3 views

Uploaded by Erik Alvarez

- Cleaner Production Among SMEs in Mexico_Lyon Van Hoof
- Cost-Benefit Analysis and Its Application to Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Research
- Elasticidad Ingreso Con DAP
- SA_Lesson1.pdf
- transport analysis
- applying-costbenefit-analysis-to-project-appraisal
- T.K. PAPER MILLS LTD
- Knowledge management tutorial
- Fall 2011 Newsletter
- Project Calculation-Ashraf Hussein
- 379
- TEKEV
- Value for Money Article.pdf
- BEC 3
- Putting a Price Tag on Life
- Gatto & de Leo 2000[1]
- Planning
- Cost of Capital
- PSC Bill Analysis Sheet
- case2_04_2.doc

You are on page 1of 48

11.2 Project appraisal

11.3 Cost-benefit analysis and the environment

Learning objectives

learn about the conditions necessary for intertemporal

efficiency

revisit the analysis of optimal growth introduced in

Chapter 3

find out how to do project appraisal

learn about costbenefit analysis and its application

to the environment

be introduced to some alternatives to costbenefit

analysis

Cost-benefit analysis

investment projects, and policies, which have consequences over time

It uses criteria derived from welfare economics, rather than commercial

criteria.

CBA seeks to correct project appraisal for market failure

Environmental impacts of projects/policies are frequently externalities,

both negative and positive

CBA seeks to attach monetary values to external effects so that they can be

taken account of along with the effects on ordinary inputs and outputs to

the project/policy

CBA is the same as BCA Benefit-cost analysis.

Intertemporal efficiency

Given that CBA is concerned with consequences over time, and based in welfare

economics, a key idea is that of intertemporal efficiency.

U U (C , C )

A A A

0

A

1

(11.1)

U U (C , C )

B B B

0

B

1

without thereby making the other worse off.

Intertemporal efficiency requires the satisfaction of 3 conditions

Equality of individuals consumption discount rates

Equality of rates of return to investment across firms

Equality of the common consumption discount rate with the common

rate of return

Discount rate equality

MRUS

A

C 0,c1

=

B

MRUS C 0,c1 otherwise one could be made better off without making the other

worse off

r A

C0, C1 MRUS A

C0, C1

1 defines As consumption discount rate

rA=rB = r (11.2)

Note: consumption discount rates are not constants.

Shifting consumption over time

Foregoing Cb0Ca0 makes Ca1Cb1 available next

period. The rate of return to, on,investment is

defined as

C1 I 0

I 0

increase in consumption, Ca1Cb1,

resulting from the first period

increase in investment I0, Cb0Ca0.

For I0 = C0, this is

C (C ) C C C

1

0 1

1

0 1

C 0

C C

0 0

which is the negative of the slope of the transformation frontier minus 1, which can

be written

1 s

where s is the slope of the frontier.

Rate of return equality

If each firm were investing as indicated by C01b and C02b, then period 1

consumption could be increased, without loss of period 0 consumption, by

having firm 1, where the rate of return is higher, increase investment by the

amount firm 2, where the rate of return is lower, reduced its investment.

Only where rates of return are equal is this kind of period 1 gain

impossible. For N firms, the second intertemporal efficiency condition is

i , i 1,..., N (11.3)

Equality of discount rate and rate of return

If the first two conditions are satisfied, can consider representative individual and firm.

Point a corresponds to intertemporal efficiency, b and c do not as from either could reallocate

consumption as between periods so as to move on to a higher consumption indifference curve.

At a the slopes of the consumption indifference curve and the consumption ttansformation

frontier are equal. The third condition is

r (11.4)

Intertemporal optimality

conditions do not fix a unique intertemporal allocation.

Markets and intertemporal efficiency futures markets

Futures Markets

X at t is treated as a different commodity from X and t+1

For N commodities and M periods there are MN dated commodities. Contracts are

written at the start of the first period for trades an all commodities at all future

dates.

Then, it is effectively the static case.

Given that all ideal circumstances apply in all MN markets, the conditions for

intertemporal efficiency will be satisfied.

