1 / 22

Place-Based Policies for Development

Explore the effectiveness and challenges of place-based policies in promoting economic growth and reducing spatial inequalities. Analyze the impact of infrastructure investment, spatial decision-making, and market failures.

Download Presentation

Place-Based Policies for Development

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Place-based policies for development Gilles Duranton and Tony Venables Wharton School and University of Oxford & International Growth Centre

  2. Introduction: Place-Based Policies • Much development policy is inherently place-based • Where do you invest in utilities? • Where should transport links be improved? • What should be done about spatial inequalities? Many of these policies, need to concentrate investments not smear • Inevitably forced to ‘pick spatial winners’ • How should decisions about PBP be taken? • What are the objectives? • Delivery of eg transport services? • Wider impact on local economic performance? • What are the instruments? • Packages of policy measures • What are the market failures? • What is the evidence?

  3. Introduction: Place-Based Policies • Spatial policies form a large part of WB activity: • Infrastructure: transport, utilities • Economic corridors • Intra-city transport • Urban policy • Special Economic Zones • GD & TV commissioned by WB to review: • Economics of PBP • Framework for project appraisal/ decision taking • Include study of selected WB projects & discussions with TTLs • Remarks on effectiveness of WB process • This talk: • Issues and framework: TV • Topic specific issues: TV/ GD • Conclusions and lessons for the WB: GD • NB: Project still in progress – draft for discussion

  4. What is distinctive about PBP? • The spatial context • Market mechanism works imperfectly in guiding spatial choices • Main purpose of spatial policy is often its ‘indirect’ effects: • Direct effect: eg, time saving. • Indirect effect: induced private sector investment, job creation, productivity, regional growth • Timing: lagging or leading? • Policy in response to revealed or imminent demand (eg congestion) • Policy to act as a catalyst to lead economic change  • Empirical evidence • Causality • Displacement: local vs general equilibrium effects • Context specificity

  5. The spatial context • Proximity matters • Positive: agglomeration economies & clustering • Through ‘perfect’ markets (eg transp. cost saving, cheaper infrastructure delivery) • Through ‘imperfect’ markets (scale and specialisation, new varieties, learning, matching, risk pooling….) • Through externalities (knowledge spillovers) • Negative: Externalities of congestion and contagion • Complementarities and coordination failure • Returns to my investment increasing in what others do • The business ecosystem: suppliers, customers, workers • Location decisions are long run & non-marginal: sunk costs and expectations. • Hard to start new centres/ clusters • Lock in to low-level equilibrium (eg excess primacy) • Intra-country price and wage adjustment • Absolute advantage not comparative advantage • Little leverage from variation in prices of immobile factors (i.e. land)  Shocks not damped by price adjustment, but amplified by factor movement.

  6. Analysis of PBP • Analysis of PBP requires two steps I: Quantity change: how does the policy change quantities? • Direct: delivery of services, time savings etc • Indirect: induced investment, jobs, output, productivity • Relative to some alternative • Local and national (partial and general equilibrium) II: Valuation: what is the value of changes in quantities? • Both of these are challenging, especially for indirect effects • Traditional CBA – assume no indirect effects, or they are of zero value • Include indirect effects: risk that ‘anything goes’: • Double counting: • Over optimism • Need framework that balances ‘relevance with rigor’: • Relevance: economic analysis that covers the strategic case & indirect effects • Rigor: challenge the double-counting, over optimism

  7. Quantity change and induced private investment Will a PBP succeed in inducing a private investment response? Responses are hard to predict because: • Private sector response depends on many ‘necessary’ conditions. • Publicly provided services • Infrastructure, connectivity, regulation, tax, governance, • Private decisions: The ‘business ecosystem’ • Access to: Labour skills/ suppliers/ customers/ capital/ land,  Weakest link problem • Threshold effects and non-marginal change • Policy levers do not map continuously (or 1 – 1) into outcomes • Displacement or additionality? Quantity effects and general equilibrium • Displacement via product market (inelastic demand for output: eg just relocation) • Displacement via factor markets (inelastic supply of labour: eg draws workers from similar firm)  Have to look more broadly than proximity of project

  8. Valuation: what are quantity changes worth? I: Seeking to measure social values not GDP. II: Benchmark: Efficient markets  marginal values of goods/ factors same in all uses  induced (small) quantity changes are of zero value • Where are the inefficiencies? • Jobs: what is the opportunity cost of labour (shadow wage)? • Displacement from where? / productivity gaps/ induced migration • Misallocation of factors: land, capital • Static • Dynamic: locked-in to increasingly inefficient equilibrium • Agglomeration (and congestion dis-) economies • Externalities and market failures • Non-marginal change • Investor does not capture full value of investment as prices change (eg consumer price falls, wage rate increases)

