nep-ppm New Economics Papers
on Project, Program and Portfolio Management
Issue of 2017‒01‒01
seven papers chosen by
Arvi Kuura
Tartu Ülikool

  1. Public subsidies for SME research and development: Empirical evaluation of collaborative versus individual place-based programs By Andrea Bellucci; Luca Pennacchio; Alberto Zazzaro
  2. Project finance in Europe: An overview and discussion of key drivers By Pinto, João M.; Alves, Paulo P.
  3. Incentivizing nutrition: incentive mechanisms to accelerate improved nutrition outcomes By Luc Laviolette; Sudararajan Gopalan; Leslie Elder; Olivier Wouters
  4. Implementing Smart Specialisation Strategies: A Handbook By Inmaculada PERIANEZ FORTE; MARINELLI Elisabetta; Dominique FORAY; John Huw EDWARDS; Martina PERTOLDI; Kevin Morgan; Krzysztof MIESZKOWSKI; Javier GOMEZ PRIETO; Claire Nauwelaers; Ruslan RAKHMATULLIN; Lina STANIONYTE; Åge MARIUSSEN; Carlo GIANELLE; Alexander KLEIBRINK; Mathieu DOUSSINEAU
  5. Synergies for Innovation: Lessons Learnt from the S2E National Events By Andrea Conte; Nida Kamil Ozbolat
  6. Universities and collaborative innovation in EC-funded research projects: An analysis based on Innovation Radar data By Annarosa Pesole; Daniel Nepelski
  7. Public Sector Personnel Economics: Wages, Promotions, and the Competence-Control Trade-off By Charles M. Cameron; John M. de Figueiredo; David E. Lewis