Futures markets are, in fact, rare standardised raw materials,

financial instruments.

Markets and intertemporal efficiency loanable funds market

xP

i b

P b

Pb is the price the bond trades for on the first day of period 0

i is the interest rate

A seller is a borrower

A buyer is a lender

Individuals - utility maximisation

Line C1max C0max is the budget constraint, slope (1+i)

Optimum is at C*0 in period 0 and C*1 in period 1, where

r=i

which will hold for all individuals, satisfying the first

intertemporal efficency condition

Firms present value maximisation

investing in firm

dealing in the bond market

AB shows C0 C1 combinations on account of

varying investment, slope (1+ ), is the

rate of return to investment

RS with slope -(1+i) shows how

consumption can be shifted via bond market

dealing.

The optimum level of investment is at a, where the present value of the firm is

maximised, and where

i=

In the second stage the owner maximises utility, by bond market dealing, at b where

i=r

All owners so act, and the three conditions for intertemporal efficiency are satisfied.

Optimal growth modelling; discrete time

A representative individual model for two periods

Maximise

1

W U C0 U C1 (11.5a)

1

subject to

Q0(K0) (K1 K0) = C0 (11.5b)

Q1(K1) (K2 K1) = C1 (11.5c)

Here the efficiency problem is trivial consumption in one period can only be

increased by reducing it in the other period.

A necessary condition is

U C1 1

(11.6)

UC 0 1

, the utility discount rate, less then , the rate of return on

investment. For = consumption is constant.

Optimal growth modelling: continuous time

Maximise

W U(C )e dt

t t (11.7a)

t 0 t

Subject to

.

K = Q(K ) - C t t (11.7b)

.

UC (11.8)

UC

the rate of return to capital accumulation. For > , given

diminishing marginal utility, C is growing. Consumption growth

ceases when = .

Optimal growth in the basic model

A model with resource input to production

Maxximise

W U(C )e dt

t t (11.9a)

t 0 t

Subject to

.

K Q K t , Rt Ct (11.9b)

.

S Rt (11.9c)

There are two forms of investment, in capital and in the resource stock.

Efficiency requires that the rates of return on the two are equal.

See chapter 14 especially

Utility and consumption discount rates 1

W U C0

1 intertemporal welfare function for panel a

U C1

1

UC0

1/ 1 U C 1 slope of WCWC in panel b

r

UC 0

1

1 UC 0

1

1/ 1 U C1 U C1 (11.10)

Utility and consumption discount rates 2

In continuous time

r g (11.11)

where

r is the consumption discount rate

is the utility discount rate

is is the elasticity of marginal utility for

the instantaneous utility function

g is the growth rate

For g>0 r> and r would be positive for = 0

For g = 0 r =

Private project appraisal the Net Present Value test 1

The present value of expenditures E is

E1 E2 ET

PVE E0 ...

1 i 1 i 2

1 i

T

T

Et (11.14)

1 i

t

0

R1 R2 RT

PVR R0 ...

1 i 1 i 2

1 i

T

T

Rt (11.15)

1 i

t

0

T

RT T

Et

NPV PVR PVE (11.16)

1 i 1 i

t t

0 0

Which for N = R - E is

N1 N2 NT

NPV N 0 ...

1 i 1 i 2

1 i

T

(11.17)

T

Nt

1 i

t

0

Private project appraisal the Net Present Value test 2

Year Expenditure Receipts Net cash flow

0 100 0 100

1 10 50 40

2 10 50 40

3 10 45.005 35.005

4 0 0 0

at i = 0.075, NPV = 0

at i = 0.10, NPV = -4.27874

firms net worth. It is the present value of the surplus, after

financing the project, at the end of the project lifetime.

