|
on Project, Program and Portfolio Management |
| By: | Willem van der Geest (Asian Development Bank Institute (ADBI)); Jorge Nunez-Ferrer |
| Abstract: | The member states of the European Union (EU) and the EU institutions have increasingly been using public-private partnerships (PPPs) to accelerate the development of (ambitious) trans-national infrastructure. This paper argues that in the EU (i) private sector partners remain risk-averse; and (ii) risk-pooling across a larger number of tax-payers tends to reduce the cost of risk to zero, making EU funds highly desirable and sought after for public infrastructure development. This paper argues that private equity has not been forthcoming to the extent that had been expected by those propagating this method of finance. In those instances where private non-publicly guaranteed resources have been used, the distribution of risks between public and private partners remained asymmetric, with public governmental bodies carrying the financial risks, which ultimately may become a contingent liability for the country’s public finances. However, EU and European Investment Bank (EIB) public funding is used not simply because the risks are spread more widely, but rather because EU rules and regulations for using such funds lead to better preparation of projects and greater efficiency gains in project implementation and delivery. |
| Keywords: | public-private partnerships (PPPs), Cross-border infracstucture development, the EU, European Investment Bank, financial instruments |
| JEL: | G32 H44 O19 |
| Date: | 2011–05 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:eab:financ:23255&r=ppm |
| By: | Willem van der Geest (Asian Development Bank Institute (ADBI)); Jorge Núñez-Ferrer |
| Abstract: | Creating the framework for cross-border infrastructure cooperation often requires the active role of a third party, an “honest brokerâ€, to forge convergence of interests. It is often argued that “deep†European Union (EU)-style integration is a necessary, though not sufficient, condition for successful cross-border infrastructural cooperation. The EU institutions, in particular the European Commission and the European Investment Bank (EIB), have performed such a facilitating and enabling role, though not without encountering challenges along the way. However, this paper argues that the EU experience underscores the vital importance of national governments and good governance in the context of cross-border multinational infrastructure. Hence, the authors argue that “deep†EU-style integration is an enabling but not a strictly necessary condition for successful implementation of cross-border infrastructure projects. The authors take issue with the myth that transnational cross-border infrastructure cooperation is the result of supra-national decision-making at the EU level. For a particular cross-border infrastructure project to succeed requires tri-partite and multilateral initiatives. These may take the form of “coordinators†(akin to the European Coordinators for TEN-T projects) or special-purpose state-owned companies alongside the Asian (and/or other) Development Banks as co-owners. The second myth which this paper seeks to address is that the management of trans- national and cross-border infrastructure is primarily supra-national. Although additional co-financing may be sought from the European Community budget and/or the European Investment Bank, these resources always complement national budgetary allocations and private funding. Contingent liabilities always remain at the national and sub-national levels and never at the supra-national EU level. The implications for management of cross-border multinational infrastructure in Asia, where the framework for regional cooperation is not yet well articulated, are to some extent positive. Within the Asian context, the need for an honest broker can be fulfilled by multi-lateral institutions such as the Asian Development Bank and the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UN ESCAP). They can appoint “coordinators†drawing on the growing pool of top-level decision makers in Asia. Most importantly, these initiatives can be realized within the present-day context of Asia’s “shallow†integration. |
| Keywords: | infrastructure cooperation, Multinational Infrastructure, the EU, TEN-E, TEN-T, The EU institutions, cross-border infrastructure |
| JEL: | F36 H54 O19 |
| Date: | 2011–07 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:eab:develo:23240&r=ppm |
| By: | Kwok-Chiu Fung (Asian Development Bank Institute (ADBI)); Alicia Garcia-Herrero; Francis Ng |
| Abstract: | In this paper we critically review the relevant information and literature that can enhance the feasibility and the successful implementation of cross-border infrastructure projects. We provide detailed information concerning foreign direct investment in the major emerging regions : East Asia and the Pacific, Latin America, and Eastern Europe. We also discuss the theoretical and empirical literature which sheds light on the characteristics of transnational infrastructure projects, who should conduct them, and what determines their existence. The literature points to the importance of government involvement in transnational infrastructure projects as there are clear external benefits which will otherwise not be reaped. It also points to the importance of coordination for the success of the project. The Asian Development Bank is well placed to perform that role. Lastly, we provide six cases of cross-border infrastructure projects, two each from East Asia, Latin America, and Eastern Europe. These cases illustrate the critical need for smooth coordination of the diverse groups of team players, top-level backing of the projects, as well as a thorough understanding of all the political and financial factors involved that can influence the success of these projects. |
