nep-ppm New Economics Papers
on Project, Program and Portfolio Management
Issue of 2014‒06‒02
eight papers chosen by
Arvi Kuura
Parnu College - Tartu University

  1. The Politics of Compromise By Bonatti, Alessandro; Rantakari, Heikki
  2. Does working with industry come at a price? A study of doctoral candidates’ performance in collaborative vs. non-collaborative PhD projects By Negin Salimi; Rudi Bekkers
  3. Measuring the Return on Program-Level Conservation Investments: Three Case Studies of Capabilities and Opportunity By Boyd, James W.
  4. Community mobilization around social dilemmas: evidence from lab experiments in rural Mali By Maria Laura Alzua; Juan Camilo Cardenas; Habiba Djebbari
  5. Evaluating Aid for Trade: A Survey of Recent Studies By Cadot, Olivier; de Melo, Jaime; Fernandes, Ana; Gourdon, Julien; Mattoo, Aaditya
  6. Energiesparberatung im Kiez: Evaluation des Projektes clevererKIEZ e.V. By Schaller, Sandra; Kopatz, Michael; Hermann, Laurenz; Hilgenstock, Marita; Redmer, Silke
  7. Offshore grids for renewables: do we need a particular regulatory framework? By Leonardo Meeus
  8. Does Financing Spur Small Business Productivity? Evidence from a Natural Experiment By Karthik Krishnan; Debarshi Nandy; Manju Puri

