Applied general equilibrium (AGE) models, which feature multiple countries, multiple industries, and input–output linkages across industries, have been the dominant tool for evaluating the impact of trade reforms since the 1980s. We review how these models are used to perform policy analysis and document their shortcomings in predicting the industry-level effects of past trade reforms. We argue that, to improve their performance, AGE models need to incorporate product-level data on bilateral trade relations by industry and better model how trade reforms lower bilateral trade costs. We use the least-traded-products methodology of Kehoe et al. (2015) to provide guidance on how improvements can be made. We provide further suggestions on how AGE models can incorporate recent advances in quantitative trade theory to improve their predictive ability and better quantify the gains from trade liberalization.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


Literature Cited

  1. Adao R, Costinot A, Donaldson D. 2015. Nonparametric counterfactual predictions in neoclassical models of international trade NBER Work. Pap. 21401
  2. Alessandria G, Choi H. 2015. The dynamics of the trade balance and the real exchange rate: the J curve and trade costs? Meet. Pap. 1413, Soc. Econ. Dyn. Meet., June 25–27 Warsaw, Pol.:
  3. Alessandria G, Choi H, Ruhl KJ. 2014. Trade adjustment dynamics and the welfare gains from trade NBER Work. Pap. 20663
  4. Allayannis G, Ofek E. 2001. Exchange rate exposure, hedging, and the use of foreign currency derivatives. J. Int. Money Financ. 20:273–96 [Google Scholar]
  5. Allen T. 2014. Information frictions in trade. Econometrica 82:2041–83 [Google Scholar]
  6. Alvarez F, Lucas RE Jr.. 2007. General equilibrium analysis of the Eaton-Kortum model of international trade. J. Monet. Econ. 54:1726–68 [Google Scholar]
  7. Anderson JE, Larch M, Yotov YV. 2015. Growth and trade with frictions: a structural estimation framework NBER Work. Pap. 21377
  8. Anderson JE, van Wincoop E. 2003. Gravity with gravitas: a solution to the border puzzle. Am. Econ. Rev. 93:170–92 [Google Scholar]
  9. Anderson JE, van Wincoop E. 2004. Trade costs. J. Econ. Lit. 42:691–751 [Google Scholar]
  10. Arkolakis C. 2010. Market penetration costs and the new consumers margin in international trade. J. Polit. Econ. 118:1151–99 [Google Scholar]
  11. Arkolakis C, Costinot A, Rodríguez-Clare A. 2012. New trade models, same old gains?. Am. Econ. Rev. 102:94–130 [Google Scholar]
  12. Armington PS. 1969. A theory of demand for products distinguished by place of production. IMF Staff Pap 16:159–78 [Google Scholar]
  13. Asturias J. 2016. Endogenous transportation costs Work. Pap. Georgetown Univ. Washington, DC:
  14. Bagwell K, Staiger RW. 1999. An economic theory of GATT. Am. Econ. Rev. 89:215–48 [Google Scholar]
  15. Baier SL, Bergstrand JH. 2007. Do free trade agreements actually increase members’ international trade?. J. Int. Econ. 71:72–95 [Google Scholar]
  16. Bajona C, Kehoe TJ. 2010. Trade, growth, and convergence in a dynamic Heckscher-Ohlin model. Rev. Econ. Dyn. 13:487–513 [Google Scholar]
  17. Baldwin RE. 1992. Measurable dynamic gains from trade. J. Polit. Econ. 100:162–74 [Google Scholar]
  18. Böhringer C, Löschel A. 2006. Computable general equilibrium models for sustainability impact assessment: status quo and prospects. Ecol. Econ. 60:49–64 [Google Scholar]
  19. Broda C, Limao N, Weinstein DE. 2008. Optimal tariffs and market power: the evidence. Am. Econ. Rev. 98:2032–65 [Google Scholar]
  20. Brooks WJ, Pujolàs PS. 2014. Nonlinear gravity Work. Pap. 2014–15 McMaster Univ. Hamilton, Ont., Can.:
  21. Brooks WJ, Pujolàs PS. 2016. Capital accumulation and the welfare gains from trade Work. Pap. 2016–03 McMaster Univ. Hamilton, Ont., Can.:
  22. Brown DK, Deardorff AV, Stern RM. 1992. A North American free trade agreement: analytical issues and a computational assessment. World Econ 15:11–30 [Google Scholar]
