|
on Project, Program and Portfolio Management |
| By: | GIULIANO, Genevieve; KNATZ, Geraldine; HUDSON, Nathan; SYS, Christa; VANELSLANDER, Thierry; CARLAN, Valentin |
| Abstract: | Six universities from Europe, Asia and the United States participated in an evaluation of the use of innovation in the port logistics and maritime sector. Led by the BNP Paribas Fortis Chair in Transport, Logistics and Ports from the University of Antwerp, the purpose of the study was to evaluate the decision-making process and adoption of innovation using quantitative tools. This paper focuses on one of those quantitative tools, cost benefit analysis. Seventy-four separate and highly diverse innovation projects undertaken by private businesses were examined to determine if a traditional cost benefit analysis was used as part of their decision-making process. The data showed that no projects performed comprehensive cost benefit analysis, although for some projects limited cost effectiveness data were collected after the innovation was implemented. Cost benefit analysis is both complex and time consuming. It is designed for public sector decision-making, where societal costs and benefits are of concern, and where alternative policy actions are evaluated. If these innovations were implemented mainly as a result of internal decisions, use of cost benefit analysis would not be expected. The data show that 37 (50%) of the innovation projects were undertaken because of external influences, 21 (28.3%) were purely internal company decisions and 16 (21.6%) were influenced by public subsidy. Several types of innovation projects examined in this research project could be candidates for a cost benefit or cost effectiveness assessment. These are projects where environmental benefits and costs can be quantified, or where quantifiable external benefits support public investment in capital costs or in an operating subsidy. It is found that port innovation would benefit from more formalized methods of project assessment. |
| Date: | 2016–01 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ant:wpaper:2016001&r=ppm |
| By: | Marcelo Gordillo,Darwin; Mandri-Perrott,Xavier Cledan; House,Ruth Schuyler; Schwartz,Jordan Z. |
| Abstract: | Governments must decide how to allocate limited resources for infrastructure development, particularly since financing gaps have been projected for the coming decades. Social cost-benefit analysis provides sound project appraisal and, when systematically applied, a basis for prioritization. In some instances, however, capacity and resource limitations make extensive economic analyses across all projects unfeasible in the immediate term. This paper responds to a need for expanding the available set of tools for project selection by proposing an alternative prioritization approach that is systematic and feasible within the current resource means of government. The Infrastructure Prioritization Framework is a multi-criteria decision support tool that considers project outcomes along two dimensions, social-environmental and financial-economic. When large sets of small- to medium-sized projects are proposed, resources are limited, and basic project appraisal data (but not full social cost-benefit analysis) are available, the Infrastructure Prioritization Framework can inform project selection by combining selection criteria into social-environmental and financial-economic indexes. These indexes are used to plot projects on a Cartesian plane, and the sector budget is imposed to create a project map for comparison along each dimension. The Infrastructure Prioritization Framework is structured to accommodate multiple policy objectives, attend to social and environmental factors, provide an intuitive platform for displaying results, and take advantage of available data while promoting capacity building and data collection for more sophisticated appraisal methods and selection frameworks. Decision criteria, weighting, and sensitivity analysis should be decided and made transparent in advance of selection, and analysis should be made publicly available and open to third-party review. |
| Keywords: | ICT Policy and Strategies,Banks&Banking Reform,Economic Theory&Research,Transport Economics Policy&Planning,Housing&Human Habitats |
| Date: | 2016–05–13 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:wbk:wbrwps:7674&r=ppm |
| By: | LI YANFEI (Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA)) |
| Abstract: | The recent ERIA report on 'Effective Power Infrastructure Investment through Power Grid Interconnections in East Asia' aims to support existing initiatives--the ASEAN Power Grid and Greater Mekong Subregion Power Master Plan--by quantitatively showing the possible economic and environmental benefits of such power grid interconnections. The study team selected specific candidate routes of cross-border transmission lines for further examination. They carried out the preliminary project planning and per kilowatt-hour cost estimation for the selected cross-border lines. The estimated results indicate that although these are capital-intensive projects, attainable benefits seem to be large enough to justify the investment well. |