Private project appraisal - risk

Year Net cash flow 1 Net cash flow 2 Year Expected net cash Present value of

Probability 0.6 Probability 0.4 flow expected cash flow

0 100 100 0 (0.6 x 100) + {(0.4 x 100

100)} = 100

1 (0.6 x 40) + (0.4 x 35) = 38/1.075 = 35.35

1 40 35 38

2 (0.6 x 40) + (0.4 x 35) = 38/1.0752 = 32.88

2 40 35 38

3 (0.6 x 35.005) + (0.4 x 31.003/1.0753 = 24.96

3 35.005 25 25) = 31.003

4 (0.6 x 0) + (0.4 x 0) = 0

4 0 0

Expected 6.81

NPV

Table 11.4 One project, two possible cash flows Table 11.5 Calculation of expected NPV

Where the firm is prepared to assign probabilities, the criterion for going ahead with the project is

the expected NPV the probability weighted sum of the mutually exclusive cash flow outcomes.

Social project appraisal

CBA is the social appraisal of projects

CBA uses the NPV test

CBA can be approached in two ways

As an extension of private appraisal where externalities are taken into

account

In terms of social welfare enhancement

The first stages of CBA are

proper project/policy identification

forecasting all of the consequences of the project/policy for all of the

affected individuals in each year of the project/policy lifetime

Then

expressing consequences in terms of monetary gains/losses for

aggregation to an NPV number

Social appraisal: an illustrative project

Time period

Individual 0 1 2 3 Overall

Table 11.6 Net benefit (NB) impacts consequent upon an illustrative project

NPV NB0

1 r 1+r 2 1+r 3

Generally, go ahead if

t T

NB t

NPV 0 (11.19)

t 0 (1 r) t

CBA as a potential pareto improvement test

A positive NPV indicates that, with due allowance for the dating of costs and benefits, the project delivers a

surplus of benefit over cost. The consumption gains involved are greater than the consumption losses, taking

account of the timing of gains and losses. The existence of a surplus means that those who gain from the

project could compensate those who lose and still be better off.

The initial investment is I0, equal to -C0, and the consumption increment on account of going ahead with

the project is C1. First period consumers lose an amount C0, equal to I0, and second period consumers

gain C1, and the question is whether the gain exceeds the loss. From the viewpoint of the first period, the

second period gain is worth C1/(1+r), so the question is whether

C1/(1+r) > I0 (11.20)

The government funds the project by borrowing and the project displaces the marginal private sector project

with rate of return . In this case the cost of the public sector project is I0 in the first period plus I0 in the

second, this being the extra consumption that the private sector project would have generated in the second

period. In this case, from the viewpoint of the first period, the gain exceeds the loss if:

C I

1

I 0

1 r 1 r

0

(11.21)

This is the NPV test with the consumption gain discounted at the consumption rate of interest, and compared

with the cost of the project scaled up to take account of the consumption that is lost on account of the

displaced private sector project.

CBA as welfare increase test 1

Time period

Individual 0 1 2 3 Overall

Society U0 U1 U2 U3

Or with an intratemporal social welfare function mapping individual utilities into a social

aggregate Ut

U U U is exponential discounting

W U 1

2 3

1 (1 ) (1 )

0 2 3

CBA as welfare increase test 2

Utility variations consequent on going ahead with the project cannot be estimated.

But, using the methods of chapter 12, monetary equivalent gains and losses can be

estimated.

Time period

Individual 0 1 2 3 Overall

t

1

U C

T

W

1

t

t 0

implies

t

1 T

W C (11.22)

1 r

t

t 0

where

(1 )U or r = + g (11.23)

r Ct 1

1 or

U Ct

CBA as welfare increase test 3

The NPV test is interpreted as a test that identifies projects that yield welfare improvements -

positive and negative consumption changes, net benefits that is, are added over time after

discounting, so that

t

T 1

W C (11.24)

1 r

t

t 0

and for W > 0 the project is welfare enhancing and should go ahead

1

W I C (11.25)

1 r

0 1

If the project crowds out the marginal private sector project

C I

W I (11.26) 1 0

1 r 1 r

0

C I

I

1 0

1 r 1 r

0

Choice of discount rate 1

There is disagreement about the discount rate that should be used in CBA

This matters because the result of the NPV test can be very sensitive to the number

used for the discount rate.