  23. Brown DK, Stern RM. 1989. U.S.-Canada bilateral tariff elimination: the role of product differentiation and market structure. Trade Policies for International Competitiveness RC Feenstra 217–54 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  24. Burfisher ME, Dyck J, Meade B, Mitchell L, Wainio JT. et al. 2014. Agriculture in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Rep. 176 Econ. Res. Serv., US Dep. Agric. Washington, DC:
  25. Burfisher ME, Robinson S, Thierfelder K. 2001. The impact of NAFTA on the United States. J. Econ. Perspect. 15:125–44 [Google Scholar]
  26. Burniaux J-M, Truong TP. 2002. GTAP-E: an energy-environmental version of the GTAP model Tech. Pap. 16 Glob. Trade Anal. Proj. West Lafayette, IN:
  27. Caliendo L, Parro F. 2015. Estimates of the trade and welfare effects of NAFTA. Rev. Econ. Stud. 82:1–44 [Google Scholar]
  28. Chaney T. 2008. Distorted gravity: the intensive and extensive margins of international trade. Am. Econ. Rev. 98:1707–21 [Google Scholar]
  29. Comerford D, Rodriguez-Mora JV. 2015. The gains from economic integration Meet. Pap. 569 Soc. Econ. Dyn. Meet. June 25–27 Warsaw, Pol.:
  30. Corsetti G, Martin P, Pesenti P. 2007. Productivity, terms of trade and the “home market effect.”. J. Int. Econ. 73:99–127 [Google Scholar]
  31. Costinot A, Donaldson D, Vogel J, Werning I. 2015. Comparative advantage and optimal trade policy. Q. J. Econ. 130:659–702 [Google Scholar]
  32. Costinot A, Rodríguez-Clare A. 2014. Trade theory with numbers: quantifying the consequences of globalization. Handbook of International Economics 4 E Helpman, K Rogoff, G Gopinath 197–261 Amsterdam: Elsevier [Google Scholar]
  33. Cox D, Harris RG. 1992. North American free trade and its implications for Canada: results from a CGE model of North American trade. World Econ 15:31–44 [Google Scholar]
  34. Dean JM, Signoret JE, Feinberg RM, Ludema RD, Ferrantino MJ. 2009. Estimating the price effects of non-tariff barriers. BE J. Econ. Anal. Policy 9: https://doi.org/10.2202/1935-1682.1972 [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  35. Dekle R, Eaton J, Kortum S. 2008. Global rebalancing with gravity: measuring the burden of adjustment. IMF Staff Pap 55:511–40 [Google Scholar]
  36. Demidova S, Rodriguez-Clare A. 2009. Trade policy under firm-level heterogeneity in a small economy. J. Int. Econ. 78:100–112 [Google Scholar]
  37. Dervis K, de Melo J, Robinson S. 1982. General Equilibrium Models for Development Policy Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  38. Diao X, Roe TL, Yeldan E. 1998. A simple dynamic applied general equilibrium model of a small open economy: transitional dynamics and trade policy. J. Econ. Dev. 23:77–101 [Google Scholar]
  39. Dixit AK, Stiglitz JE. 1977. Monopolistic competition and optimum product diversity. Am. Econ. Rev. 67:297–308 [Google Scholar]
  40. Donaldson D. 2015. The gains from market integration. Annu. Rev. Econ. 7:619–47 [Google Scholar]
  41. Donaldson D. 2017. Railroads of the Raj: estimating the impact of transportation infrastructure. Am. Econ. Rev. In press
  42. Eaton J, Kortum S. 2002. Technology, geography, and trade. Econometrica 70:1741–79 [Google Scholar]
  43. Egger P. 2000. A note on the proper econometric specification of the gravity equation. Econ. Lett. 66:25–31 [Google Scholar]
  44. Erkel-Rousse H, Mirza D. 2002. Import price elasticities: reconsidering the evidence. Can. J. Econ. 35:282–306 [Google Scholar]
  45. Estevadeordal A, Frantz B, Taylor AM. 2003. The rise and fall of world trade, 1870–1939. Q. J. Econ. 118:359–407 [Google Scholar]
  46. Feenstra RC, Luck PA, Obstfeld M, Russ KN. 2014. In search of the Armington elasticity NBER Work. Pap. 20063
  47. Feenstra RC, Yang T-H, Hamilton GG. 1999. Business groups and product variety in trade: evidence from South Korea, Taiwan and Japan. J. Int. Econ. 48:71–100 [Google Scholar]
  48. Felbermayr G, Jung B, Larch M. 2015. The welfare consequences of import tariffs: a quantitative perspective. J. Int. Econ. 97:295–309 [Google Scholar]
  49. Fieler AC. 2011. Nonhomotheticity and bilateral trade: evidence and a quantitative explanation. Econometrica 79:1069–101 [Google Scholar]
