Essays in applied public economics using computable general equilibrium models

Abstract

This thesis analyses two issues in public economics: (1) water allocation in Israel; and (2) malaria prevention in Ghana. In both cases a computable general equilibrium modelling approach has been applied for policy analysis. Part I: In Israel, parliamentary investigative committees and water researchers have concluded that for decades, the administrative water allocation mechanism has mismanaged water allocation. Over subsidising of the agricultural sector, and underfunding of desalination plants, had led to a severe hydrological deficit. Critics argue that a water market allocation could solve these issues. However, the administrative allocation is crucial because it protects social value, which is not represented in a market mechanism. Part I of the thesis compares these two alternative allocation mechanisms using a general equilibrium model, for the case of Israel. The model concludes that from 1995 to 2006, the upper-bound water misallocation in Israel was relatively small, on the average of 5.5% of the potable water supply. The lower-bound value of agricultural amenities is imputed at approximately 2.3 times agricultural economic output. At the margin, introducing a water market in Israel is not recommended, i.e., net-social welfare would fall. Part II: Research that links between malaria and economic growth have, so far, used econometric approaches. These provide results that are too broad, and not particularly useful for policy analysis. We, therefore, develop a multi-region multihousehold dynamic computable general equilibrium (DCGE) model, which is calibrated to Ghana as a case study. Households are disaggregated by five epidemiological malaria regions, urban-rural divide, and income level quintiles. The model links with malaria through regional demographic effects, and labour effectiveness indices. Hypothetical interventions simulate reducing malaria prevalence by 50%, for children under-five years with varying degrees of coverage. We find that even under this limited intervention, malaria prevention clearly adds to economic growth and reduces income inequality. Our approach is particularly useful for policy makers to compare alternative intervention strategies using cost-benefit methods, which are not commonly used in health policy