nep-ppm New Economics Papers
on Project, Program and Portfolio Management
Issue of 2020‒03‒02
three papers chosen by
Arvi Kuura
Tartu Ülikool

  1. Rethinking Participatory Forest Management in Tanzania By Eliezeri Sungusia; Jens Friis Lund; Christian Pilegaard Hansen; Numan Amanzi; Yonika M. Ngaga; Gimbage Mbeyale; Thorsten Treue; Henrik Meilby
  2. Government Funding of University-Industry Collaboration: Exploring the Impact of Targeted Funding on University Patent Activity By Annita Nugent; Ho Fai Chan; Uwe Dulleck
  3. Feed-in Tariff Contract Schemes and Regulatory Uncertainty By Luciana Barbosa; Cl\'audia Nunes; Artur Rodrigues; Alberto Sardinha

  1. By: Eliezeri Sungusia (College of Forestry, Wildlife and Tourism, Sokoine University of Agriculture); Jens Friis Lund (Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen); Christian Pilegaard Hansen (Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen); Numan Amanzi (College of Forestry, Wildlife and Tourism, Sokoine University of Agriculture; Tanzania Forestry Research Institute); Yonika M. Ngaga (College of Forestry, Wildlife and Tourism, Sokoine University of Agriculture); Gimbage Mbeyale (College of Forestry, Wildlife and Tourism, Sokoine University of Agriculture); Thorsten Treue (Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen); Henrik Meilby (Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen)
    Abstract: Around 20 years ago, Tanzania adopted the policy of participatory forest management (PFM) to create incentives for increasing villagers’ participation in forest management. The timing is thus fitting to reflect on the achievements and challenges of the PFM process so far. There have certainly been successes. Nonetheless, challenges remain. Notably, there is a mismatch between participation ideals and the way the process has been framed, or structured, as well as outcomes on the ground in terms of actual participation and forest management practices. This working paper presents experiences with PFM from a handful of sites across the country, relying on existing published literature as well as our own research experiences. Having been involved in a number of major PFM research projects in Tanzania, we, the authors, have a combined experience of more than 20 years of conducting research in this field. We summarize important findings that explain the observed chasm between participation ideals and local realities and offer some recommendations. While some of our diagnoses and recommendations may contradict conventional wisdom in forestry, we believe that this report contributes valuable insights to the continued efforts to further sustainable forestry in Tanzania. We begin by outlining the global ideals of participatory forestry. We then present an overview of the realities of PFM as they appear in existing research. We do not attempt an exhaustive survey of literature or our own research. Rather, we emphasize issues concerning the framing of PFM as a bureaucratic and scientific project, and how that shapes it in practice. We then present case studies illustrating some of the core problems with PFM before concluding with some general recommendations for improving participatory forestry policy and guidelines.
    Keywords: Forestry, Planning, Participation, Inventory, Tenure, CBFM, PFM, Africa, Tanzania
    JEL: Q15 Q23 O13 O21
    Date: 2020–02
  2. By: Annita Nugent; Ho Fai Chan; Uwe Dulleck
    Abstract: Government investment in university research results in greater output and impact. To better capture economic benefits stemming from university research, governments have developed funding programs specifically targeting university-industry collaboration. However, little is known about the success of university-industry targeted (U-I targeted) grants. In this study we evaluate the effect of one such scheme, the Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage Project scheme, by comparing it to its non-targeted sister scheme, the ARC Discovery Project scheme. Having in common selection criteria, grant assessors, awardees, magnitude of funding and duration, the schemes differ in the requirement for an industry partner. We measure capture of economic benefit by patent applications filed and granted. Interrogating the effect of targeted funding at a university level we find award of U-I targeted grants coincides with increased patent activity compared to non-targeted grants. Exploring the dynamics of the relationship, we observe the effect of U-I targeted grants on patent activity is short lived at an inventor level. Further, the propensity for patent activity is influenced by the ratio of U-I targeted to non-targeted grants held at a university level, but not at an inventor level.
    Keywords: research funding, patent, university-industry collaboration, grants
    JEL: O34 O38
    Date: 2019
  3. By: Luciana Barbosa; Cl\'audia Nunes; Artur Rodrigues; Alberto Sardinha
    Abstract: This paper presents a novel analysis of two feed-in tariffs (FIT) under market and regulatory uncertainty, namely a sliding premium with cap and floor and a minimum price guarantee. Regulatory uncertainty is modeled with a Poisson process, whereby a jump event may reduce the tariff before the signature of the contract. Using a semi-analytical real options framework, we derive the project value, the optimal investment threshold, and the value of the investment opportunity for these schemes. Taking into consideration the optimal investment threshold, we also compare the two aforementioned FITs with the fixed-price FIT and the fixed-premium FIT, which are policy schemes that have been extensively studied in the literature. Our results show that increasing the likelihood of a jump event lowers the investment threshold for all the schemes; moreover, the investment threshold also decreases when the tariff reduction increases. We also compare the four schemes in terms of the corresponding optimal investment thresholds. For example, we find that the investment threshold of the sliding premium is lower than the minimum price guarantee. This result suggests that the first regime is a better policy than the latter because it accelerates the investment while avoiding excessive earnings to producers.
    Date: 2020–02

This nep-ppm issue is ©2020 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.