  50. Fox AK. 1999. Evaluating the success of a CGE model of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement Unpublished manuscript Univ. Michigan Ann Arbor, MI:
  51. French S. 2016. The composition of trade flows and the aggregate effects of trade barriers. J. Int. Econ. 98:114–37 [Google Scholar]
  52. Goldberg PK, Pavcnik N. 2016. The effects of trade policy NBER Work. Pap. 21957
  53. Grossman GM, Krueger AB. 1994. Environmental impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement. The Mexico-U.S. Free Trade Agreement PM Garber 13–56 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  54. Grubel HG, Lloyd PJ. 1971. The empirical measurement of intra-industry trade. Econ. Rec. 47:494–517 [Google Scholar]
  55. Hanson GH, Xiang C. 2004. The home-market effect and bilateral trade patterns. Am. Econ. Rev. 94:1108–29 [Google Scholar]
  56. Harris R. 1984. Applied general equilibrium analysis of small open economies with scale economies and imperfect competition. Am. Econ. Rev. 74:1016–32 [Google Scholar]
  57. Hazilla M, Kopp RJ. 1990. Social cost of environmental quality regulations: a general equilibrium analysis. J. Polit. Econ. 98:853–73 [Google Scholar]
  58. Head K, Mayer T. 2014. Gravity equations: workhorse, toolkit, and cookbook. Handbook of International Economics 4 G Gopinath, E Helpman, K Rogoff 131–95 Amsterdam: Elsevier [Google Scholar]
  59. Head K, Mayer T, Ries J. 2010. The erosion of colonial trade linkages after independence. J. Int. Econ. 81:1–14 [Google Scholar]
  60. Heerman KER, Arita S, Gopinath M. 2015. Asia-Pacific integration with China versus the United States: examining trade patterns under heterogeneous agricultural sectors. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 97:1324–44 [Google Scholar]
  61. Hertel T. 2013. Global applied general equilibrium analysis using the global trade analysis project framework. Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling 1 PB Dixon, D Jorgenson 815–76 Amsterdam: Elsevier [Google Scholar]
  62. Hertel T, Hummels D, Ivanic M, Keeney R. 2007. How confident can we be of CGE-based assessments of free trade agreements?. Econ. Model. 24:611–35 [Google Scholar]
  63. Hillberry RH, McDaniel CA. 2002. A decomposition of North American trade growth since NAFTA. Int. Econ. Rev. 3527:1–6 [Google Scholar]
  64. Hummels D. 1999. Toward a geography of trade costs Work. Pap. 1162 Cent. Glob. Trade Anal., Dep. Agric. Econ., Purdue Univ. West Lafayette, IN:
  65. Hummels D, Klenow PJ. 2005. The variety and quality of a nation's exports. Am. Econ. Rev. 95:704–23 [Google Scholar]
  66. Hummels D, Lugovskyy V, Skiba A. 2009. The trade reducing effects of market power in international shipping. J. Dev. Econ. 89:84–97 [Google Scholar]
  67. Hummels DL, Schaur G. 2013. Time as a trade barrier. Am. Econ. Rev. 103:2935–59 [Google Scholar]
  68. Ianchovichina E. 2012. Dynamic Modeling and Applications for Global Economic Analysis Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  69. Irarrazabal A, Moxnes A, Opromolla LD. 2015. The tip of the iceberg: a quantitative framework for estimating trade costs. Rev. Econ. Stat. 97:777–92 [Google Scholar]
  70. Jacks DS, Meissner CM, Novy D. 2008. Trade costs, 1870–2000. Am. Econ. Rev. 98:529–34 [Google Scholar]
  71. Jacks DS, Meissner CM, Novy D. 2011. Trade booms, trade busts, and trade costs. J. Int. Econ. 83:185–201 [Google Scholar]
  72. Jung JW, Simonovska I, Weinberger A. 2015. Exporter heterogeneity and price discrimination: a quantitative view NBER Work. Pap. 21408
  73. Kehoe PJ, Kehoe TJ. 1994a. Capturing NAFTA's impact with applied general equilibrium models. Fed. Reserv. Bank Minneap. Q. Rev 18:17–34 [Google Scholar]
  74. Kehoe PJ, Kehoe TJ. 1994b. A primer on static applied general equilibrium models. Fed. Reserv. Bank Minneap. Q. Rev 18:2–16 [Google Scholar]
  75. Kehoe TJ. 2005. An evaluation of the performance of applied general equilibrium models on the impact of NAFTA. Frontiers in Applied General Equilibrium Modeling TJ Kehoe, TN Srinivasan, J Whalley 341–77 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  76. Kehoe TJ, Noyola PJ, Manresa A, Polo C, Sancho F. 1988. A general equilibrium analysis of the 1986 tax reform in Spain. Eur. Econ. Rev. 32:334–42 [Google Scholar]