  1. By: Bonatti, Alessandro; Rantakari, Heikki
    Abstract: A team must select among competing projects that differ in their payoff consequences for its members. Each agent chooses a project and exerts costly effort affecting its random completion time. When one or more projects are complete, agents bargain over which one to implement. A consensus requirement can (but need not) induce the efficient balance between compromise in project selection and equilibrium effort. Imposing deadlines for presenting counteroffers is beneficial, while delegating decision-making to an impartial third party leads agents to select extreme projects. Finally, hiring agents with opposed interests can foster both effort and compromise in project selection.
    Keywords: bargaining; compromise; conflict; consensus; deadlines; free-riding
    JEL: C72 D71 D83
    Date: 2014–03
  2. By: Negin Salimi; Rudi Bekkers
    Abstract: The increasing involvement of industry in academic research raised concerns whether university-industry projects actually meet the same academic standards as university projects in-house. Looking at the academic output and impact of collaborative versus non-collaborative Ph.D. projects at Eindhoven University of Technology, we observe – unexpectedly – that doctoral candidates who conducted a collaborative Ph.D. project outperform their peers in academic performance. Less surprisingly, collaborative projects also lead to more patents and patent citations compared to non-collaborative projects. Science policy implications follow.
    Keywords: university-industry relations, technology transfer, collaborative and non-collaborative Ph.D. projects, performance, publication performance, patenting performance, citations, bibliometric data
    Date: 2014–05
  3. By: Boyd, James W. (Resources for the Future)
    Abstract: Conservation investments are increasingly evaluated on the basis of their return on investment (ROI). Conservation ROI analysis quantitatively measures the costs, benefits, and risks of investments so conservancies can rank or prioritize them. This paper includes case studies—of three large-scale conservation projects—designed to assess current ROI capabilities in the field, barriers to ROI analysis, and opportunities to improve conservation ROI. The cases reveal important conservation assessment innovations, but also identify significant gaps in the availability of data and analysis needed to establish many of the basic elements necessary to an ROI analysis.
    Keywords: conservation, return on investment analysis, payment for ecosystem services
    Date: 2014–05–15
  4. By: Maria Laura Alzua (CEDLAS, Universidad Nacional de La Plata and Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia); Juan Camilo Cardenas (Universidad de Los Andes); Habiba Djebbari (Aix-Marseille University and Laval University)
    Abstract: Community mobilization is a key feature of community-based development projects. Community mobilization requires facilitating communication between village members and between leaders and the rest of the community. Is communication an effective device through which mobilization may foster collective action? Does informing the community on how to reach a better social outcome key? Should we expect the effectiveness of community-based programs to depend on the quality of leadership in the community? In rural communities of Mali, we find evidence of high levels of cooperation as measured by a standard public good game. Communication between players increases contributions to the public good. Passing of information through a random community member also improves cooperation, and leadership skills matter. We also find suggestive evidence that changes in behavior are mediated through changes in beliefs. The experiments are embedded in a larger randomized controlled trial designed to evaluate the impact of a community-based sanitation intervention. As such, our results are relevant for a large population. Finally, we find that the program help strengthen the capacity for collective action.
    JEL: D78 C93 H41
    Date: 2014–05
  5. By: Cadot, Olivier; de Melo, Jaime; Fernandes, Ana; Gourdon, Julien; Mattoo, Aaditya
    Abstract: The demand for accountability in “Aid-for-Trade” (AFT) is increasing but monitoring has focused on case-studies and impressionistic narratives. The paper reviews recent evidence from a wide range of studies, recognizing that a multiplicity of approaches is needed to learn what works and what does not. The review concludes that there is some support for the emphasis on reducing trade costs through investments in hard infrastructure (like ports and roads) and soft infrastructure (like customs). But failure to implement complementary reform – especially the introduction of competition in transport services – may erode the benefits of these investments. Direct support to exporters does seem to lead to diversification across products and destinations, but it is not yet clear that these benefits are durable. In general, it is difficult to rely on cross-country studies to direct AFT. More rigorous impact evaluation (IE) is an under-utilized alternative, but situations of “clinical interventions” in trade are rare and adverse incentives (due to agency problems) and costs (due to the small size of project) are a hurdle in implementation.
    Keywords: Aid for Trade (AFT); gravity; impact evaluation; trade performance
    JEL: F15 F35
    Date: 2013–10
  6. By: Schaller, Sandra; Kopatz, Michael; Hermann, Laurenz; Hilgenstock, Marita; Redmer, Silke
    Abstract: In Deutschland haben einige Millionen Haushalte Schwierigkeiten, ihre Energierechnung zu bezahlen. Ein Lösungsansatz liegt in der Energieberatung. Das Projekt clevererKIEZ basierte auf einem integrativen Konzept, welches arbeitsmarkt- sowie sozial- und umweltpolitische Ziele miteinander verknüpft. Im Rahmen einer intensiven Schulungsmaßnahme qualifizierten sich Langzeitarbeitslose zu Energieberatern. Zwischen 2010 und 2013 nahmen über 1000 Haushalte am Projekt teil. Der Bericht stellt das Projekt vor und erläutert die Ergebnisse der summativen Evaluation. Im Mittelpunkt stehen die Schwerpunktbereiche: 1. Nutzeranalyse der am Projekt teilnehmenden Haushalte, 2. Analyse des Energieverbrauches sowie der Einsparerfolge, 3. Feedback der eingesetzten Energiesparberater und 4. Auswertung der Öffentlichkeitsarbeit. -- In Germany, millions of households have problems to pay the energy bill. Providing energy saving advice is one approach to solve the problem. The project was based on an integrative concept linking objectives of labor market policy with social and environmental targets. During intensive training courses, long-term unemployed were qualified as energy consultants. Between 2010 and 2013, more than one thousand households participated in the project. The report presents the project and explains the findings of the summative evaluation. The core elements are: 1. user analysis of households participating in the project, 2. analysis of energy consumption and annual cost reductions, 3. feedback from energy consultants, and 4. evaluation of public relations.
    Date: 2014
  7. By: Leonardo Meeus
    Abstract: Onshore, generators are connected to the transmission grid by TSOs. This regulatory model could simply be extended to offshore (i.e. Germany), but the connection of offshore wind farms to shore is also an opportunity to test alternatives, i.e. the third party model (i.e. the UK) or the generator model (i.e. Sweden). In this paper, we argue that the third party and generator models are indeed better suited to support the evolution towards larger scale offshore wind farms that are increasingly developed farther out to sea, while the TSO model is better suited to support the evolution towards cross-border offshore grid projects. In other words, an important trade-off needs to be made because none of the existing regulatory models can fulfill all the expectations in the current context in Europe. And, the trade-off has to be made at the regional or EU level because the different national regulatory frameworks are incompatible when applied to a cross-border offshore grid project.
    Keywords: Renewable energy, offshore wind, grid connection, transmission, regulation
    Date: 2014–02
  8. By: Karthik Krishnan; Debarshi Nandy; Manju Puri
    Abstract: We analyze how increased access to financing affects firm total factor productivity (TFP) by exploiting a natural experiment following interstate banking deregulations which increased access to bank financing. We find that firms' TFP increases after their states implement these deregulations. Using a regression discontinuity approach based on Small Business Administration’s funding eligibility criteria, we show that TFP increases following the deregulations are significantly greater for financially constrained firms. Our results suggest that greater access to financing allows financially constrained firms to invest in productive projects that may otherwise not be taken up.
    JEL: G21
    Date: 2014–05

This nep-ppm issue is ©2014 by Arvi Kuura. It is provided as is without any express or implied warranty. It may be freely redistributed in whole or in part for any purpose. If distributed in part, please include this notice.
General information on the NEP project can be found at For comments please write to the director of NEP, Marco Novarese at <>. Put “NEP” in the subject, otherwise your mail may be rejected.
NEP’s infrastructure is sponsored by the School of Economics and Finance of Massey University in New Zealand.