|
on Project, Program and Portfolio Management |
| By: | Mohammad Majid Fouladgar Author_Email: (Fateh Research Group, Tehran, Iran); Abdolreza Yadani-Chamzini (Fateh Research Group, Tehran, Iran); Mohammad Hossein Basiri (Tarbiat Modares University) |
| Keywords: | Decision Making, Fuzzy Set, Risk Management, Tunnelling |
| JEL: | M0 |
| Date: | 2011–06 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:cms:1icm11:2011-087-331&r=ppm |
| By: | Bruce K. Johnson; John C. Whitehead; Daniel S. Mason; Gordon J. Walker |
| Abstract: | North American cities have long encouraged redevelopment of their downtown cores to counteract the flight of residents and business to the suburbs in the postwar period. Building subsidized arenas and stadiums for professional sports teams downtown became common in the 1960s. In recent years, downtown stadiums and arenas have been proposed as components in larger redevelopment projects containing a number of other amenities, as well, including housing and other entertainment attractions. The justification for such developments rests in part on the public goods generated by vibrant, prosperous downtowns. Yet little is known about the value of such downtown public goods. This paper reports the results of two Contingent Valuation Method surveys to determine willingness to pay for new National Hockey League arenas in downtown Edmonton and Calgary in the Canadian province of Alberta. The hypothetical scenarios in both surveys varied to include affordable housing, a casino, and cultural space in addition to the arena. The surveys provide the first estimates of willingness to pay for downtown public goods for sports arenas, and also provide the first estimates of scope effects, that is, the willingness to pay for expansions of public goods, in the sports economics literature. Key Words: |
| Date: | 2012 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:apl:wpaper:12-01&r=ppm |
| By: | Magnus Gulbrandsen (Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo) |
| Abstract: | Many countries have a sector of research institutes that have been set up to promote industrial growth and help with users’ problem solving. Not formally part of the higher education sector, research institutes are significantly less understood and studied than universities. This paper and analyses the co-evolution of institutes and industry and the co-evolution of institutes and universities in Norway, using the framework of Whitley (2002, 2003). It is shown that there seems to be a dominant collaborative approach to developing innovative competences in Norway to which the institutes have had to adapt. Long traditions for external R&D collaboration in Norwegian industry and a structure of small low-tech firms have led to the establishment of a set of industry-specific institutes, a development reinforced by periods of isolation from industry perspectives at the universities. Alternative approaches to developing innovative competences have largely failed. Despite a low level of reputational competition in the public science system, research institutes have nevertheless contributed to increasing the level of intellectual pluralism and flexibility, creating opportunities for combinations of academic work and applied problem-solving. With weaker policy co-ordination and convergence in the funding criteria for all public science, there may be a risk that research in this system becomes more fragmented and isolated. |
| Date: | 2012–03 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:tik:inowpp:20120321&r=ppm |
| By: | Vincent Martinet; Ngo Van Long |
| Abstract: | We propose a new criterion which reflects both the concern for welfare (utility) and the concern for rights in the evaluation of economic development paths. The concern for rights is captured by a pre-ordering over combinations of thresholds (floors or ceilings on various quantitative indicators) that serve as constraints on actions and on levels of state variables. These thresholds are interpreted as minimal rights to be guaranteed to all generations. They are endogenously chosen within the set of all feasible thresholds, accounting for the "cost in terms of welfare" of achieving these rights. We apply the criterion to several examples, including the standard Dasgupta-Heal-Solow model of resource extraction and capital accumulation. We show that if the weight given to rights in the criterion is sufficiently high, the optimal solution may be on the threshold possibility frontier. The development path is then "driven" by the rights. In particular, if a minimal consumption is considered as a right, constant consumption can be optimal even with a positive utility discount rate. The shadow prices of thresholds play an important role in the determination of the rate of discount to be applied to social investment projects. |
| Keywords: | Rights, Intergenerational Equity, Welfare, Sustainability |
| JEL: | D63 H43 Q01 |
| Date: | 2012 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:drm:wpaper:2012-14&r=ppm |
| By: | Cheng-Ping Shih Author_Email: (NTNU University); Jocelynn Gutierrez (NTN University) |
| Keywords: | Innovation competency; Process innovation |
| JEL: | M0 |
| Date: | 2011–06 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:cms:1icm11:2011-086-320&r=ppm |
| By: | Traeger, Christian P. (University of California, Berkeley. Dept of agricultural and resource economics) |
| Abstract: | The uncertainty of future economic development affects the term structure of discount rates and, thus, the intertemporal weights that are to be used in cost benefit analysis. The U.K. and France have recently adopted a falling term structure to incorporate uncertainty and the U.S. is considering a similar step. A series of publications discusses the following concern: A seemingly analogous argument used to justify falling discount rates can also be used to justify increasing discount rates. We show that increasing and decreasing discount rates mean different things, can coexist, are created by different channels through which risk affects evaluation, and have the same qualitative effect of making long-term payoffs more attractive. |
| Keywords: | benefit cost analysis, discounting, term structure, uncertainty, Weitzman-Gollier puzzle |
| JEL: | D61 D81 H43 Q54 |
| Date: | 2012–02 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:are:cudare:1121&r=ppm |