Country case studies

Each country case study was conducted using a country-specific, dynamic computable general equilibrium (CGE) model that was combined with a micro-simulation approach. While the former allowed country teams to conduct analysis on the economy-wide effects of different policies and shocks, the later enabled more realistic assessment of inequality and poverty using results from the macro model. The study of actual facts played a critical role in understanding the socio-economic problems of the countries involved and for model calibration.

The country teams made assessments of their countries’ macroeconomic conditions during the period in question, in addition to tracking poverty, economic vulnerability, income inequality, and available social protection policies.

The project provided technical assistance to each team on how to apply the CGE model known as the Analysis of Exogenous Shocks and Economic and Social Protection Model (or MACEPES, according to its Spanish acronym). The assistance included training on how to build country databases needed to calibrate the model, including a social accounting matrix (see other outputs for links to the databases).

• Bolivia Case Study
• Colombia Case Study
• Costa Rica Case Study
• Ecuador Case Study
• Guatemala Case Study
• Mexico Case Study
• Nicaragua Case Study

The case study reports followed the general structure:

• An analysis of macroeconomic evolution, stabilization and structural reform policies.
• An analysis of poverty and inequality and a description of social protection systems.
• Description of the methodology used (MACEPES and microsimulations for poverty and inequality analysis) and, more importantly, how this was applied taking in consideration the specificities of each particular country.
• An analysis of the results derived from conducting policy simulations.
• A description of the principal findings and recommendations for public policies.

Policy simulations were conducted to study the impact of external shocks and policy initiatives. The results were compared to a baseline results (forecasts without shocks or policies) in the short-term (3 years) and longer-term (4-6 years).