This is especially true where the project lifetime is long, as it often is with projects

with environmental consequences the lifetime is when the longest lasting

consequence ceases, not when the project stops yielding the benefits which were its

purpose nuclear electricity generation and waste products.

Time Horizon

Table 11.8 Present values at various

Years

discount rates

Discount rate % 25 50 100 200

For 100 at futurity shown

0.5 88.28 77.93 60.73 36.88

Choice of discount rate 2

With no market failure r = i =

Given market failure which to use?

Generally agreed that whichever way looking at CBA potential pareto improvement

or welfare enhancing should use r, the consumption discount rate.

Shadow pricing

While it is agreed that r should be used to discount, appears in the NPV criterion as

C I

1

I 0

(11.21) and W I C I

1 0

(11.26)

1 r 1 r 1 r 1 r

0 0

which apply with finance by borrowing when there is crowding out is there to

adjust the initial cost, shadow price it, for the displacement of the marginal private

sector project.

At one time it was thought that, on account of crowding out, proper shadow pricing

of all inputs and outputs was important in CBA. And difficult.

Now the dominant view is that given international capital mobility, crowding out is

not a problem that the supply of capita for private sector projects could be treated

as perfectly elastic.

Choice of discount rate 3 descriptive versus prescriptive

Regarding CBA as about potential pareto improvement aligns with the descriptive approach to

determining a number for r it should be the post tax return on risk free lending reflecting the

rate at which people are willing to exchange current for future consumption.

Those who regard CBA as a test for welfare enhancement tend to adopt the prescriptive

approach to a number for r, according to

r = + g (11.23)

where

is the utility discount rate

is the elasticity of the marginal utility of consumption

g is the growth rate

Some economists want to get values for and from observed behaviour, some from

ethical considerations.

Much of the controversy among economists over the Stern Review of the climate change

problem focussed on the numbers used in (11.23) Stern took an ethical prescriptive

position

Box 11.2 Discount rate choices in practice

US Office of Management and Budget

7% as an estimate of pre-tax return on capital

US Environmental Protection Agency

For intragenerational descriptive, r as 2-3%

For intergenerational - r = + g with = 0 on ethical grounds, gives r 0.5% to 3%

HM Treasury UK

Green Book instructions based on r = + g evidence suggests = 1.5%, = 1 and g = 2%

giving r = 3.5%.

For lifetimes greater than 30 years

Years ahead 31-75 76-125 126-200 201-300 301+

The Stern Review

Implicit r of 2.1% from r = + g with = 0.1%, = 1, and g = 2%.

Environmental cost-benefit analysis

Look at wilderness area development.

With Bd for development benefits and Cd for development costs, and ignoring

environmental impact

t T

Bt Ct T

Bt T

Ct

NPV

1 r 1 r 1 r

t t t

t 0 0 0

Bd Cd

Denote this as NPV. Then the proper NPV taking account of environmental impacts is

NPV = Bd Cd EC = NPV EC (11.27)

where EC is the present value of the stream of the net value of the projects

environmental impacts over the lifetime of the project.

EC stands for Environmental Cost

From (11.27) the project should go ahead if

NPV = Bd Cd > EC (11.28)

Inverse ECBA

A wilderness development project should not go ahead if

EC NPV = Bd Cd

so that

EC* = NPV = Bd Cd (11.29)

defines a threshold value for EC. For EC EC* the project should not go ahead.

The exercises ( Chapter 12 ) that seek to ascertain EC are typically expensive, and

sometimes controversial. Consideration of EC* can put their results in perspective.

As can consideration of EC*/N, where N is the size of the relevant affected

population, which is not necessarily restricted to visitors, and may include people

from a wider area than the host country, as with an internationally recognised

wilderness/ conservation area inscribed as world heritage.

Box 11.3 Mining at Coronation Hill?

