This section examines the sensitivity of the simulation results to variations in the assumptions about (1) factor market flexibility, (2) elasticities of substitution between goods of different origin in demand (trade elasticities), (3) elasticities of substitution between primary factors in production (factor elasticities), and (4) size of the impacts on fuel prices. We discuss the results in detail below, but can summarize the major findings. In general, in the short run, factor markets do not adjust quickly—factors are immobile and it is not easy to substitute among sources of supply of imports and destinations of exports. We capture these rigidities by specifying low trade elasticities, factor immobility, and low factor substitution elasticities. The results indicate that, when quantities are unable to adjust, price adjustments are more extreme and the welfare losses arising from adverse shocks are worse, especially when there is unemployment. The
easier it is for demanders to adjust consumption patterns and producers to adjust factor utilization and supply, the more the economy is able to adjust to the shock with moderate welfare losses (section 6.2). The specification of a cut in GDP in the OECD+ economies leads to a decrease in the price of fuels and other primary commodities. As noted above, the model does not capture speculative forces or price bubbles. The projected fall in the world prices of these commodities in the recession scenarios is not as great as has occurred over the past few months, which is a reflection of the model‘s market equilibrium specification. To explore the impact of a more extreme drop in the world prices of primary commodities, we specified a scenario where primary commodity markets are assumed to be highly
distorted, with price wedges that may reflect restricted supply due to monopoly behaviour or speculative forces. When we remove the distortions, supply increases and the world price falls by far more than in the recession scenario alone. The result is that net primary commodity importers gain much more than in the recession only scenarios, while the real
29 welfare losses for fuel exporting developing countries are magnified. The result is that a number of very fuel-import dependent countries gain more from the drop in world prices than they lose from the adverse impact on their export markets—they are net gainers in these scenarios (section 6.3).