  77. Kehoe TJ, Polo C, Sancho F. 1995. An evaluation of the performance of an applied general equilibrium model of the Spanish economy. Econ. Theory 6:115–41 [Google Scholar]
  78. Kehoe TJ, Prescott EC. 1995. Introduction to the symposium: the discipline of applied general equilibrium. Econ. Theory 6:1–11 [Google Scholar]
  79. Kehoe TJ, Rossbach J, Ruhl KJ. 2015. Using the new products margin to predict the industry-level impact of trade reform. J. Int. Econ. 96:289–97 [Google Scholar]
  80. Kehoe TJ, Ruhl KJ. 2010. Why have economic reforms in Mexico not generated growth?. J. Econ. Lit. 48:1005–27 [Google Scholar]
  81. Kehoe TJ, Ruhl KJ. 2013. How important is the new goods margin in international trade?. J. Polit. Econ. 121:358–92 [Google Scholar]
  82. Kehoe TJ, Ruhl KJ, Steinberg JB. 2013. Global imbalances and structural change in the United States NBER Work. Pap. 19339
  83. Kleinert J, Spies J. 2011. Endogenous transport costs in international trade Discuss. Pap. 74 Inst. Angew. Wirtsch. Tübingen, Ger.:
  84. Kohn D, Leibovici F, Szkup M. 2016. Financial frictions and new exporter dynamics. Int. Econ. Rev. 57:453–86 [Google Scholar]
  85. Krugman P. 1980. Scale economies, product differentiation, and the pattern of trade. Am. Econ. Rev. 70:950–59 [Google Scholar]
  86. Leibovici F. 2015. Financial development and international trade Work. Pap. 2015–3 York Univ. Toronto, Ont., Can.:
  87. Li C, Whalley J. 2014. China and the Trans-Pacific Partnership: a numerical simulation assessment of the effects involved. World Econ 37:169–92 [Google Scholar]
  88. Limão N, Venables AJ. 2001. Infrastructure, geographical disadvantage, transport costs, and trade. World Bank Econ. Rev. 15:451–79 [Google Scholar]
  89. Maggi G, Rodríguez-Clare A. 2007. A political-economy theory of trade agreements. Am. Econ. Rev. 97:1374–406 [Google Scholar]
  90. Manova K. 2013. Credit constraints, heterogeneous firms, and international trade. Rev. Econ. Stud. 80:711–44 [Google Scholar]
  91. Markusen JR, Hunter L, Rutherford TF. 1995. Trade liberalization in a multinational-dominated industry. J. Int. Econ. 38:95–117 [Google Scholar]
  92. McCallum J. 1995. National borders matter: Canada-U.S. regional trade patterns. Am. Econ. Rev. 85:615–23 [Google Scholar]
  93. McDaniel CA, Balistreri EJ. 2003. A review of Armington trade substitution elasticities. Econ. Int. 23:301–13 [Google Scholar]
  94. McKitrick RR. 1998. The econometric critique of computable general equilibrium modeling: the role of functional forms. Econ. Model. 15:543–73 [Google Scholar]
  95. Melitz MJ. 2003. The impact of trade on intra-industry reallocations and aggregate industry productivity. Econometrica 71:1695–725 [Google Scholar]
  96. N.Z. Minist. Foreign Aff. Trade, China Minist. Commer. 2004. A joint study report on a free trade agreement between China and New Zealand Rep., N.Z. Minist. Foreign Aff. Trade/China Minist. Commer. Wellington, N.Z./Beijing:
  97. Narayanan GB, Ciuriak D, Singh HV. 2016. Quantifying the mega-regional trade agreements: a review of the models. TPP and India: Implications of Mega-Regionals for Developing Economies HV Singh 93–131 New Delhi: Wisdom Tree [Google Scholar]
  98. Obstfeld M, Rogoff K. 2001. The six major puzzles in international macroeconomics: Is there a common cause?. NBER Macroeconomics Annual 2000 15 BS Bernanke, K Rogoff, 339–412 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  99. Opp MM. 2010. Tariff wars in the Ricardian model with a continuum of goods. J. Int. Econ. 80:212–25 [Google Scholar]
  100. Ossa R. 2015. Why trade matters after all. J. Int. Econ. 97:266–77 [Google Scholar]
  101. Ottaviano G, Pessoa JP, Sampson T, van Reenen J. 2014. The costs and benefits of leaving the EU Work. Pap. 472 Cent. Financ. Stud. Frankfurt, Ger.:
  102. Pavcnik N. 2002. Trade liberalization, exit, and productivity improvements: evidence from Chilean plants. Rev. Econ. Stud. 69:245–76 [Google Scholar]