In 1990 there emerged a proposal to develop a mine at Coronation Hill in the Kakadu national park,

which is listed as a World Heritage Area. The Australian federal government referred the matter to

the Resource Assessment Commission, which undertook a very thorough exercise in environmental

valuation using the Contingent valuation Method, implemented via a survey of a sample of the

whole Australian population. This exercise produced a range of estimates for the median

willingness to pay, WTP, to preserve Coronation Hill from the proposed development, the smallest

of which was $53 per year. If it is assumed, conservatively, that the $53 figure is WTP per

household, and this annual environmental damage cost is converted to a present value capital sum

in the same way as the commercial NPV for the mine was calculated, the EC to be compared with

the mine NPV' is, in round numbers, $1500 million. This 'back of the envelope' calculation assumes

4 million Australian households, and a discount rate of 7.5%.

It was pointed out that given the small size of the actual area directly affected, the implied per

hectare value of Coronation Hill greatly exceeded real estate prices in Manhattan, whereas it was

'clapped out buffalo country' of little recreational or biological value. In fact, leaving aside

environmental considerations and proceeding on a purely commercial basis gave the NPV' for the

mine as $80 million, so that the threshold per Australian household WTP required to reject the

mining project was, in round numbers, $3 per year, less than one-tenth of the low end of the range

of estimated household WTP on the part of Australians. Given that Kakadu is internationally famous

for its geological formations, biodiversity and indigenous culture, a case could be made for

extending the existence value relevant population, at least, to North America and Europe.

In the event, the Australian federal government did not allow the mining project to go ahead. It is

not clear that the CVM application actually played any part in that decision.

The Krutilla-Fisher model 1

NPV is the result of discounting and summing over the projects lifetime an annual net benefit stream

which is

where Bd,t, Cd,t and ECt are the annual, undiscounted, amounts for t = 1, 2,..., T, and where T is the project

lifetime, corresponding to the present values Bd, Cd and EC. The environmental costs of going ahead with the

project, the ECt, are at the same time the environmental benefits of not proceeding with it. Instead of EC t we

could write B(P)t for the stream of environmental benefits of preservation.4 If we also use B(D)t and C(D)t for

the benefit and cost streams associated with development when environmental impacts are ignored, so that

B(D)t C(D)t is what gets discounted to give NPV, then equation 11.30 can also be written as:

Switching to continuous time, instead of

T

NPV {B D t C D t B P t }/ 1 r

t

we use

T

NPV {B D t C D t B P t }e rt dt

0

T T (11.32)

NPV {B D t C D t }e rt dt B P t e rt dt

0 0

The Krutilla-Fisher model 2

Krutilla-Fisher (1975) argued that value of wilderness services relative to those of

development outputs will increase over time due to

substitution possibilities wrt development output

technical progress in development activities

income elasticity of demand for wilderness services, fixed in supply

Assume preservation benefits grow at rate a -

T T

NPV {B C}e rt dt {Pe at }e rt dt (11.33)

0 0

which with B and C for constant flows of development benefits and costs, and Peat as the growing

flow of preservation benefits, can be written

T

NPV NPV Pe r a t dt (11.34)

0

For given NPV, a>0 reduces NPV a development is less likely to pass the NPV test

if the Krutilla-Fisher arguments hold

For a = r means preservation benefits effectively not discounted

a>r means effective negative discounting on preservation benefits

The Krutilla-Fisher model 3

Let T for two reasons

a For r = 0.05 For r = 0.075

0 20 13.33

0.01 25 15.37

0.03 50 22.22

0.05 40

0.06 66.67

0.075

Discount rate adjustment?

Working with a lower discount rate does not always favour preservation.

T T

NPV {B C} e dt P e

rt (r a)t

dt

0 0

T T

NPV D e dt P e

rt (r a)t

dt

0 0

D P

NPV= (11.36)

r r a

With X for start-up costs

D P

NPV X (11.37)

r r a

For a = 0. r = 0.055 gives NPV = 136.37, r = 0.045 gives NPV = 388.89

lowering the discount rate increases NPV

For a = 0.025. r = 0.055 gives NPV = -53.03, r = 0.045 gives NPV = 41.66

lowering the discount rate makes the project viable.

