+7 925 966 4690, 9am6pm (GMT+3), Monday – Friday
ИД «Финансы и кредит»

JOURNALS

  

FOR AUTHORS

  

SUBSCRIBE

    
Economic Analysis: Theory and Practice
 

Foreign approaches to assessing the efficiency of investment in innovation infrastructure and their possible application in Russia

Vol. 14, Iss. 41, NOVEMBER 2015

PDF  Article PDF Version

Received: 17 July 2015

Accepted: 30 September 2015

Available online: 9 November 2015

Subject Heading: INVESTMENT ANALYSIS

JEL Classification: 

Pages: 23-34

Mel'nikov R.M. International Institute of Public Administration and Management of Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, Moscow, Russian Federation
rmmel@mail.ru

Subject The article presents a comparative analysis of techniques to assess the efficiency of investments in innovation infrastructure that have been recently developed by European scientists and those practiced in Russia.
     Objectives
The aim is to reveal reserves for improving the Russian techniques to assess investment in innovation infrastructure.
     Methods The study rests on the methodology for the cost-benefit analysis of socially significant investment projects.
     Results I propose a technique to assess the benefits of beneficiary companies from creating the infrastructure to support innovation. This technique considers such factors as the quantity of created start-ups, the level of their profits and probability of their survival under scenarios that include and exclude the implementation of infrastructure projects.
     Conclusions and Relevance The analysis of techniques used in Russia to assess the efficiency of projects for building the science parks, the Skolkovo innovation center, and the national system of venture investments demonstrates that the Russian practice ignores the recent developments of the relevant European methodology. The simplified techniques that are commonly used in Russia do not enable to consider the costs and benefits of significant infrastructure projects. This results in the risk of inefficient expenditure of budget funds. To enhance the performance of Russian financial and nonfinancial institutions for development focused on infrastructure support, it is crucial to shift the emphasis to preliminary assessment and subsequent monitoring the results obtained by major beneficiaries, and to compare them with the funds allocated by the State.

Keywords: innovation, infrastructure, Science Park, development institutions, cost-benefit analysis, key performance indicators

References:

  1. Florio M., Sirtori E. The Evaluation of Research Infrastructures: a Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework. Milan European Economy Workshops Working Papers, 2014, no. 2014-10.
  2. Del Bo Ch. The Rate of Return to Investment in R&D Infrastructure: An Overview. Milan European Economy Workshops Working Papers, 2014, no. 2014-11.
  3. Carrazza S., Ferrara A., Salini S. Research Infrastructures in the LHA Era: A Scientometric Approach. Milan European Economy Workshops Working Papers, 2014, no. 2014-12.
  4. Pancotti Ch., Pellegrin J., Vignetti S. Appraisal of Research Infrastructures: Approaches, Methods, and Practical Implications. Milan European Economy Workshops Working Papers, 2014, no. 2014-13.
  5. Clarke S., Mawhinney M., Swerdlow R., Teichmann D. Project Preparation and CBA of RDI Infrastructure Projects. JASPERS Knowledge Economy and Energy Division, 2013.
  6. Salter A., Martin B. The Economic Benefits of Publicly Funded Basic Research: A Critical Review. Research Policy, 2001, vol. 30, pp. 509–532.
  7. Drèze J., Stern N. Policy Reform, Shadow Prices and Market Prices. Journal of Public Economics, 1990, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 1–45.
  8. Florio M. Applied Welfare Economics: Cost-Benefit Analysis of Projects and Policy. London, Routledge, 2014.
  9. Belli P., Anderson J., Barnum H., Dixon J., Tan J-P. Handbook on Economic Analysis of Investment Decisions. Washington, DC, World Bank, Operations Policy Department, Learning and Leadership Center, 1997.
  10. Castiglione D., Van Deth J., Wolleb G. The Handbook of Social Capital. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008.
  11. Atkinson G., Mourato S., Pearce D. Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment: Recent Developments. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2006.
  12. Carson R. Contingent Valuation: A Practical Alternative When Prices Aren’t Available. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2012, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 27–42.
  13. Mrozek J., Taylor L. What Determines the Value of Life? A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 2002, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 253–270.
  14. Murphy K., Topel R. The Value of Health and Longevity. Journal of Political Economy, 2006, vol. 114, no. 5, pp. 871–904.
  15. Viscusi W.K., Aldy J. The Value of Statistical Life: A Critical Review of Market Estimates throughout the World. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2003, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 5–76.
  16. Clawson M., Knetsch J. Economics of Outdoor Recreation. Baltimore, MD, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1966.
  17. Boardman A., Greenberg D., Vining A., Weimer D. Cost-Benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice. Boston, Prentice Hall, 2011.
  18. Arrow K., Fisher A. Environmental Preservation, Uncertainty and Irreversibility. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1974, vol. 88, no. 2, pp. 312–319.
  19. Conrad J. Quasi-option Value and the Expected Value of Information. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1980, vol. 94, no. 4, pp. 813–820.

View all articles of issue

 

ISSN 2311-8725 (Online)
ISSN 2073-039X (Print)

Journal current issue

Vol. 23, Iss. 3
March 2024

Archive