Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Public Infrastructure (public + infrastructure)
Selected AbstractsEMPIRICAL IMPACT OF PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE ON THE JAPANESE ECONOMY,THE JAPANESE ECONOMIC REVIEW, Issue 4 2008CHRISTOPHER N. ANNALA We study the impact of public capital investment on individual sectors of the Japanese economy using time-series data for the period of 1970,1998. We employ a production function approach and also estimate a dynamic VAR/ECM model. We find significant differences in the employment effects, output effects and private investment effects across sectors. Public capital investment has a positive effect on employment in the finance, insurance and real estate (FIRE), manufacturing, construction and utilities sectors; on private investment in the FIRE, agriculture, transportation, trade and services sectors; and on output in the mining, FIRE, trade and manufacturing sectors. [source] Privatisation Results: Private Sector Participation in Water Services After 15 YearsDEVELOPMENT POLICY REVIEW, Issue 6 2006Naren Prasad Privatisation of public infrastructure has been the mantra of many development agencies since the late 1980s. Water supply is no exception, and various forms of private sector participation (PSP) have been tried in the water and sanitation sector. This article examines the results of these experiments. It suggests that PSP has had mixed results and that in several important respects the private sector seems to be no more efficient in delivering services than the public sector. Despite growing evidence of failures and increasing public pressure against it, privatisation in water and sanitation is still alive, however. Increasingly, it is being repackaged in new forms such as that of public-private partnership. [source] PROPOSAL FOR A NEW MEASURE OF CORRUPTION, ILLUSTRATED WITH ITALIAN DATAECONOMICS & POLITICS, Issue 1 2005Miriam A. Golden Standard cross-national measures of corruption are assembled through surveys. We propose a novel alternative objective measure that consists of the difference between a measure of the physical quantities of public infrastructure and the cumulative price government pays for public capital stocks. Where the difference is larger between the monies spent and the existing physical infrastructure, more money is being siphoned off to mismanagement, fraud, bribes, kickbacks, and embezzlement; that is, corruption is greater. We create this measure for Italy's 95 provinces and 20 regions as of the mid-1990s, controlling at the regional level for possible differences in the costs of public construction. [source] Infrastructure and Rural Development: US and EU Perspectives Infrastruktur und Entwicklung des ländlichen Raums: Perspektiven aus den USA und der EU Infrastructures et développement rural : Perspectives aux États-Unis et dans l'Union européenneEUROCHOICES, Issue 1 2008David Blandford Infrastructure and Rural Development: US and EU Perspectives Infrastructural development remains a cornerstone of rural development policy in both the United States and Europe. It is evident that rural development objectives differ, but similar policy measures are used. The economic rationale for infrastructure development centres on efficiency and creation of competitive advantage. Policy intervention is justified because of the added costs of infrastructure provision in remote, sparsely populated areas. Although this policy focus does not guarantee success, regions leading in economic development typically have better physical infrastructure. In the United States, policy must adapt to challenges posed by an ageing rural infrastructure and demographic change that will increase demands on social infrastructure such as housing and health facilities. There will be greater local responsibility for funding, and expanded use of public/private partnerships. In the European Union, the major challenge is in redirecting resources to new member states, where there is urgent need for both large new investments in transport networks and small investments to improve local access. Although two current options for funding these diverse needs focus on European policies only, investments in non-farm physical capital and public infrastructure cannot be sustained without active national policies to complement the European efforts, perhaps through co-financing requirements. Infrastructures et développement rural : Perspectives aux États-Unis et dans l'Union européenne Le développement des infrastructures demeure un pilier de la politique de développement rural aux États-Unis comme dans l'Union européenne. Les objectifs de développement rural diffèrent bien évidemment mais des mesures semblables sont employées. La justification économique du développement des infrastructures repose sur l'efficience et la création d'avantages concurrentiels. L'intervention publique est justifiée par les coûts supplémentaires des infrastructures dans les zones éloignées à population clairsemée. Bien que ce type de politique ne garantisse pas le succès, les régions en avance de développement économique ont en général de meilleures infrastructures physiques. Aux États-Unis, la politique soit s'adapter aux défis que posent le vieillissement des infrastructures rurales et l'évolution démographique qui va augmenter la demande d'infrastructures sociales telles que les services de santé et de logement. La responsabilité du financement local va augmenter et les partenariats public/privé vont se développer. Dans l'Union européenne, le principal défi est de réorienter les ressources vers les nouveaux pays membres qui ont un besoin urgent de nouveaux investissement d'ampleur dans les réseaux de transport et d'investissement de plus faible ampleur dans l'amélioration des accès locaux. Deux options actuelles de financement de ces divers besoins se concentrent sur les seules politiques européennes, mais les investissements dans le capital physique non agricole et dans les infrastructures publiques ne peuvent pas se poursuivre sans des politiques nationales actives complémentant les efforts fournis au niveau européen, peut-être à travers des mécanismes de co-financement. Infrastruktur und Entwicklung des ländlichen Raums: Perspektiven aus den USA und der EU Bei der Entwicklung der Infrastruktur