La inversión pública, el ciclo de proyectos y los bancos de proyectos = Public investment, project cycle and project banks

Incluye Bibliografía

Methodological and operational bases for public investment management

Includes bibliography

Methodological bases for the programming and efficient management of public investment

Includes bibliography

In sickness and in health: protecting and supporting public investment in Europe. Bruegel Policy Contribution 2014/02, February 2014

The long-term decline in gross public investment in European Union countries mirrors the trend in other advanced economies, but recent developments have been different: public investment has increased elsewhere, but in the EU it has declined and even collapsed in the most vulnerable countries, exaggerating the output fall. The provisions in the EU fiscal framework to support public investment are very weak.The recently inserted ‘investment clause’ is almost no help. In the short term, exclusion of national co-funding of EU-supported investments from the fiscal indicators considered in the Stability and Growth Pact would be sensible. In the medium term, the EU fiscal framework should be extended with an asymmetric ‘golden rule’ to further protect public investment in bad times, while limiting adverse incentives in good times. During a downturn, a European investment programme is needed and the European Semester should encourage greater investment by member states with healthy public finances and low public investment rates. Reform and harmonisation of budgeting, accounting, transparency and project assessment is also needed to improve the quality of public investment.

Monetary Policy and Public Investment. CEPS Commentary, 14 January 2016

Since the start of 2015, the ECB has been applying quantitative easing (QE), i.e. a programme in which large amounts of money are injected in the economy. Every month the ECB buys €60 billion of government bonds and in so doing injects the same amount of money in the economy. To date, the total amount of liquidity injection approaches €700 billion. On 3 December 2015, the ECB announced that this programme would be continued until February 2017. As a result, the cumulative amount of bond purchases will then reach €1.56 trillion.

Secondary impacts of public investment in natural resources; proceedings of a symposium, September 25-27, 1968.

Sponsored by Natural Resource Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture.

Economic growth and public and private investment returns

We study the macroeconomic effects of public and private investment in 17 OECD economies through a VAR analysis with annual data from 1960 to 2014. From impulse response functions we find that public investment had a positive growth effect in most countries, and a contractionary effect in Finland, UK, Sweden, Japan, and Canada. Public investment led to private investment crowding out in Belgium, Ireland, Finland, Canada, Sweden, the UK and crowding-in effects in the rest of the countries. Private investment has a positive growth effect in all countries; crowds-out (crowds-in) public investment in Belgium and Sweden (in the rest of the countries). The partial rates of return of public and private investment are mostly positive.

Macroeconomic rates of return of public and private investment : crowding-in and crowding-out effects

Using annual data from 14 European Union countries, plus Canada, Japan and the United States, we evaluate the macroeconomic effects of public and private investment through VAR analysis. From impulse response functions, we are able to assess the extent of crowding-in or crowding-out of both components of investment. We also compute the associated macroeconomic rates of return of public and private investment for each country. The results point mostly to the existence of positive effects of public investment and private investment on output. On the other hand, the crowding-in effects of public investment on private investment vary across countries, while the crowding-in effect of private investment on public investment is more generalised.

Is privatisation good for investment in Australia?

Privatisation was expected to promote investment in the economy as part of improving dynamic efficiency. The relation between aggregate public and private investment in Australia is investigated in an endogeneous ECM framework. Model selection for a simple investment function allows restrictions for neoclassical crowding out or Keynesian crowding in (after Aschauer 1989) in a small open economy. An ECM is estimated including annual aggregate private investment, public investment, income, rate of return, average interest cost, exchange rate and inventories from 1960 to 2005. Public capital appears unresponsive to shocks and crowding out is not evident.

