Beyond Cost Benefit Analysis: A SAM-CGE Model for Project-Program Evaluation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33423/ajm.v24i3.7273Keywords:
management, project, autonomy, embeddedness, structure, social accounting matrix, social rate of returnAbstract
This paper presents a new methodology of project evaluation based on the use of a social accounting matrix (SAM). The proposed method considers both the project as an autonomous shock and an endogenous activity, thus capturing both the demand and the supply side effects that can be associated with investment. In assessing project impact, these two effects have to be considered complementary, even though they may be combined in different proportions and with different strength in different practical cases. The autonomous dimension is however a distinctive feature of a project as an economic concept. Its consideration has important implications for assessing a project’s structural impact as an activity ranging from complete isolation to total embeddedness in the economic system. The paper also shows that both in its construction and operational phases the project displays structural effects on the economic system and that these effects may be sizable and partly offsetting the project’s direct impact on demand and supply variables.
References
Ciaschini, M., Felici, F., Pretaroli, R., Severini, F., & Socci, C. (2020). MACGEM – ITA: A SAM-based GCE model for the Italian economy. MEF working paper (No. 1).
Decaluwe, B., Lemelin, A., Maisonnave, H., & Robichaud, V. (2009). PEP-1-1: The PEP standard, computable general equilibrium model, single-country, static version.
Easterly, W. (2009). Can the West save Africa? Journal of Economic Literature, 47(2), 373–447.
Godenhjelm, S. (2016). Project organisations and governance: Processes, actors, actions, and participatory procedures. Publications of the Faculty of Social Sciences.
Godenhjelm, S., & Sjöblom, S. (2009). Temporary organisations as hybrids: Challenges and mechanisms for public value creation. In S. Sjöblom, & K. Löfgren (Eds.), Hybrid governance, organisations and society: Value creation perspectives (pp. 92–112). Routledge.
Harper, D.A., & Endres, A.M. (2016). Innovation, recombinant capital, and public policy. Supreme Court Economic Review, 23(1), 193–219.
Hirschman, A.O. (1967). Development projects observed. The Brookings Institution.
Kapsali, M. (2011). Systems thinking in innovation project management: A match that works. International Journal of Project Management, 29(4), 396–407.
Kavitha, S., Prasad, N.H., Samal, C.K., & Hanumanthappa, M. (2022). Evaluation of cost-benefit analysis using One-R supervised machine learning algorithm for healthcare.
Knudsen, O.K., & Scandizzo, P.L. (2005). Bringing social standards into project evaluation under dynamic uncertainty. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 25(2), 457–466.
Koppány, K. (2017). Estimating growth contributions by structural decomposition of input-output tables. Acta Oeconomica, 67(4), 605–642.
Lingane, A., & Olsen, S. (2004). Guidelines for social return on investment. California Management Review, 46(3), 116–135.
Lundin, R.A., & Soderholm, A. (1995). A theory of the temporary organization. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11, 437–455.
Munck af Rosenschöld, J. (2017). Projectified environmental governance and challenges of institutional change toward sustainability. Publications of the Faculty of Social Sciences.
Munck af Rosenschöld, J. (2019). Inducing institutional change through projects? Three models of projectified governance. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 21(4), 333–344.
Munck af Rosenschöld, J., & Wolf, S.A. (2017). Toward projectified environmental governance? Environment and Planning A, 49(2), 273–292.
Pennisi, G., & Scandizzo, P.L. (2006). Economic evaluation in an age of uncertainty. Evaluation, 12(1), 77–94.
Phelps, E.S. (2013). Mass flourishing. Princeton University Press.
Rose, A., & Casler, S. (1996). Input-output structural decomposition analysis: A critical appraisal. Economic Systems Research, 8(1), 33–62.
Scandizzo, P.L. (2021). Integrating impact and cost-benefit analysis. Journal of Economic Structures, 10(8).
Sjöblom, S., Löfgren, K., & Godenhjelm, S. (2013). Projectified politics: Temporary organisations in a public context. Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration, 17(2), 3–12.
Sloman, A., & Chrisley, R.L. (2005). More things than are dreamt of in your biology: Information-processing in biologically inspired robots. Cognitive Systems Research, 6(2), 145–174.
Socci, C., Felici, F., Pretaroli, R., Severini, F., & Loiero, R. (2021). The multisector applied computable general equilibrium model for Italian economy (MACGEM – IT). Italian Economic Journal, 7, 109–127.
Stavins, R.N. (1998). What can we learn from the grand policy experiment? Lessons from SO2 allowance trading. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12, 69–88.
Tahmida, N. (2019). Environmental accounting disclosure practices: A survey of some listed companies in Bangladesh. Business and Management, pp. 17–23.
Tietenberg, T. (2000). Environmental and natural resource economics (4th Ed.). Harper-Collins.
Tukiainen, S., & Granqvist, N. (2016). Temporary organizing and institutional change. Organization Studies, 37(12), 1819–1840.
Van Buuren, A., & Loorbach, D. (2009). Policy innovation in isolation? Conditions for policy renewal by transition arenas and pilot projects. Public Management Review, 11(3), 375–392.
Vihma, P., & Wolf, S.A. (2022). Between autonomy and embeddedness: Project interfaces and institutional change in environmental governance. Critical Policy Studies, pp. 1–23.
Weitzman, M.L. (1976). On the welfare significance of national product in a dynamic economy. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 90(1), 156–162.
Weitzman, M.L. (1988). Consumer’s surplus as an exact approximation when prices are appropriately deflated. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 103(3), 543–553.
