receive Date 11 December 2020
  • Revise Date 28 March 2021
  • Accept Date 08 March 2021

Home

Authorship

Submit Manuscript

Indexing and Abstracting

Editorial Board

Unrestricted Reuse in Compliance with BOAI

Open Access Policy

Self-Archiving Policy

Privacy Statement

Publisher Business Model

Publisher and Sponsor

Contact Us