Objections to environmental cost-benefit analysis

Essentially it accepts that the natural environment should be subject to

consumer sovereignty

Two main classes of objection at the level of principle.

1. Accept that only human interests count, but reject consumer sovereignty as

proper guide to those interests on the grounds of

inadequate information about consequences

insufficiently deliberative

lacking self-knowledge

preference shaping

Some question the ECBA agenda at the level of practice can Chapter 12

methods actually deliver the necessary information?

Limits to applicability of ECBA -sustainability and

environmental valuation

individuals will be large enough to stop a project that threatens resilience, and

thus sustainability.

Implicit in ECBA is the assumption of weak sustainability, which ignores

critical natural capital and non-substitutabilities as between reproducible and

natural capital.

ECBA should be restricted in its application

Alternatives to environmental cost-benefit analysis

Two stage processes

Assessment of consequences Environmental Impact Assessment, Impact

Assessment, Social Impact Assessment. ( Assessment = estimation )

This can be left to experts

Evaluation of consequences

Not to be left to experts

Multi-criteria analysis

Deliberative polling

Citizens juries

An illustrative transport problem

The results of the impact assessment are

Table 11.10 Options for reducing traffic delays

A. Highway B. Highway and Buses C. Railway

the option that achieves specified objective at least cost. For minimum acceptable

time saving 8000 million hours per year, A over achieves and costs less than B.

MCA - weighted sums 1

There are several forms of MCA according to how evaluations on different criteria are

combined to choose an option weighted sums is the simplest.

A. Highway B. Highway and Buses C. Railway

Cost 10

6

250 300 500

Time Saving 10 hours per year

6

10000 8000 6000

CO2 Emissions 10 tonnes per year

3

1000 800 200

3 2 1

MCA weighted sums 2

Convert the data to dimensionless form, so as to permit aggregation. This is done by

expressing the criterion outcome for each option as a ratio to the best outcome for the criterion

which is set equal to 1. Gives the dimensionless evaluation table:

Highway Highway and Railway

Buses

Cost 1.0000 0.8333 0.5000

For weights

Costs 0.3

Time Saving 0.3

CO2 Emissions 0.2

Wildlife and Amenity 0.2

Highway Highway and Railway

Buses

Cost 0.3000 0.2500 0.1500 This ranks options

Time Saving 0.3000 0.2400 0.1800

1. Highway

CO2 Emissions 0.0400 0.0500 0.2000

2. Railway

Wildlife and Amenity 0.1333 0.1333 0.2000

MCA weighted sums 3

For weights

Costs 0.2

get

Highway Highway and Railway

Buses

Cost 0.2000 0.1667 0.1000

1. Railway

2. Highway

3. Highway and buses

Deliberative polling

1. Run an opinion poll

questioning expert witnesses, and debating ( deliberation )

Given that the idea is to poll a random sample of sufficient size to produce results of

standard expected in opinion polling, 100s, the deliberative part of the exercise is

expensive.

Citizens juries

Citizens juries involve the public in their capacity as ordinary citizens with no

special axe to grind. They are usually commissioned by an organisation which

has power to act on their recommendations. Between 12 and 16 jurors are

recruited, using a combination of random and stratified sampling, to be broadly

representative of their community. Their task is to address an important question

about policy or planning. They are brought together for four days, with a team of

two moderators. They are fully briefed about the background to the question,

through written information and evidence from witnesses. Jurors scrutinise the

information, cross-examine the witnesses and discuss different aspects of the

question in small groups and plenary sessions. Their conclusions are compiled in

a report that is returned to the jurors for their approval before being submitted to

the commissioning authority. The jurys verdict need not be unanimous, nor is it

binding. However, the commissioning authority is required to publicise the jury

and its findings, to respond within a set time and either to follow its

recommendations or to explain publicly why not.

As compared with deliberative polling, a major advantage of the citizens jury is

cost.