| Date: | 2016–01 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:era:wpaper:pb-2016-01&r=ppm |
| By: | Albert Banal-Estañol; Inés Macho-Stadler; David Pérez-Castrillo |
| Abstract: | We study what makes a research grant application successful in terms of ability, type of research, experience, and demographics of the applicants. But our main objective is to investigate whether public funding organizations support the teams that are most likely to undertake transformative or "radical" research. Making use of the literature on recombinant innovation, we characterize such "radical teams" as those formed by eclectic and non-usual collaborators, and those that are heterogeneous and scientifically diverse. Our results, using data from the UK's Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), show that the more able, more basic, and more senior researchers, working in a top university, are more likely to be successful. But, radical teams are less likely to be funded by funding bodies. Our analysis of the research output of the awarded projects suggests that, voluntarily or involuntarily, the evaluation process in these organizations is biased against radical teams. |
| Keywords: | Radical innovation, funding organizations, research grants |
| JEL: | O32 I23 |
| Date: | 2016–03 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:upf:upfgen:1518&r=ppm |
| By: | Patil, Vikram S.; Ghosh, Ranjan |
| Abstract: | In developing countries, the general principle followed in land acquisition for infrastructure projects is monetary compensation. The compensation is designed in a way that it enables farmers to buy comparable land assets. Despite this monetary compensation, a large proportion of farming population ends up not owning comparable assets, getting further marginalized in the process. We explain this using a transaction cost analysis of the dominant land acquisition framework in India (LAA, 1894). Based on the case of displaced farmers of Upper Krishna project in Karnataka, we show how specificities related to land characteristics, uncertainties in search for alternatives and information constrains impose high non-monetary transaction costs on farmers. We then assess whether or not the newly proposed land acquisition framework (RFCTLARR, 2015) promises to minimize transaction costs on farmers. |
| Keywords: | Land Acquisition, Transaction Cost Economics, Farmers Displacement, Agricultural and Food Policy, Land Economics/Use, Q15, D2, O13, |
| Date: | 2015–12 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ags:iaae15:229378&r=ppm |
| By: | Paul Watkiss; Federica Cimato |
| Abstract: | This working paper aims to inform the development community about the current state-of-knowledge and emerging thinking on the economics of adaptation and the application to development. The paper explores a number of key challenges on the economics of adaptation, and investigates examples of how these are being addressed in practical case studies. The case studies are drawn from the portfolio of the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) and the wider literature. The key areas of focus have been to assess: – Mainstreaming adaptation into development planning. – The analysis and appraisal of building (adaptive) capacity and non-technical adaptation. – The consideration of distributional effects. – The phasing and prioritisation of adaptation and the application of light-touch approaches for decision making under uncertainty. |
| Date: | 2016–05 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:lsg:lsgwps:wp235&r=ppm |
| By: | Sumana Chaudhuri (Durgadevi Saraf Institute of Management Studies); Shovan Ray (Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research) |
| Abstract: | The paper is a case study of Vadinar refinery in Gujarat. It examines the costs and benefits associated with one of the world's mega refinery projects highlighting the welfare impacts on society. The paper briefly examines whether refining at Vadinar by Essar is of net economic benefit to the region, state and the country by constructing a Social Cost Benefit Analysis of the Vadinar Refinery Project. The paper analyses the local-level economic impacts (on-site labor impacts, local revenue and supply chain impacts and induced impacts) and jobs supported by Vadinar refinery construction and ongoing operations. The paper also analyses the regional (state and country) level economic impacts; multiplier effect of income, tax and savings generated as a result of the refinery operations, including other externalities associated with the project. There is abundance of scope to reflect the strategic food and oil security of India from the macroeconomic perspective; the gradual increase in investor and consumer confidence with respect to self-reliance in production and consumption of oil and natural gas resources in the country and the broader social impact of the project, which may be taken up in subsequent research. A sequel to this paper will explore an approach to integrating the methods with a CGE model framework. |