  9. Quantity change and valuation: summary • Quantity changes – particularly of indirect effects – are hard to predict with confidence • Threshold effects, complementarities, coordination failure • Valuation: Multiple inefficiencies – some pulling in different directions • Eg, at margin of urban size, agglomeration or congestion? • Policy being considered is not a move to the first best: • Binary decision on one project – or decision over wider set of alternatives? Implications? • Hard to do the analysis: • But we know exactly what the analysis should be looking for • Need rigorous and systematic checklist • Breadth and realism on quantity changes • Identification of market failures/ inefficiencies in their valuation

  10. Special Economic Zones: a checklist • Statement of objectives: • Private investment and job creation? • SEZ in a particular place is the chosen policy because? • Mechanism to overcome coordination failure in private investment? • Economies of scale in provision of infrastructure? • Constraints (financial or political economy?) on implementation everywhere? • Want to target a particular place (eg lagging region)? • Quantity change? • What instruments? Will they work to create jobs in the SEZ? • Multiple conditions to be met: • Connectivity, utilities, land, regulation, tax • Expectations: • Government commitment • The business ecosystem • Potential role of large developer • The evidence

  11. Special Economic Zones: a checklist Quantity change …. outside the SEZ • Will it grow the local economy? • Development of suppliers/ capabilities outside the SEZ • Displacement: Where are the jobs coming from? • Tradable vs non-tradable sectors • Labour supply • Valuation? • What is the cost (infrastructure, tax revenue foregone?) • What is income generated NET of opportunity cost (shadow wage) • Are there externalities – eg learning by local firms – that can be identified? In summary: • Clarity of objectives. • Are there better places/ projects to achieve these objectives? • Realism about achieving narrowly defined success of the SEZ • Overall assessment includes looking outside the SEZ

  12. Transport improvements and economic corridors • Large literatures on transport project appraisal techniques and on impact of transport on economic performance. • Clear tensions between: • Traditional narrow CBA • Claims about ‘transformative’ (or rebalancing) effects of transport improvement. • Empirics not connecting with valuation and needs of project appraisal Three remarks: I: Core of a transport appraisal should be estimate of direct effects • Quantity: transport users and traffic creation • Value: time and voc saving II: Indirect effects: Potentially important, but uneven • Better connectivity  good place to invest because of better access to suppliers and to customers • But: local market becomes more open to ‘import’ competition. • Outcomes depend on complementary measures

  13. Transport improvements and economic corridors III: Other approaches to transport appraisal: UK DfT • Traditional narrow CBA • + ‘Wider benefits’ – in very tightly structured and disciplined way • Agglomeration and productivity: • Transport improvement increases ‘effective density’ (firms, workers economically closer together) • Agglomeration: elasticity of productivity wrt effective density • Productivity gain • Move to more productive jobs: • Labour productivity gaps: UK context due to marginal income tax rates • Gain to fiscal revenues. • Is this a good approach? • Attempt to address ‘relevance with rigor’ • Sometimes applied too mechanically • Permitted list of ‘wider benefits’ too constrained?

  14. Urban transport: some preliminaries • We allocate large resources to urban transport and transport outcomes vary a lot across places • Urban transport is a funny commodity, more of a friction • The key metric should the total cost (monetary, time, and utility cost) of reaching destinations, not the unit cost per unit of distance Put differently, it’s about accessibility, not mobility • If we think of accessibility as the product of mobility and proximity, which one matters more? • Then, it’s not about the destinations we choose today. It’s about the choice set • How should we think about this beyond ad-hoc indices or econometric straightjackets that impose impossible data requirements? • We pay for travel in time and money but also in housing costs • A key complication: several technologies are available for urban transport

  15. Urban transport improvements: quantity and price changes • In a simple demand and supply framework, a transport improvement is a downward shift in the supply curve • We can measure the direct effects through changes in consumer surplus • An improvement in one technology (e.g., roads) can affect another (e.g., public transport), perhaps negatively • Obviously, there are some externalities: congestion, pollution, and accidents on the negative side, access/agglomeration on the positive side • An apparent paradox: No increase in consumer surplus when demand is flat?