Box 11.4 Deliberative polling and nuclear power in the UK

In the early years of the twenty-first century the UK government came to the view that, on account of the age of

the existing nuclear plant, security of supply issues, and the climate change problem, it was necessary to re-visit

the question of whether new nuclear plant was desirable.

The UK government initiated a consultation process and subsequently, in July 2006, it issued a report giving its

view that nuclear power had a continuing role in the electricity supply system, and that it would look favourably on

projects to build new nuclear power stations. Consequent upon a legal challenge by Greenpeace, the High Court

ruled that the government's decision making process had been unlawful in as much as it had failed to engage in

adequate consultation.

Following this decision, in May 2007 the UK government initiated a new consultation process, one element of

which was a deliberative polling exercise. This took place in September 2007. The report on this exercise written

by the market research firm, Opinion Leader.

On most questions, the change in the response percentages as between the initial and the final polls was small.

Greenpeace looked at the information provided to the participants and took the view that it was biased in

favour of nuclear power. In October 2007, Greenpeace complained about the work of Opinion Leader to the

Market Research Standards Board The MRSB considered the Greenpeace complaint against B14 of the MRS

code of conduct, which states that MRS members 'must take reasonable steps to ensure that Respondents are

not led to a particular answer.' The MRSB found that Opinion Leader had not complied with B14, noting that

'deliberative research is a relatively new technique and that there are no current MRS guidelines on preparation

or review of research materials specific to deliberative research'.

The UK government published Meeting the Energy Challenge: A White Paper on Nuclear Power in January in

2008, in which it drew on the results of the consultation exercise, and in which it stated its conclusion that 'it

would be in the public interest to allow energy companies the option of investing in new nuclear power stations'

and that ' the government should take active steps to facilitate this'.

- Cleaner Production Among SMEs in Mexico_Lyon Van HoofUploaded byJavier Va
- Cost-Benefit Analysis and Its Application to Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice ResearchUploaded byFrancisco Estrada
- Elasticidad Ingreso Con DAPUploaded byJaime Cruz Diaz
- SA_Lesson1.pdfUploaded byjaime
- transport analysisUploaded bymelani37
- applying-costbenefit-analysis-to-project-appraisalUploaded byRichard Blair
- T.K. PAPER MILLS LTDUploaded byAl Faisal
- Knowledge management tutorialUploaded byMk Yap
- Fall 2011 NewsletterUploaded byroyce_koop8685
- Project Calculation-Ashraf HusseinUploaded byashrafhussein
- 379Uploaded bycbba231
- TEKEVUploaded byYosafat Kurniawan
- Value for Money Article.pdfUploaded bysedianpo
- BEC 3Uploaded byCA Khushbu Jhaveri
- Putting a Price Tag on LifeUploaded byKenji Logie
- Gatto & de Leo 2000[1]Uploaded byMarxelo Mangiante
- PlanningUploaded bydodxx
- Cost of CapitalUploaded bysofronio v aguila jr
- PSC Bill Analysis SheetUploaded bySouthern Alliance for Clean Energy
- case2_04_2.docUploaded bywriter top
- Reliability Planning WhitepaperUploaded byDaniel Cicogna
- Leather UpperUploaded byJohn
- Workbook6-PartIIEstimationofCFandCapitalBudgeting.docUploaded byFaiza
- CaseUploaded bymuhammad farhan
- UntitledUploaded byapi-158666950
- Pgdba - Fin - Sem III - Project FinanceUploaded byapi-3762419
- EurovisionUploaded byAlif Muhammad Fadli
- Costs and Benefits of Regulation_worldBankUploaded byKiran Kumar Alla
- ch02Uploaded byEnas Basheer
- Reduce Power LossUploaded byAji Istanto Rambono