| Keywords: | Social Cost Benefit Analysis, Economic Impact, Externalities, Oil Refinery |
| JEL: | B41 D60 D61 D62 H23 H43 L71 O22 Q43 |
| Date: | 2016–04 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ind:igiwpp:2016-011&r=ppm |
| By: | Asian Development Bank (ADB); Asian Development Bank (ADB) (Economic Research and Regional Cooperation Department, ADB); Asian Development Bank (ADB) (Economic Research and Regional Cooperation Department, ADB); Asian Development Bank (ADB) |
| Abstract: | This ADB Brief by Peter Morgan, Mike Plummer, and Ganeshan Wignaraja examines the critical role of regional transport infrastructure to connect South Asia and Southeast Asia and maps $63 billion worth of road, rail, and port projects. |
| Keywords: | transport infrastructure, transport corridors, trade, south asia, southeast asia, production networks, supply chains, regional integration, regional markets, asian highway network, trans-asian railway, transport investment |
| Date: | 2015–09 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:asd:wpaper:abf157656&r=ppm |
| By: | Werner, Max (Helmut Schmidt University, Hamburg); Eißing, Klaus (Olympus AG); Langton, Sebastian (GUS Group) |
| Abstract: | This research estimates the shared value created by constructing a hypothetical Hyperloop to transport cargo along 300 km in Northern Germany. Following Porter-Kramer (2011), we identified and evaluated eight factors that create shared value: travel speed, operating costs, safety, noise pollution, air pollution, climate effect/carbon footprint, separation effect/ property efficiency, and maintenance. Using official data compiled by several German institutes and organizations, we conducted comparative analysis to quantify and compare the abovementioned factors for Hyperloop and over-the-road cargo transport in Germany. Then, we monetized the individual and collective benefits of the shared value created by Hyperloop replacing a significant share of cargo transported by truck. Our findings indicate that the hypothetical Hyperloop project in Northern Germany would create €660 to €900 million of shared value annually. Our research method establishes a framework for assessing future transportation projects like Hyperloop, and our findings can be generalized to industrialized nations beyond Germany. |
| Keywords: | Transportation; Technology; Innovation; Logistic; Shared Value; Cargo transportation |
| JEL: | L99 Q55 R49 |
| Date: | 2016–05–11 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ris:vhsuwp:2016_166&r=ppm |
| By: | Christopher Kilby (Department of Economics, Villanova School of Business, Villanova University); Katharina Michaelowa (Department of Political Science, University of Zurich) |
| Abstract: | Do geopolitics influence project evaluation ratings by the World Bank’s Independent Evaluation Group? Examining a wide range of geopolitical factors, we find evidence of rating bias only for one variable: non-permanent membership on the UN Security Council. Selection for rating is non-random and reflects bureaucratic interests but does not impact performance estimates. |
| Keywords: | World Bank; Evaluation; Geopolitics |
| JEL: | F33 H43 O19 O22 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:vil:papers:26&r=ppm |
| By: | Julien Daubanes (ETH Zürich, Switzerland); Jean-Charles Rochet (University of Zurich, Switzerland) |
| Abstract: | Activist NGOs increasingly oppose industrial projects that have nevertheless been approved by public regulators. To understand this recent rise in NGO activism, we develop a theory of optimal regulation in which a regulated industry seeks to undertake a project that may be harmful to society. On the one hand, public regulation is vulnerable to the influence of the industry, and may approve the project even though it is harmful. On the other hand, an NGO may oppose the project. We characterize the circumstances under which NGO opposition occurs and the circumstances under which this opposition is socially beneficial. The theory is used to explain the role that NGOs have assumed in the last decades, and has implications for the legal status of NGO activism and the appropriate degree of transparency. |
| JEL: | D02 D74 D82 |
| Date: | 2016–04 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:eth:wpswif:16-244&r=ppm |