handelt es sich nach wie vor sowohl in den USA als auch in Europa um einen Eckpfeiler in der Politik zur Entwicklung des ländlichen Raums. Es ist offensichtlich, dass sich die Ziele bei der Entwicklung des ländlichen Raums unterscheiden, die Politikmaßnahmen ähneln sich jedoch. Die wirtschaftliche Begründung für die Entwicklung der Infrastruktur zielt auf die Effizienz und das Schaffen von Wettbewerbsvorteilen ab. Politikeingriffe sind gerechtfertigt, da die Bereitstellung von Infrastruktur in entlegenen, dünn besiedelten Gebieten höhere Kosten verursacht. Obgleich dieser Schwerpunkt der Politik den Erfolg noch nicht garantiert, verfügen die wirtschaftlich am weitesten entwickelten Regionen typischerweise über eine bessere physische Infrastruktur. In den USA muss sich die Politik an die Herausforderungen anpassen, welche eine in die Jahre gekommene Infrastruktur im ländlichen Raum und der demografische Wandel mit sich bringen, und wodurch neue Anforderungen an die soziale Infrastruktur, wie z.B. Wohnungsbau und Gesundheitseinrichtungen, gestellt werden. Bei der Finanzierung werden die Kommunen stärker in die Verantwortung genommen, und öffentlich-private Partnerschaften werden an Bedeutung gewinnen. In der EU besteht die größte Herausforderung darin, Ressourcen zu den neuen Mitgliedstaaten umzuverteilen, wo sowohl neue Großinvestitionen in die Transportnetzwerke als auch kleinere Investitionen zur Verbesserung des lokalen Zugangs dringend benötigt werden. Obwohl sich die beiden im Moment vorhandenen Optionen zur Finanzierung dieser vielfältigen Bedürfnisse ausschließlich auf europäische Politikmaßnahmen konzentrieren, können die Investitionen in außerlandwirtschaftliches physisches Kapital und in die öffentliche Infrastruktur nicht ohne wirksame Politikmaßnahmen auf nationaler Ebene (z.B. die Pflicht zur Kofinanzierung) als Ergänzung zu den Bemühungen auf europäischer Ebene aufrecht erhalten werden. [source] How Capital Budgeting Helped a Sick City: Thirty Years of Capital Improvement Planning in ClevelandPUBLIC BUDGETING AND FINANCE, Issue 1 2000Susan Hoffmann During the 1970s, Cleveland's capital improvement plan (CIP) was scorned as a bad joke, and the city's roads, bridges, and public buildings fell into disrepair. The city's default on its fiscal obligation in 1978 seemed to cap the city's infrastructure problem; there was no comprehensive strategy for capital spending and in a bankrupt city, no money to spend in any event. Yet, during the 1980s, with support from the administration, the business community, and the innovations of a small group of dedicated urban planners, the CIP was restructured and hundreds of millions were systematically invested in public infrastructure. By the 1990s, most of the innovative changes of the 1980s seemed to be institutionalized, but there were ominous clouds on the horizon. [source] TYPES OF PUBLIC CAPITAL AND THEIR PRODUCTIVITY IN JAPANESE PREFECTURES*THE JAPANESE ECONOMIC REVIEW, Issue 2 2008IZUMI MIYARA Several researchers have studied the productivity of public capital in Japan but most have not paid attention to the types of public infrastructure or differences in production technology between prefectures. We estimate prefectural production functions with differently aggregated public capital. Through the model selection process, we examine the types of productive public capital. The empirical results show the production technologies used and how types of productive public capital differ between prefectures. [source] Public Responses to Agricultural Disasters: Rethinking the Role of GovernmentCANADIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, Issue 4 2007Barry K. Goodwin We provide a broad overview of the role and history of federal disaster relief in U.S. agriculture. We discuss various economic arguments that may be used as justification for such disaster relief and subsidized insurance programs. In general, we find no persuasive argument that market failure justifies subsidized risk management activities by the government. Important exceptions exist in the case of catastrophic damages to public infrastructure, invasive and communicable disease threats, and the hazards posed by accidental or deliberate contamination of food supplies in that the presence of significant transactions costs may inhibit private market solutions. We also consider a panel VAR analysis of the dynamic interrelationships among market returns and farm program payments conveyed under three different types of programs,disaster assistance, crop insurance, and all other direct payments. An important finding is that disaster and insurance payments appear to imply higher subsequent levels of market income risk in agriculture. This finding is consistent with arguments that subsidized disaster assistance and insurance may lead to greater risk in agriculture. Nous présentons un large aperçu du rôle et de l'historique du programme fédéral d'assistance en cas de catastrophe agricole aux États-Unis. Nous analysons différents arguments économiques qui peuvent justifier ces programmes d'aide et d'assurance subventionnés. En général, nous ne trouvons aucun argument convaincant comme quoi une défaillance de marché justifie des activités de gestion du risque subventionnées par le gouvernement. Cependant, des exceptions importantes existent pour les cas de dommages catastrophiques à des infrastructures publiques; de menaces de maladies contagieuses et invasives; et de dangers associés à la contamination accidentelle ou délibérée de la chaîne alimentaire, auquel cas les coûts de transaction importants pourraient inhiber les solutions du marché privé. Nous considérons également une analyse panel VAR des relations entre les rendements de marché et les paiements versés en vertu de trois types de programme: assistance en cas de catastrophe, assurance récolte et tout autre type de paiement direct. Nous en arrivons à la conclusion importante que les paiements d'assurance et d'aide aux sinistrés semblent mener à des niveaux de risque relatif au revenu marchand plus élevés dans le secteur de l'agriculture. Ceci concorde avec les arguments voulant que les programmes subventionnés d'assurance et d'assistance en cas de catastrophe mènent à une augmentation des risques dans le secteur de l'agriculture. [source] | ||||||||||