|
on Project, Program and Portfolio Management |
| By: | Arimoto, Yutaka |
| Abstract: | Improving agricultural productivity is a pressing challenge for rapidly growing economies. Farmland concentration among core famers is instrumental for reaping the economies of scale. However, farmland fragmentation often serves as a barrier to such structural adjustments. This paper studies Farmland Improvement Projects in Japan, which physically mitigate farmland fragmentation by merging and enlarging small plots and consolidating land parcels among farmers. I employ community-level panel data to make use of difference-in-differences matching estimators, in order to measure the projects’ impacts. I find positive effects of the projects on structural adjustment, in the form of machinery-work outsourcing. |
| Keywords: | farmland improvement project, farmland concentration, farmland fragmentation, structural adjustment, Japan |
| JEL: | Q15 Q18 |
| Date: | 2011–07 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hit:hitcei:2011-3&r=ppm |
| By: | Anne Hammill; Thomas Tanner |
| Abstract: | Development planners and project managers have used a wide variety of tools to manage a broad range of environmental risks, including those posed by climate variability, for a long time. Some of these tools have also now been modified to take into account the risks posed by climate change. At the same time, there has been a recent emphasis in developing more dedicated tools which have an explicit focus on screening for climate change risks and for facilitating adaptation. The purpose of this paper is to analyse this latter set of tools targeted to screen climate change risks. The paper focuses on the need to consider the experiences of users as well as developers, and to investigate the extent to which tools are meeting user needs and if opportunities may exist for streamlining the tools landscape. This analysis is therefore an effort to contribute to the alignment and harmonisation priorities of the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness of March 2005 and the follow-up Accra Agenda for Action of September 2008. While a “one-size-fits-all” approach or methodology may not be appropriate, there may be opportunities to provide common guidance on specific topics, such as categorisation and risk management frameworks, and to clarify the diverse terminology. In an effort to improve the use of screening and assessment tools, the paper recommends that the development community increase partner country ownership of risk screening and assessment tools/processes, narrow the gap between process guidance tools and data and information provision tools, supply guidance for users in moving from analysis to action and collaborate to prepare harmonised guidelines. While this analysis is limited to tools which have an explicit focus on climate change and adaptation, future work should also consider existing risk analysis tools which are practically used in development planning and modified for applications to adaptation.<BR>Les responsables de la planification du développement et les gestionnaires de projets utilisent depuis longtemps une batterie d’instruments très divers pour gérer un large éventail de risques environnementaux, dont fait partie la variabilité du climat. Certains de ces outils ont été modifiés dernièrement pour prendre en considération également les risques que présente le changement climatique. Parallèlement, des activités ont été consacrées récemment à la mise au point d’outils plus spécialisés, spécifiquement conçus pour mettre en évidence les risques qui tiennent au changement climatique et faciliter l’adaptation. Le présent article a pour objet d’analyser ces derniers outils axés sur le dépistage des risques relevant du changement climatique. Il insiste sur la nécessité de prendre en considération les expériences des utilisateurs et des promoteurs, et de déterminer dans quelle mesure les outils répondent aux besoins des utilisateurs et s’il est possible de rationaliser l’arsenal existant. Il vise ainsi à apporter des éléments à la réalisation des objectifs d’alignement et d’harmonisation énoncés dans la Déclaration de Paris sur l’efficacité de l’aide de mars 2005 et le Programme d’action d’Accra de septembre 2008 qui lui a fait suite. Il ne s’agit pas nécessairement de rechercher une approche ou une méthode universelle, mais il est peut-être envisageable de fournir des pistes communes sur des questions précises, comme les systèmes de classification et les cadres de gestion des risques, et de mettre de l’ordre dans la terminologie. Dans l’optique d’améliorer l’utilisation des instruments de dépistage et d’évaluation, l’article recommande que les acteurs du développement intensifient l’appropriation par les pays partenaires des outils et processus qui s’y rapportent, comblent le fossé entre outils d’orientation des processus et outils de fourniture de données et d’informations, et collaborent pour élaborer des lignes directrices harmonisées. La présente analyse est limitée aux outils spécifiquement axés sur le changement climatique et l’adaptation, mais les travaux futurs devraient s’intéresser également aux outils existants d’analyse des risques qui ont cours dans la planification du développement et qui sont modifiés pour être appliqués à l’adaptation. |
| Keywords: | development, development co-operation, adaptation, Climate risk screening, mainstreaming, développement, intégration, coopération pour le développement, adaptation, dépistage du risque climatique |
| JEL: | O19 O21 O22 O29 Q01 Q54 |
| Date: | 2011–07–29 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:oec:envaaa:36-en&r=ppm |
| By: | Margarita Kalamova; Chris Kaminker; Nick Johnstone |
