Abstract:Economic models are meant to provide a framework to describe real-world economic activities. In principle, how well a model performs this task can be evaluated by how close the model's simulated activities track the observed ones. A necessary first step in simulating a model is to choose values for the model's parameters in accordance with actual economic data. A fundamental problem in economic modelling, however, is that actual economic data are sampled at time intervals that are typically longer than the decision intervals of actual economic agents.One popular resolution of this problem is to constrain the length of the decision intervals of theoretical economic agents to be equal to the length of the actual data-sampling intervals. This widely adopted approach makes it feasible to directly calibrate theoretical models to the observed data, but it can introduce substantial biases in the models’ empirical performance, as demonstrated by recent research that has allowed the decision intervals to be shorter than the data-sampling intervals. This alternative, high-frequency modelling approach, however, has brought with itself a fundamental issue that direct calibration of the models’ parameters is no longer feasible. In response, researchers have employed an ad hoc rule to transform commonly chosen lower-frequency parameter values (which can be calibrated directly from the available data) to their high-frequency counterparts.We show in this paper that this standard transformation rule has three major drawbacks. First, it produces internal inconsistencies in steady-state equilibrium conditions. Second, it is sometimes at odds with microeconomic evidence. And third, it can result in inaccurate log-linear approximations to the models’ true equilibrium solutions by worsening the fit of both the transition dynamic coefficients and the point of approximation itself. We present here an alternative, coherent transformation rule for calibrating high-frequency models that directly addresses these three shortcomings. We then use our consistent transformation rule to calibrate high-frequency versions of two well-known economic models and show how it improves these models’ empirical performance.

Comparison between Calibration Procedure and Econometric Estimation

A CGE Model of Chinese Economy

Analyzing carbon pricing policies using a general equilibrium model with production parameters estimated using firm data

Calibration as estimation

Econometric Estimate and Selection on China Energy CFS Production Function

Uncertainty Analysis of CGE Model Using Monte Carlo Method

Econometric Modeling and Economic Forecasting

Calibration algorithm for spatial partial equilibrium models with conjectural variations

Parameter Uncertainty in CGE Modeling of the Macroeconomic Impact of Carbon Reduction in China

The Estimation of China's Potential Output and the "Natural-rate Hypothesis" Test

The Distortion of the Labor Market,the Difference in its Efficiency,and the Income Disparity between Peasants and Town People

A Literature Review on the Application of Computable General Equilibrium Model

An Econometric Estimation and Selection on the Production Function in an Environmental CGE Model

A Cge Analysis of the Impacts of A Carbon Tax on Provincial Economy in China

A Comparison of Economic Agent-Based Model Calibration Methods

Computable General Equilibrium Analysis in Transportation Economics

Measuring the Impact of Infrastructure Systems Using Computable General Equilibrium Models

Consistent high-frequency calibration

Comparison between Quantity Instrument and Price Instrument in the Performance of Macroeconomic Control

Comparison of Misspecified Calibrated Models: the Minimum Distance Approach