  16. Zooming in on congestion • Congestion is easy to integrate to our simple framework: individual travel decisions are made on the basis of average costs, not marginal costs • ,, • mmm • We (economists) all say “tax congestion” but how big is the marginal vs average wedge? • The answer appears to depend on the unit of analysis: Roads vs areas • Regardless, the deadweight loss of congestion is a small (tiny) triangle, not a big rectangle • But there might be hyper-congestion • So should we care about congestion or capacity? Roadway capacity or “engineering” and other forms of capacity? • Static or dynamic congestion?

  17. Urban transport improvements: effects on land use • So far, we have thought about transport improvement, keeping locations constant • Even in absence of new/re development, there may be residential re-sorting. Transit users moving close to a new, more efficient transit line will generate economic benefits even in absence of a change in mode choice • The destination of trips may also change allowing for instance workers to reach better work opportunities (or improving their bargaining powers) • These subtle effects are extremely hard to measure • Rely on LUTI models? • Very black-box • Only as good as the mechanisms they consider • Only as a good the (unidentified?) parameters fed to them • Rely on an access/effective density elasticity? Perhaps (not) – more on that later • Rely on another summary statistic? Land values? Some crucial limitations: • Imperfect mobility, residential heterogeneity, changes in land/housing consumption per capita • National “general equilibrium” effects. A BRT in a large city may affect land values in other cities

  18. Housing and other urban infrastructure (brief) • Lots of policies: Enabling markets vs housing demand/supply subsidies • Enabling markets is tough: • Technical element (cadastre / land registry) vs. clear and fairly uniform definition of property rights vs. property right protection by the judiciary • Housing finance • Necessary, be it only for financing rentals • What about renting? Perhaps even harder • Many conditions to make it work • What about renting? Perhaps even harder to have well functioning rental markets • Given the difficulty of enabling markets, direct supply or demand interventions are highly alluring to many governments • Some countries have been “very successful” at changing quantities • Where / how should this occur: urban expansion vs retrofitting vs upgrading • Urban expansion will need to be part of the mix in most places and retrofitting will also occur in desirable locations • Valuing changes in housing quantities • Titles make it easier to borrow when credit constrained and move (though perhaps no extra borrowing for entrepreneurs) • Large externalities associated with better housing and housing related infrastructure? • Many complementary public goods: transport/ access, utilities, pavement • Unfortunately, these basic principles were forgotten by recent large-scale policies

  19. Lessons for project evaluation: some disclaimers • These are personal opinions, derived from our reading of the literature, our thinking, our readings of (some) WB PADs, and interviews/meetings with TTLs (plus equivalents at ADB/CAF) • We are not claiming that the sample of projects we looked at is representative nor any kind of statistical significance • We are not claiming much originality either

  20. Our view of current practice • Process: the PAD structure is rigorous and strong but • Sometimes the document is not taken seriously enough (box ticking vs. true engagement) • Substance: the treatment of indirect effects is often problematic • Indirect effects are simply absent sometimes • Double-counted or inconsistently-counted often • Lack of grounding in a well-defined framework/model • Exposition: the economic analysis is generally careful and rigorous but • No clear separation between direct and indirect effects • Opaque • No accessible “reduced-form” calculation • Suspicious bunching of economic rates of return around 13% • Context: political economy problems • When projects arrive from countries, it is often too late to ask for more than marginal changes • Moral hazard: no strong incentives to stop bad projects • Execution: management / HR problems • “Dumping” of projects on young TTLs • Day-to-day management is about calming fires • Weak transmission of skills/experience/practical expertise/”wisdom”

  21. Our recommendations: general directions • The WB should empower itself to say no or make major changes to projects at various stages • Greater support for execution / implementation and the people in charge of these tasks • Improve quality of evaluation/appraisal (see next slide) There are complementarities between these three objectives

  22. Our recommendations: some specifics about project evaluation • Engage with countries and local policy makers earlier and get them to think about problems first rather than solutions • Projects should be organised around a clear narrative – again what is the problem? (as opposed to a solution in search of a problem) • Careful description / projection of the quantity changes • Distinguish between displacement and creation • Description of the key expected mechanisms / channels of transmission • Careful valuation of expected quantity changes • In light of the market failure at hand • Obviously, displacements and creation need to be valued differently • Equity considerations (if any) need to be explicit • Thorough description of complementary measures • A clear main rationale does not mean a unique intervention • Clearly separate direct from indirect effects • Provide a “reduced-form” calculation that is easy to understand and transparent: be broadly right as opposed to precisely wrong… • Make the case for cost effectiveness – what could be the alternatives to achieve the same outcome? Is the project at hand the best one?

More Related