Abstract

This study investigates a fundamental issue of computable general equilibrium (CGE) modeling: are CGE models reliable for measuring the economic consequence analysis of disasters? We assess the outputs of CGE analyses after controlling for various modeling factors such as data, type of model, and modeling mechanisms via a meta-analysis of 253 CGE simulations in 57 empirical studies. Our study arrives at three major findings. First, we confirm that resilience significantly reduces business disruptions from disasters. Second, results using either real-world or hypothetical data tend to vary substantially by hazard type. Third, results are quite sensitive to model assumptions and modeling structure. Overall, we suggest that future impact assessments of disasters should be conducted more cautiously in terms of adopting appropriate data, models, and shock scenarios, in order to improve the validity of CGE modeling outcomes.