  103. Peterson EB, Schleich J, Duscha V. 2011. Environmental and economic effects of the Copenhagen pledges and more ambitious emission reduction targets. Energy Policy 39:3697–708 [Google Scholar]
  104. Ramanarayanan A. 2012. Imported inputs and the gains from trade Meet. Pap. 612 Soc. Econ. Dyn. Meet. June 22–24 Limassol, Cyprus:
  105. Roberts MJ, Tybout JR. 1997. The decision to export in Colombia: an empirical model of entry with sunk costs. Am. Econ. Rev. 87:545–64 [Google Scholar]
  106. Romalis J. 2007. NAFTA's and CUSFTA's impact on international trade. Rev. Econ. Stat. 89:416–35 [Google Scholar]
  107. Ruhl KJ. 2008. The international elasticity puzzle Work. Pap., Penn. State Univ. State College, PA:
  108. Ruhl KJ, Willis JL. 2017. New exporter dynamics. Int. Econ. Rev. In press
  109. Samuelson PA. 1954. The transfer problem and transport costs, II: analysis of effects of trade impediments. Econ. J. 64:264–89 [Google Scholar]
  110. Santos Silva JMC, Tenreyro S. 2006. The log of gravity. Rev. Econ. Stat. 88:641–58 [Google Scholar]
  111. Schmeiser KN. 2012. Learning to export: export growth and the destination decision of firms. J. Int. Econ. 87:89–97 [Google Scholar]
  112. Shapiro JS. 2016. Trade costs, CO2, and the environment. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 8:220–54 [Google Scholar]
  113. Shiells CR, Stern RM, Deardorff AV. 1986. Estimates of the elasticities of substitution between imports and home goods for the United States. Weltwirtsch. Arch. 122:497–519 [Google Scholar]
  114. Shikher S. 2012. Predicting the effects of NAFTA: Now we can do it better!. J. Int. Glob. Econ. Stud. 5:32–59 [Google Scholar]
  115. Shoven JB, Whalley J. 1984. Applied general-equilibrium models of taxation and international trade: an introduction and survey. J. Econ. Lit. 22:1007–51 [Google Scholar]
  116. Shoven JB, Whalley J. 1992. Applying General Equilibrium Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  117. Simonovska I. 2015. Income differences and prices of tradables: insights from an online retailer. Rev. Econ. Stud. 82:1612–56 [Google Scholar]
  118. Simonovska I, Waugh ME. 2014. Trade models, trade elasticities, and the gains from trade NBER Work. Pap. 20495
  119. Smith A, Venables AJ. 1988. Completing the internal market in the European community: some industry simulations. Eur. Econ. Rev. 32:1501–25 [Google Scholar]
  120. Sobarzo HE. 1995. A general equilibrium analysis of the gains from NAFTA for the Mexican economy. Modeling North American Economic Integration PJ Kehoe, TJ Kehoe 91–115 Boston: Kluwer Acad. [Google Scholar]
  121. Stern RM, Francis J, Schumacher B. 1976. Price Elasticities in International Trade: An Annotated Bibliography London: Macmillan
  122. Timmer MP, Dietzenbacher E, Los B, Stehrer R, de Vries GJ. 2015. An illustrated user guide to the World Input-Output Database: the case of global automotive production. Rev. Int. Econ. 23:575–605 [Google Scholar]
  123. Trefler D. 2004. The long and short of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. Am. Econ. Rev. 94:870–95 [Google Scholar]
  124. Tybout J, de Melo J, Corbo V. 1991. The effects of trade reforms on scale and technical efficiency: new evidence from Chile. J. Int. Econ. 31:231–50 [Google Scholar]
  125. US Int. Trade Comm. 2003. U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement: potential economy-wide and selected sectoral effects Pub. 3605 US Int. Trade Comm. Washington, DC:
  126. Waugh ME. 2010. International trade and income differences. Am. Econ. Rev. 100:2093–124 [Google Scholar]
  127. Whalley J. 1985. Trade Liberalization Among Major World Trading Areas Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  128. Wolf HC. 2000. Intranational home bias in trade. Rev. Econ. Stat. 82:555–63 [Google Scholar]
  129. Yi K-M. 2003. Can vertical specialization explain the growth of world trade?. J. Polit. Econ. 111:52–102 [Google Scholar]
  130. Yi K-M. 2010. Can multistage production explain the home bias in trade?. Am. Econ. Rev. 100:364–93 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

Supplementary Data

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error