| Keywords: | foreign direct investment, Cross-Border Infrastructure Projects, FDI, East Asia and the Pacific, Latin America, and Eastern Europe |
| JEL: | O19 F15 F36 R58 |
| Date: | 2011–04 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:eab:develo:23262&r=ppm |
| By: | Link, Albert N. (University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Department of Economics); Scott, John T. (University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Department of Economics) |
| Abstract: | In this paper we focus on technology that resulted from R&D projects funded by U.S. Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Phase II awards. We ask: Is there evidence that strategic commercial agreements allow foreign firms to exploit the technologies developed through the SBIR program and funded by U.S. taxpayers? Based on descriptive information from Phase II SBIR-funded project data collected by the National Research Council within the National Academies, we conclude that SBIR funds for Phase II projects and the technologies associated with those projects are not, to a pronounced extent, benefiting foreign firms through agreements with SBIR firms or investors. In that sense, there is no evidence that the technologies developed with funds from U.S. taxpayers are, to any significant extent, being exploited by foreign firms through commercial agreements with SBIR firms. |
| Keywords: | Technology; Small Entrepreneurial Firms; SBIR Program; Strategic Agreements |
| JEL: | L24 L26 O32 |
| Date: | 2012–03–13 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ris:uncgec:2012_005&r=ppm |
| By: | Luis Aguiar; Philippe Gagnepain |
| Abstract: | The goal of this paper is to assess the impact on the performance of firms that participate in Research Joint Ventures (RJVs) funded by the Fifth European Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (EU-FP5). A special emphasis is made on the User-friendly Information Society (IST) programme, one of the most important thematic programmes of the EU-FP5. We use the funding available to the firms as an instrumental variable to account for self-selection and estimate the Local Average Treatment Effect (LATE) of participation by considering labor productivity and profit margin as performance measures. Our results show a large and positive impact of participation on the labor productivity of the firms, whereas the effect on profit margin is weaker. When taking into account the size of the RJV, we find that the positive impact on labor productivity comes mainly from participation in large projects and that participation in smaller RJVs has a negative effect on the profit margin |
| Keywords: | Research joint venture, R&D policy, Productivity, EU framework programme |
| JEL: | L24 L25 O31 O32 O38 |
| Date: | 2012–02 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:cte:werepe:we1207&r=ppm |
| By: | Pauline Lacour (CREG - Centre de recherche en économie de Grenoble - Université Pierre Mendès-France - Grenoble II : EA4625); Jean-Christophe Simon (LEPII - Laboratoire d'Économie de la Production et de l'Intégration Internationale - CNRS : FRE3389 - Université Pierre Mendès-France - Grenoble II) |
| Abstract: | This paper offers a review of the current position of developing countries in the climate regime and international negotiations based primarily on the analysis of implementation of Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). The paper will place emphasis on changes in national policies to accommodate CDM projects, focussing on the scope and rationale for bottom-up policies and measures as part of development strategies favouring more resilience and sustainability. Two issues are addressed more specifically: firstly regional specificity among developing areas and notably the pre-eminence of projects located in Asia, and secondly the relevance of CDM projects for both sustained growth and effective mitigation strategies. Regarding the latter, we consider that CDM project multiplication does question the relevance of national policies and the diversity of actors/stakeholders to foster upgraded domestic well targeted development strategies. Our research considers differences between developing countries and regions regarding selection and implementation of climate mitigation projects- with reference to their GHG emissions and national energy profiles (calculation from Enerdata source and IEA). It refers to selected cases of projects in East Asia - focus on China and Asean countries - showing particular sector selection patterns (differing between semi industrial economies and less developed countries) and diversification of stakeholders for development (role of regional actors within Asia). The analysis is based on international data base of CDM projects (United Nations) and secondary data from IGES (Japan) and Enerdata. The conclusion will examine prospects for CDM in a post 2012 climate régime for developing economies and the future relevance of CDM projects in the framework of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions. |
| Keywords: | emerging countries ; development policy ; climate regime ; mitigation ; Clean Development Mechanism Projects ; sustainability ; national climate strategies ; South East Asia |
| Date: | 2011–09–19 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-00676809&r=ppm |