- OptimalAllocationAndSizingOfDistributedGenerationWithParticleSwarmOptimizationAlgorithmForLossReduction6Uploaded byK Guru Prasad
- LeyendaUploaded byErik Alvarez
- Fallas Bifásicas y Trifásicas 17-06-2015Uploaded byErik Alvarez
- Motores de Automovil-jovajUploaded byErik Alvarez
- Martinez Mosque IraUploaded byErik Alvarez
- NSGA IIUploaded byFernando Arce
- ReportUploaded byErik Alvarez
- resultado_sol2Uploaded byErik Alvarez
- resultado_sol2Uploaded byErik Alvarez
- 101376Uploaded byErik Alvarez
- Lun 2711Uploaded byErik Alvarez
- Fallas-Bifásicas-y-Trifásicas-17-06-2015.pptUploaded byErik Alvarez
- 6903161-Dynamic-simulation-of-Electric-Machinery-using-MATLAB.pdfUploaded byErik Alvarez
- Ciclos.docxUploaded byErik Alvarez
- back to paradise.docxUploaded byErik Alvarez
- For Evalu DesemUploaded bymayrarociopaez
- Back to ParadiseUploaded byErik Alvarez
- Caratula Para Informe de CampotopografiaUploaded byErik Alvarez
- Taxes and Incentives 2015 Web v2Uploaded byErik Alvarez
- Recharging the Power Sector Energy POVUploaded bySymron Angel
- SHow de Danzas CuscoUploaded byErik Alvarez
- CARATULA TESISUploaded byErik Alvarez
- ADB PCG Report Part I Final August2015Uploaded byErik Alvarez
- Unifilares REP ISA y CTM 2016.pdfUploaded byErik Alvarez
- Modelos de DespachoUploaded bySunli Karla Sivincha Romero
- Trade Off AnalysisUploaded byhasan14bd
- SPDC 2016 English V2Uploaded byErik Alvarez
- Opportunities in the Mexican Electricity SectorUploaded byErik Alvarez
- Dialnet-ProgramacionDinamicaEstocasticaAplicadaAlProblemaD-4834336Uploaded byErik Alvarez

- 611308Uploaded byStiven Rivera Goez
- 18 Fair empl.prac.cas. 667, 16 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 8307 Margienell S. Fischer v. Brock Adams, 572 F.2d 406, 1st Cir. (1978)Uploaded byScribd Government Docs
- Shea v. Kerry Petition for Cert.Uploaded byCenter for Constitutional Jurisprudence
- 21862,Issue 29 Crown Solutions is Now aUploaded bynewnse2008
- Visual Problems in Night OperationsUploaded byMargaret Ford
- JFK's Speech on Secret Societies Taking OverUploaded byTruth_Spread
- Rose Petals Vol 1Uploaded bysaiweb2010
- 2014 CSD FactbookUploaded byzeratul9901
- Dicionario AlternativoUploaded byTúlio Barata França
- 824245fc152c28744ad201accffcfc62Uploaded byapi-249261406
- Atha Shrimad Bhagwad GitaUploaded byRajesh Kasar
- CN16HOUploaded byATLAS
- Documento Tunning 2013Uploaded byjasolanoro
- SWOT of Infosys, TCS, HCL, Wipro & Cognizant for 2012Uploaded byamalremesh
- Capron 8 Ppt 09Uploaded byAgra Petranto
- Chap 10Uploaded bySyed Hamdan
- 3- JT262.12 General instructions for assemblyUploaded byMao LiuGong
- Reservation of RightsUploaded byJohn Taylor
- Ethiopian VAT PROCLAMATION.pdfUploaded bymhhd
- 1.Outline of DaihatsuUploaded byAnonymous X29d8GMwS
- DE_THI_THU_LOP_10Uploaded bynguyenanhmai
- Short Stories Ali and the Magic Carpet WorksheetUploaded byAmineGhob
- IAS GS RFUploaded byshettymithun91912
- Criticism - Men of Smaller GrowthUploaded byzpinkerton
- Robo Advisory 2Uploaded byAnkur Pandey
- Nasir2019_Dimension of Inf Security CultureUploaded bygaluh
- Sample Trademark declaration in support of claim of acquired distinctivenessUploaded byErik Pelton
- 08Wei Shou on BuddhismUploaded byKelvin Lam
- 2016_ITR1_PR1Uploaded byrahul srivastava
- Nokia ACCUploaded byirfan_chand_mian