  1. By: Andrea Bellucci (Institute for Applied Economic Research (IAW), Germany, MoFiR, Italy); Luca Pennacchio (Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Statistiche - Universita' degli Studi di Napoli - "Federico II"); Alberto Zazzaro (Universita' Politecnica delle Marche, Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Sociali, MoFiR - Ancona, Italy, CSEF, Naples, Italy)
    Abstract: This paper provides novel empirical evidence on the effectiveness of regional research and innovation policies for small and medium-sized firms (SMEs). Two subsidy programs implemented at the regional level in central Italy are investigated. One program targeted firms' individual research, while the other addressed collaborative research between firms and universities. Using a matched difference-in-differences approach our empirical analysis shows a differentiated impact of the two programs. The first was successful in stimulating additional private R&D investment and, at least partially, in improving firms. performance. The second program had weaker effects, mostly restricted to R&D expenditure and employment. Otherwise, subsidized firms show a reduction in their tangible and intangible investments, thus casting doubts on the benefits of subsidies forcing R&D collaborations.
    Keywords: Research and innovation; place-based regional subsidies; impact evaluation, small- and mediumsized firms, collaborative research programs.
    JEL: G32 H81 L52 O38 R58
    Date: 2016–12
  2. By: Pinto, João M.; Alves, Paulo P.
    Abstract: This paper examines the pricing of project finance (PF) and non-project finance (non-PF) loans and examines the factors that influence the borrower's choice between project financing and corporate financing. Using a sample of 210,273 syndicated loans closed between 2000 and 2014, we find that PF and Non-PF loans are influenced differently by common pricing characteristics and that PF loans in the U.S. and W.E. are priced in segmented markets. Borrowers choose PF when they seek long-term financing and funding cost reduction. We find that transaction cost considerations, the financial crisis and country risk affect the financing choice. Our results document that publicly traded sponsors who prefer project financing to corporate financing are larger, less profitable, more financially distressed and have a higher asset tangibility. Finally, privately held firms that choose off-balance sheet financing are smaller and less profitable and use PF to raise relatively larger amounts of debt.
    Keywords: project finance,syndicated loans,loan pricing,debt financing choice
    JEL: F34 G01 G21 G24 G32
    Date: 2016
  3. By: Luc Laviolette; Sudararajan Gopalan; Leslie Elder; Olivier Wouters
    Abstract: This report provides operational guidance to World Bank project teams considering including nutrition objectives in projects. It is intended for non-technical staff to support their clients’ effortsto enhance the nutritional impact of World Bank country investments. The report provides practical advice to design and implement nutrition interventions in future operations based on a review of past successful and less successful attempts. The recommendations are organized by type of financial incentive mechanism, which correspond to the specific levels where the mechanisms exert their influence, i.e., national, sub-national, facility, community, households, or individuals, and also provides information on the use of non-financial incentives.
    JEL: F3 G3
    Date: 2016–11–21
  4. By: Inmaculada PERIANEZ FORTE (European Commission - JRC); MARINELLI Elisabetta (European Commission - JRC); Dominique FORAY (École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne); John Huw EDWARDS (European Commission - JRC); Martina PERTOLDI (European Commission - JRC); Kevin Morgan (Cardiff University); Krzysztof MIESZKOWSKI (European Commission - JRC); Javier GOMEZ PRIETO (European Commission - JRC); Claire Nauwelaers (Independent STI policy expert); Ruslan RAKHMATULLIN (European Commission - JRC); Lina STANIONYTE (European Commission - JRC); Åge MARIUSSEN (Nordlands Research Institute,Norway); Carlo GIANELLE (European Commission - JRC); Alexander KLEIBRINK (European Commission - JRC); Mathieu DOUSSINEAU (European Commission - JRC)
    Abstract: Smart Specialisation represents the most comprehensive industrial policy experiment being implemented in Europe. Conceived within the reformed Cohesion policy of the European Commission, Smart Specialisation is a place-based policy promoting economic transformation and investment in innovative activities in selected areas of the socio-economic system in order to achieve a smart, inclusive and sustainable growth. Drawing on empirical evidence, the Smart Specialisation Implementation Handbook is targeted at policy-makers and regional development professionals who are crafting their innovation policy according to a common set of principles and methodologies. The handbook aims at taking stock of the Smart Specialisation experience and presenting its current state of the art, both in terms of conceptual developments and practical implementation. It addresses five key milestones of the implementation process: 1) The Entrepreneurial Discovery Process (EDP) cycle: from priority selection to strategy implementation 2) Good governance: principles and challenges 3) From priorities to projects: selection criteria and selection process 4) Transnational cooperation and value chains 5) Monitoring
    Keywords: Smart Specialisation - Innovation policy - Regional Development - Policy Implementation - Dimensions of collaboration
    Date: 2016–12
  5. By: Andrea Conte (European Commission – JRC); Nida Kamil Ozbolat (European Commission – JRC)
    Abstract: In this issue - Smart Specialisation Strategies (S3) play a key role in fostering an efficient and inclusive Research and Innovation (R&I) ecosystem by creating the right framework for focused investments based on selected high value added priorities and a shared vision of territorial development. - Building synergies can contribute to two complementary objectives: helping to close the innovation divide across European territories and increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of public policy intervention. - Synergies between ESIF and other funding programmes (e.g. COSME, Horizon 2020) could maximise the specific value added of S3 investments such as the capacity to support effectively research capacity building and the exploitation of research results for raising the overall social/economic impact of European R&I. - Quality of R&I "governance" (e.g. long-term planning, monitoring and evaluation, stakeholders' involvement) appears as the key factor for achieving a successful implementation of R&I investments under the current S3.
    Keywords: Stairway to Excellence, Smart Specialisation, ESIF, Horizon 2020, European Funds, Synergies, Policy Events, R&I, Governance, Innovation
    Date: 2016–12
  6. By: Annarosa Pesole (European Commission - JRC); Daniel Nepelski (European Commission - JRC)
    Abstract: The European Commission's Framework Programme (FP) contributes an important share of R&D expenditure in Europe. For example, the Horizon 2020 is the biggest EU Research and Innovation programme ever launched which makes nearly €80 billion available over 7 years (2014 to 2020). In addition to financing science and technology development, one of the main objectives of the FP is to foster international collaboration among research organizations and private firms, both large and small. Collaboration is a key conduit for innovation-related knowledge flows for both firms that use R&D and those that are not R&D-active. The main idea behind the Framework Programme is that innovation often results from the interaction and cooperative efforts of different organisation devoted to the achievement of a common goal. This study builds on the first IR report: it extends the number of reviewed projects, and it looks at the relationship between the type of innovators and the potential of their innovations. A particular emphasis is put on collaboration between universities and private organizations. Furthermore, the report analyses whether universities and private organizations have different needs and face different bottlenecks to bring their innovations to the market.
    Keywords: Innovation Radar, Collaboration, Industry, University, SMEs, EC-funded
    Date: 2016–12
  7. By: Charles M. Cameron; John M. de Figueiredo; David E. Lewis
    Abstract: We model personnel policies in public agencies, examining how wages and promotion standards can partially offset a fundamental contracting problem: the inability of public sector workers to contract on performance, and the inability of political masters to contract on forbearance from meddling. Despite the dual contracting problem, properly constructed personnel policies can encourage intrinsically motivated public sector employees to invest in expertise, seek promotion, remain in the public sector, and develop policy projects. However, doing so requires internal personnel policies that sort "slackers" from "zealots." Personnel policies that accomplish this task are quite different in agencies where acquired expertise has little value in the private sector, and agencies where acquired expertise commands a premium in the private sector. Finally, even with well-designed personnel policies, there remains an inescapable trade-off between political control and expertise acquisition.
    JEL: H11 J24 J45 K2
    Date: 2016–12

This nep-ppm issue is ©2017 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.