Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Discount. --- Investments --- Social aspects. --- Discount --- 355 --- AA / International- internationaal --- Investing --- Investment management --- Portfolio --- Finance --- Disinvestment --- Loans --- Saving and investment --- Speculation --- Bank discount --- Discount rate --- Social aspects --- Milieu

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

This mixed methods study investigates why fewer than one in five impact evaluations integrates a value-for-money analysis of the development intervention being evaluated. This study distills four main insights from combined analysis of 33 semi-structured and unstructured interviews, surveys of 497 policy makers and 16 journal editors, and portfolio analyses of World Bank and worldwide impact evaluations. The study finds that low levels of training in cost data collection and analysis methods, together with a lack of standardization of the value-for-money assumptions (e.g., time horizons, discount rates, and economic or financial cost accounting) limit value-for-money integration into impact evaluations. Further eroding researchers' incentives, demand for cost evidence from the journals that publish impact evaluations is mixed. Ill-defined standards of rigor undermine editors' capacity to evaluate the quality of value-for-money analysis when it is integrated with impact evaluation evidence. Institutional funders of impact evaluations do not consistently demand that cost analysis be integrated into their funded evaluations. This study finds no evidence in support of the myth that policymakers do not demand cost evidence. Rather, it finds that researchers have few ways of knowing what kind of analysis policymakers need and when they need it. Improving the stock of impact evaluators who are cross trained in value-for-money methods, establishing standards in what constitutes rigor in costing, resolving methodological issues, and improving linkages between policymakers and researchers would lead to greater integration of value-for-money methods in impact evaluations.

Cost Accounting --- Cost-Benefit Analysis --- Cost-Effectiveness --- Development Economics and Aid Effectiveness --- Discount Rate --- Impact Evaluation --- Macroeconomics and Economic Growth --- Science and Technology Development --- Standards and Technical Regulations --- Statistical and Mathematical Sciences --- Time Horizon --- Value For Money

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

This background paper describes five different tools that can be used for the assessment of tax incentives by governments in low income countries' (LICs). The first tool (an application of cost-benefit analysis) provides an overarching framework for assessment. Evaluations of the various costs and benefits of tax incentives are vital for informed decision making, but are rarely undertaken, partly because it can be a difficult exercise that is demanding in terms of data needs. The next three tools (tax expenditure assessment, corporate micro simulation models, and effective tax rate models) can be used as part of a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis, to shed light on particular aspects. Effective tax rate models shed light on the implications of tax parameters - including targeted tax incentives - on investment returns and help understand the implications of reform for expected investment outcomes. The document presents two tools for assessing the transparency and governance of tax incentives in LICs. These discuss principles in transparency and governance of tax incentives, and allow for benchmarking existing LIC practices against better alternatives.

Accounting --- Bonds --- Debt --- Debt Markets --- Developing Countries --- Discount Rate --- Emerging Markets --- Equity --- Expenditures --- Finance --- Finance and Financial Sector Development --- Foreign Direct Investment --- Global Economy --- Globalization --- Income Tax --- Inflation --- Insurance --- Intangible Assets --- Legal Framework --- Life Insurance --- Macroeconomics and Economic Growth --- Opportunity Cost --- Private Sector Development --- Public Finance --- Rule of Law --- Tax Administration --- Tax Exemptions --- Tax Policy --- Taxation & Subsidies --- Taxes --- Telecommunications --- Transparency

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

There are three stakeholders in a public-private partnership (PPP), (a) the government in office, (b) private firms (financial and non-financial) and investors (individual and institutional), and (c) final beneficiaries (taxpayers or users, present and future). The raison detre of PPPs is threefold: (i) to crowd in private firms and investors into projects that they will otherwise not undertake; (ii) to transfer to the private sector a significant part of the risks and costs that the government would otherwise fully absorb; and (iii) to ensure that the projects efficiency/quality is at least equal to that obtained if the government alone carried all costs and risks. Important (yet often ignored) implications follow. First, outsourcing (e.g., construction and maintenance) to the private sector does not by itself constitute a PPP if all risks and costs are, in one way or another, still borne by the government. Second, a PPP does not reduce total risk; it simply distributes it differently, involving private sector firms and investors. Third, the total costs borne by the final beneficiaries would be lower under a PPP (compared to a project whose costs and risks rest completely in the governments balance sheet) only if the PPP achieves efficiency gains; otherwise, what beneficiaries save in taxes they will pay in user fees, although, under a PPP, more of the costs would be assigned to direct beneficiaries/users, than to taxpayers at large. Fourth, that a PPP can provide (cash) budget relief may be a welcome corollary for the government in office but it is not a core objective of a PPP.

Access to Finance --- Accounting --- Bankruptcy and Resolution of Financial Distress --- Bonds --- Capital Markets --- Commercial Banks --- Contracts --- Debt --- Debt Markets --- Default --- Discount Rate --- Due Diligence --- Economic Development --- Emerging Markets --- Finance --- Finance and Financial Sector Development --- Financial Services --- Infrastructure Economics and Finance --- Insurance --- Jurisdiction --- Life Insurance --- Loans --- Long-Term Finance --- Outsourcing --- Private Participation in Infrastructure --- Private Sector Development --- Public Finance --- Public-Private Partnerships --- Savings --- Taxes

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Contingent liabilities create management problems for governments. They have a cost, but judging what the cost is and whether it is worth incurring is difficult. Except in the case of contingent liabilities created by simple guarantees of debt, governments usually can incur contingent liabilities without budgetary approval or recognition in the governments accounts. So governments may prefer contingent liabilities to other obligations. (The uncertainty surrounding contingent liabilities can work differently. It is well known that PPPs create contingent liabilities, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and others often warn of the risks. The initial reaction of a cautious Ministry of Finance may be to seek to avoid all contingent liabilities.) Management problems also arise once a government has incurred a contingent liability. Projects need to be monitored to reduce risks if possible. Spending on contingent liabilities must sometimes be forecast, despite the difficulty.

Accounting --- Auctions --- Bankruptcy --- Bankruptcy and Resolution of Financial Distress --- Contracts --- Credibility --- Debt Markets --- Default --- Deposit Insurance --- Developing Countries --- Discount Rate --- Equity --- Exchange Rates --- Expenditures --- Finance and Financial Sector Development --- Financial Crisis --- Financial Management --- Gross Domestic Product --- Inflation --- Information Technology --- Insurance --- Political Economy --- Property Rights --- Public Sector Development --- Risk Management --- Rule of Law --- Securities --- Tariffs --- Transparency --- Transport