Identifying attributes contributing to environmental sustainability of public-private partnership infrastructure projects

Due to increasing demands for new infrastructure and an aim to reduce initial public investment, Australian government agencies are increasingly using public-private partnerships (PPPs) as a form of delivery for infrastructure projects. Environmentally, there is growing pressure for the building industry in general to become more sustainable. Moreover, as the built environment continues to grow each year, the performance of buildings as a whole will need to continually improve purely for national energy consumption to remain stable. Based on a systematic and extensive review on relevant literature, this paper has identified the key attributes that will influence the environmental sustainability of infrastructure completed through a PPP. The key attributes are grouped into five groups defined by whom or what has the majority of control over the attribute. Meanwhile, the key attributes are explored and their influence on environmental sustainability justified. This paper was able to not only identify significant factors involved in creating environmental sustainability in infrastructure PPPs, but also trends of the key attributes. It has been found that (1) the longevity of the contract in a PPP project allows greater innovation into environmental sustainability than traditional methods of procurement, (2) innovation is a requirement for the improving upon environmental performance in the built environment, (3) improvements to environmental sustainability relies upon a positive relationship between economic and environmental benefits, and (4) the key attributes for PPP projects are decided upon relatively early in the contract. Due to space limit, detailed discussion on each of the identified attributes is not provided in this paper. Nonetheless, further research direction is discussed.

A note on policy, the composition of public expenditures and economic growth

In this article we study the growth and welfare effects of fiscal and monetary policies in economies where public investment is part of the productive process we present four different models that share the same technology with public infrastructure as a separate argument of the production function. We show that growth is maximized at positive levels of income tax and inflation. However, unless there are no transfers or public goods in the economy, maximization of growth does not imply welfare maximization we show that the optimal tax rate is greater than the rate that maximizes growth and the optimal rate of money creation is below the growth maximizing rate. With public infrastructure in the production function we no longer obtain superneutrality in the Sidrausky model.

Welfare and fiscal policy with public goods and infrastructure

We construct and simulate a model to study the welfare and macroeconomic impact of government actions when its productive role is taken into account. The trade-off between public investment and public consumption is also investigated, since public consumption is introduced as a public good that directly affects individuals' well-being. Our results replicate econometric evidence showing that part of the observed slowdown of U.S. productivity growth can be explained by the reduction of investment in infrastructure which also implied a sizable welfare 1085 to the popu1ation. Depending on the methodology used we found a welfare cost ranging from 4.2% to 1.16% of GNP. The impact of fiscal policy can be qualitative and quantitative distinct depending on Whether we assume a higher or smaller output elasticity to infrastructure. If it is high enough, increases in tax rates may stimulate accumulation and production, which is the opposite prediction of standard ncocJassica1 models.

A note on growth, welfare and public policy

In this note the growth anti welfare effects of fiscal anti monetary policies are investigated in three economies where public investment is part of the productive process It is shown that growth is maximized at positive levels of income tax and inflation but that there is no direct relationship between government size, productivity and growth or between inflation and growth. However, unless there are no transfers or public goods in the economy, maximization of growth does not imply welfare maximization and the optimal tax rate and government size are greater than those that maximize growth. Money is not superneutral anti the optimal rate of money creation is below the maximizing rate of growth.

Government policy and private investment in Brazil (1955/82)

The questlon of the crowding-out of private !nvestment by public expenditure, public investment in particular , ln the Brazilian economy has been discussed more in ideological terrns than on empirical grounds. The present paper tries to avoid the limitation of previous studies by estlmatlng an equation for private investment whlch makes it possible to evaluate the effect of economic policies on prlvate investment. The private lnvestment equation was deduced modifylng the optimal flexible accelerator medel (OFAM) incorporating some channels through which public expendlture influences privateinvestment. The OFAM consists in adding adjustment costs to the neoclassical theory of investrnent. The investment fuction deduced is quite general and has the following explanatory variables: relative prices (user cost of capitaljimput prices ratios), real interest rates, real product, public expenditures and lagged private stock of capital. The model was estimated for private manufacturing industry data. The procedure adopted in estimating the model was to begin with a model as general as possible and apply restrictions to the model ' s parameters and test their statistical significance. A complete diagnostic testing was also made in order to test the stability of estirnated equations. This procedure avoids ' the shortcomings of estimating a model with a apriori restrictions on its parameters , which may lead to model misspecification. The main findings of the present study were: the increase in public expenditure, at least in the long run, has in general a positive expectation effect on private investment greater than its crowding-out effect on priva te investment owing to the simultaneous rise in interst rates; a change in economlc policy, such as that one of Geisel administration, may have an important effect on private lnvestment; and reI ative prices are relevant in determining the leveI of desired stock of capital and private investrnent.