| Abstract: | This report looks specifically at the full array of public policies promoting investment in the renewable energy sector, and discusses their impact on plant entry into the market, with the support of case studies focusing on Germany, the U.S.A. and Australia. It examines differing risk/return expectations across stages of the investment continuum (from R&D through to mergers and acquisitions) and the financial structures that are employed at each stage. Although transparency, predictability and longevity of government programmes are necessary if investors are to initiate a project in clean energy, predictability should not be mistaken for permanence. In the case where policies target investment in physical capital, it is important to ‘sunset’ many of the policies discussed in this report. It is the nature of entrepreneurship that not all investments in new activities will pay off and not all promotion efforts will be successful. Against such a backdrop, public investment policy will also frequently meet with failure. Combining continuous assessment with policy predictability is a delicate balancing act. Clear criteria for policy evaluation are required, and ideally the criteria for success should depend on productivity.<BR>Ce rapport s’intéresse plus particulièrement à l’éventail complet des politiques publiques encourageant l’investissement dans le secteur des énergies renouvelables, et analyse leurs effets sur l’entrée de nouvelles entreprises sur le marché, en s’appuyant sur des études de cas réalisées en Allemagne, aux États-Unis et en Australie. Il étudie les différentes attentes en termes de risque/rendement au cours des différentes phases du processus d’investissement (de la R-D jusqu’aux fusions-acquisitions), et les structures financières correspondantes. Bien que la transparence, la prévisibilité et la longévité des programmes publics soient nécessaires pour que les investisseurs se lancent dans les énergies propres, il ne faut pas confondre prévisibilité et permanence. Quand les politiques publiques ciblent l’investissement dans le capital physique, de nombreuses mesures examinées dans ce rapport doivent être mises de côté. Les entrepreneurs savent pertinemment que la totalité des investissements consacrés à de nouvelles activités, y compris les efforts de promotion, ne sont pas toujours fructueux. Dans ce contexte, les politiques d’investissement public se soldent souvent par un échec. Concilier évaluation continue et prévisibilité des politiques est un exercice d’équilibre délicat, qui doit reposer sur des critères d’évaluation clairement définis, dont le principal devrait idéalement être celui de productivité. |
| Keywords: | venture capital, environmental policy, climate change, Investment Policy, Renewable Energy Sources, Asset Finance, Financial Risk, capital-risque, changement climatique, énergies renouvelables, politique de l’environnement, politiques d’investissement, financement d'actifs, risque en capital |
| JEL: | G24 G32 G38 Q42 Q54 Q58 |
| Date: | 2011–07–29 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:oec:envaaa:37-en&r=ppm |
| By: | OECD |
| Abstract: | Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is widely recognized to be helpful, even indispensible, for making good decisions on what transport projects to fund. It essentially aims to figure out which projects offer the best value for money, one of the core criteria for making decisions. However, the practical relevance of cost-benefit analysis does not always live up to its appeal in principle. One problem is that there is disagreement about what to include in both the costs and the benefits side of the analysis, so that value for money is not always a fully transparent concept. A second problem is that value for money is only a partial criterion for decision-making, leading to disagreement about the relative importance of the results from CBA compared to other inputs into the decision-making process. Discussions at the Roundtable aimed to shed light on these conceptual problems by analysing the practice of CBA and comparing approaches to it in different countries. In short the aim was to identify a checklist of items that should be included in a socially relevant cost-benefit analysis, i.e. analysis that can be produced in reasonable time and at reasonable cost but is good enough to help resolve trade-offs. |
| Date: | 2011–01 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:oec:itfaab:2011/1-en&r=ppm |
| By: | James P Walsh; Jiangyan Yu; Chanho Park |
| Abstract: | Driving infrastructure development, notably mobilizing financial resources for infrastructure projects, has been challenging in many countries. This study includes two parts: an empirical analysis of macroeconomic risks associated with infrastructure booms, and a case study of four emerging economies about their practice of funding infrastructure development. The study shows that (i) there is no empirical evidence that rapid infrastructure growth would undermine contemporary macroeconomic performance, implying that room is created to accommodate infrastructure booms without compromising fiscal and external sustainability; (ii) banks may play an important role in financing infrastructure, but caution is needed to avoid directed lending and regulatory forbearance that the authorities may use to promote financing; (iii) capital market development is important to accommodate the usually high financing needs, and encouraging private investors to move into infrastructure would require regulatory and institutional improvements; and (iv) public support, including credit guarantees, may help bolster investors’ confidence, but the authorities should carefully monitor and manage fiscal risks. |
| Date: | 2011–08–01 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:imf:imfwpa:11/181&r=ppm |
| By: | David Lewis |
| Abstract: | Poverty, inequality and social exclusion are closely tied to personal mobility and the accessibility of goods and services. Evidence of the economic role of transport in promoting better living standards and greater wellbeing can be seen in the effects of both overall public investment in transport infrastructure, and in the impacts of specific transport policies, projects and multi-project plans. |
| Date: | 2011–04 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:oec:itfaab:2011/9-en&r=ppm |
| By: | CZARNITZKI Dirk; LOPES BENTO Cindy |
| Abstract: | Applying a variant of a non-parametric matching estimator, we consider European funding and national funding as heterogeneous treatments, distinguishing and simultaneously analyzing the effect these treatments have on innovation input and performance. In terms of input, getting funding from both sources yields the highest impact. If funding from only one source is received, EU grants have higher effects. In terms of output, holding innovation expenditures constant, funding from both sources display higher sales of market novelties and future patent applications at the firm level. If only one grant is obtained, we find superiority for national funding. |
| Keywords: | Subsidies; Innovation; Policy Evaluation; Treatment effects; Nonparametric matching estimation |
| JEL: | C14 H50 O38 |
| Date: | 2011–08 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:irs:cepswp:2011-42&r=ppm |