|
on Project, Program and Portfolio Management |
| By: | Aria, Dr |
| Abstract: | There has not been a significant advancement in project management as a phenomenon in recent decades, as a phenomenon as a whole. Our literature review shows that research on the impact of the Internet on education as well as the entire economy as a whole has been under-researched. The traditional technical environment has now been enhanced with an organizational environment in which different portfolios of project work are identified, assigned, and managed within the organization in order to effectively meet the objectives of the organization. In addition to the traditional technical environment, this is a completely different environment. Overall, this has turned out to be extremely beneficial in a number of different ways for the education sector as a whole, on a number of different levels. Its principles and techniques have enabled it to develop into a strategic environment that is highly relevant to program and portfolio management in the education sector, as a result of the fact that its development into a strategic environment has allowed it to become a strategic environment. As a matter of fact, several practitioners as well as authors in the field of education have argued that project management is a set of tools, techniques, processes, and structures that are used to achieve the goals of a project, that is, a set of tools, techniques, processes, and structures that are used to achieve the goals of the project. |
| Keywords: | Project Management and Economic Impact, Education and Development, Impact of Technologies on Education, Education’s competitiveness and economic impact |
| JEL: | A2 I21 I25 I26 P4 |
| Date: | 2021–07–14 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pra:mprapa:115979&r=ppm |
| By: | Hazell, Peter; Timu, Anne G.; Savastano, Sara; Massotti, Piero |
| Abstract: | Agricultural projects typically aim to promote the uptake of project components amongst targeted farm populations to improve their on-farm productivity within a “theory of change†that leads to improvements in their welfare. While this approach can be an important first step towards improving smallholder livelihoods, it ignores alternative and often superior livelihood options that might arise within the rural transformation process. These options can be particularly important for agricultural value chain projects that generate new market opportunities and secondary off-farm income and employment growth within the rural nonfarm economy. We argue that the design of smallholder projects implemented within regions already undergoing a dynamic transformation and/or on projects which have significant value chain components, should be broadened to assist smallholders make successful transitions to their best livelihood options. For such projects, M&E should also track livelihood transitions as well as the usual assessments of progress made, the achievement of expected goals, and the identification of bottlenecks in implementation. To help operationalize such an approach, we propose a typology of smallholder livelihood strategies that can track transitions over time and illustrate its use with an IFAD funded agricultural value chain project in Malawi. Using econometric methods and available household panel data, we find that the project helped some smallholders transition out of subsistence farming to market farming with a corresponding increase in their per capita incomes. The project also helped some households transition to, or remain with, an off-farm income diversification strategy with favorable per capita income outcomes. This may reflect new opportunities that arose as spillover benefits from the project along local agricultural value chains and within the rural nonfarm economy more broadly. We conclude with some lessons for the design, monitoring and evaluation of future agricultural projects. |
| Keywords: | MALAWI; SOUTHERN AFRICA; AFRICA SOUTH OF SAHARA; AFRICA; agriculture; smallholders; livelihoods; impact assessment; small farms; agricultural projects; typologies of small farms; small farm transitions |
| Date: | 2022 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:fpr:ifprid:2157&r=ppm |
| By: | Filewod, Ben; McCarney, Geoff |
| Abstract: | Leaky offsets are old news. As the world embraces nature-based solutions as a core strategy for critical near-term climate change mitigation, transactions of nature-based offsets in both compliance and voluntary markets reflect an underlying assumption that current approaches to managing leakage at the project level are working. We argue that this is not the case: leading third-party certification standards appear to vastly understate leakage compared to the research literature, and the tools available for project-level crediting cannot deliver the accuracy needed in practice. We propose an alternative, conservative, approach for avoiding leakage by design, based on understanding the ‘duality’ between additionality and leakage in a system at equilibrium. We then identify three principles that offset developers, certifiers, and consumers should implement at the project level now to improve the credibility of nature-based offset markets, while also allowing for increasing ambition and investment in nature-based solutions. |
| JEL: | J1 R14 J01 |
| Date: | 2023–01–12 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ehl:lserod:117928&r=ppm |
| By: | Jannat Salimova-Tekay (Emerging markets infrastructure finance professional) |
| Abstract: | This study assesses the landscape of Kyrgyzstan’s infrastructure financing. It starts with an analysis of the investment needs in the various sectors of infrastructure. It then proceeds with an assessment of the financing sources available to Kyrgyzstan in addressing these investment needs. Following an analysis of the challenges in developing infrastructure in Kyrgyzstan, the paper outlines the opportunities and modalities to expanding infrastructure finance and offers recommendations to unlock them. |
| Keywords: | Kyrgyzstan, infrastructure, public-private partnership, SDGs, planning, tariff regulation, privatization |
| JEL: | H54 H60 |
| Date: | 2022–03 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:unt:wpmpdd:wp/22/03&r=ppm |