nep-ppm New Economics Papers
on Project, Program and Portfolio Management
Issue of 2018‒06‒11
five papers chosen by
Arvi Kuura
Tartu Ülikool

  1. How large are road traffic externalities in the city? The highway tunneling in Maastricht, the Netherlands By Joep Tijm; Thomas Michielsen; Peter Zwaneveld; Raoul van Maarseveen
  2. Methodological issues of an impact evaluation of development support in agriculture By Romain Houssa; Paul Reding; Albena Sotirova
  3. Public climate finance: the challenge of reporting equity. By Kris Bachus; Emilie Bécault
  4. Pre-Feasibility Study of Sabah-North Kalimantan Cross-Border Value Chains By Lord, Montague; Chang, Susan
  5. Corporate returns to subsidized R&D projects: Direct grants vs tax credit financing By Møen, Jarle

  1. By: Joep Tijm (CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis); Thomas Michielsen (CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis); Peter Zwaneveld (CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis); Raoul van Maarseveen
    Abstract: Infrastructure projects are increasingly aiming to improve liveability, in particular in urban areas. We analyse a specifi c case in which an existing highway in an urban area was moved underground in order to improve intercity traffic flows and to reduce traffic externalities. As travel times within the city hardly changed, this allows for a clean identifi cation of the value of traffic externalities. We find that the liveability bene fits of such integrated infrastructure are substantial relative to the construction costs. Each halving of distance to the tunneled segment is associated with 3.5% more appreciation in house prices since the start of the project.
    JEL: R12 J24 J31
    Date: 2018–05
  2. By: Romain Houssa (CRED, University of Namur); Paul Reding (CRED, University of Namur); Albena Sotirova (CRED, University of Namur)
    Abstract: We attempted to investigate the impacts on enterprise performance of two agricultural subsidy projects carried out by the BTC-Benin in 2008-2015. During the working process we encountered several problems. First, the data on the activities of entrepreneurs is incomplete and of poor quality. Second, there are various methodological problems related to the design of the projects that do not allow a clear identification of control and treatment groups for the projects. As a result, we cannot infer any observed difference in performance of entrepreneurs to the project. We were therefore not able to assess the impact of these past projects. Instead, we successfully launched a collaboration with BTC-Benin to design a randomized impact evaluation on a new project that started in January 2016. In order to facilitate the design of the evaluation on the new project this paper concentrates on two issues. First, we present a background on the agricultural crops supported by BTC-Benin as well as some stylized facts about access to external finance in Benin. Second, we analyze the selection process of beneficiaries for the projects by BTC-Benin in 2008-2015. Subsequently, in a companion paper we estimate the determinants of land productivity.
    Keywords: Agriculture, Benin, External financing, MSMEs
    JEL: Q12 Q14 O16
    Date: 2017–06
  3. By: Kris Bachus (HIVA, KU Leuven); Emilie Bécault (GGS, KU Leuven)
    Abstract: There is currently no agreed comprehensive methodology on how to track and report on public climate finance. One of the difficulties – next to determining the climate relevance of projects funded– is the valuation of financial instruments other than grants (i.e. loans, guarantees, equity). For loans, the calculation of the grant equivalent of the financial flow is relatively straightforward, but for equity, it is unclear what the best way is to value the grant equivalent. Hence, the primary objective of this research paper is to provide an overview of the variety of methods that can be used to value the provision of public climate finance to developing countries through equity investments. In this endeavour, special attention will be paid to recent debates taking place in the context of the modernisation of the OECD DAC statistical system about how to better represent the donor effort involved in extending private sector instruments and especially equity investments.
    Keywords: Public climate finance, private climate finance, equity, OECD-DAC, nongrant instruments, public sector instruments, tracking climate finance, developing countries, UNFCCC
    JEL: F35 Q56
    Date: 2017–02
  4. By: Lord, Montague; Chang, Susan
    Abstract: This study maps the optimal configuration of North Kalimantan–Sabah cross-border trade and investment in goods and services; and, concurrently, it provides a preliminary (pre-feasibility) design of a border area development plan for the two territories. The options for moving project proposals forward are elaborated in sufficient detail and contain the needed concrete measures that will permit the overall collaboration program to move through subsequent stages of development into the final implementation and operational phases.
    Keywords: sabah, Malaysia, North Kalimantan, Kalimantan, Indonesia, Feasbility, Pre-Feasibility, Project Appraisal, Appraisal, trade, cross-border, value chain, value chains
    JEL: F1 F14 F17
    Date: 2018–10–01
  5. By: Møen, Jarle (Dept. of Business and Management Science, Norwegian School of Economics)
    Abstract: According to theory, direct R&D grants should be used for projects with low private returns, high social returns and high risk. R&D tax credits, on the other hand, allow firms to choose projects freely according to their private returns. Building on the standard R&D capital model, I develop a framework for estimating private returns to R&D projects with different types of funding. I apply the framework to estimate the corporate returns to subsidized R&D projects in Norway. Consistent with theory and a high quality grant allocation process, I find that projects funded through direct grants have private returns that are not significantly different from zero and with high variance, while the return to R&D projects financed by tax credits is just slightly below the return to R&D projects financed by own funds. The latter two return estimates are 16 % and 19 % respectively. I find that SMEs and small R&D performers have somewhat higher returns to R&D than larger firms. The overall return estimate across all types of finance is 15 %. This is in line with recent meta-regression results in the international literature.
    Keywords: Returns to R&D; R&D capital model; Knowledge capital model; R&D subsidies; R&D grants; R&D tax credit; Innovation Policy; Technology policy; Norway
    JEL: H25 O32 O38
    Date: 2018–05–31

This nep-ppm issue is ©2018 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.