可计算一般均衡模型中的土地利用

IF 2.2 Q2 ECONOMICS
F. Taheripour, Xin Zhao, Mark Horridge, Farid Farrokhi, W. Tyner
{"title":"可计算一般均衡模型中的土地利用","authors":"F. Taheripour, Xin Zhao, Mark Horridge, Farid Farrokhi, W. Tyner","doi":"10.21642/jgea.050202sm1f","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Constant Elasticity of Transformation (CET) functions are widely used to allocate land across uses in Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) models. These models fail to maintain the physical area of land in balance. This paper examines this issue. It shows that heterogeneity in land prices (rents) is the main source of imbalance in land area, not the curvature of the CET function. It also shows that the available approaches that restore balance to physical area either introduce ad hoc adjustments in land allocation or undermine the conventional welfare assessments of the CET results. An alternative approach involves implementing stochastic productivity distribution functions (e.g. Frechet) to allocate land among uses maintain area of land in balance, thereby respecting conventional welfare assessments. A particular feature of these models is that the aggregate production functions of the land using sectors exhibit decreasing returns to scale even if land is the only factor of production. This approach also requires equalization of land rents across uses. This is not consistent with empirical observation. Both the CET and stochastic methods consider the implicit opportunity costs of moving land across uses but fail to take into account preparation costs associated with land use conversion.","PeriodicalId":44607,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Economic Analysis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Land use in computable general equilibrium models\",\"authors\":\"F. Taheripour, Xin Zhao, Mark Horridge, Farid Farrokhi, W. Tyner\",\"doi\":\"10.21642/jgea.050202sm1f\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Constant Elasticity of Transformation (CET) functions are widely used to allocate land across uses in Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) models. These models fail to maintain the physical area of land in balance. This paper examines this issue. It shows that heterogeneity in land prices (rents) is the main source of imbalance in land area, not the curvature of the CET function. It also shows that the available approaches that restore balance to physical area either introduce ad hoc adjustments in land allocation or undermine the conventional welfare assessments of the CET results. An alternative approach involves implementing stochastic productivity distribution functions (e.g. Frechet) to allocate land among uses maintain area of land in balance, thereby respecting conventional welfare assessments. A particular feature of these models is that the aggregate production functions of the land using sectors exhibit decreasing returns to scale even if land is the only factor of production. This approach also requires equalization of land rents across uses. This is not consistent with empirical observation. Both the CET and stochastic methods consider the implicit opportunity costs of moving land across uses but fail to take into account preparation costs associated with land use conversion.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44607,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Global Economic Analysis\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Global Economic Analysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21642/jgea.050202sm1f\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Global Economic Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21642/jgea.050202sm1f","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在可计算一般均衡(CGE)模型中,常弹性转换(CET)函数被广泛用于土地的跨用途分配。这些模型无法保持陆地物理面积的平衡。本文探讨了这一问题。研究表明,土地价格(租金)的异质性是土地面积失衡的主要原因,而不是CET函数的曲率。它还表明,恢复自然区域平衡的现有方法要么引入土地分配的临时调整,要么破坏CET结果的传统福利评估。另一种方法是执行随机生产力分配函数(例如Frechet),在不同用途之间分配土地,保持土地面积的平衡,从而尊重传统的福利评估。这些模型的一个特点是,即使土地是唯一的生产要素,土地使用部门的总生产函数也表现出规模收益递减。这种方法还需要在不同用途之间均摊地租。这与经验观察不符。CET和随机方法都考虑了跨用途迁移土地的隐性机会成本,但未能考虑与土地利用转换相关的准备成本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Land use in computable general equilibrium models
Constant Elasticity of Transformation (CET) functions are widely used to allocate land across uses in Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) models. These models fail to maintain the physical area of land in balance. This paper examines this issue. It shows that heterogeneity in land prices (rents) is the main source of imbalance in land area, not the curvature of the CET function. It also shows that the available approaches that restore balance to physical area either introduce ad hoc adjustments in land allocation or undermine the conventional welfare assessments of the CET results. An alternative approach involves implementing stochastic productivity distribution functions (e.g. Frechet) to allocate land among uses maintain area of land in balance, thereby respecting conventional welfare assessments. A particular feature of these models is that the aggregate production functions of the land using sectors exhibit decreasing returns to scale even if land is the only factor of production. This approach also requires equalization of land rents across uses. This is not consistent with empirical observation. Both the CET and stochastic methods consider the implicit opportunity costs of moving land across uses but fail to take into account preparation costs associated with land use conversion.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
12.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信