metadata: authors: 0: author: Hood,Ronald D.
1: author: Husband, David
2: author: Fei Yu
docna: 0: docna: Recurrent expenditure requirements of
            capital projects - estimation for budget purposes
docty: Policy Research Working Paper
subtopic: Health Care Services Industry,Educational Sciences,Educational Institutions & Facilities,Effective Schools and Teachers,Transport Services
teratopic: Health, Nutrition and Population
abstracts: cdata!: This paper examines the issue of
            estimating recurrent costs associated with capital projects
            in the investment budget. It is intended to help overcome
            budget planning problems which give rise to the chronic
            under-funding of maintenance and operating costs typical in
            some developing economies. The objective is to provide
            guidance in the preparation of budget submissions so that
            information on the future recurrent cost implications of
            today's capital spending is quantified in a way that
            supports the authorities in making project selection and
            budget decisions. The paper is in three parts. The first
            part outlines some concepts and definitions involved in
            measuring recurrent costs. The second part provides stylized
            examples of individual projects. And the third part presents
            some rough empirical guidance drawn from a sample of actual
            investment projects.
repnme: repnme: Recurrent expenditure requirements of
            capital projects - estimation for budget purposes
display_title: Recurrent expenditure requirements
            of capital projects - estimation for budget purposes
listing_relative_url: /research/2002/12/2113665/recurrent-expenditure-requirements-capital-projects-estimation-budget-purposes
topicv3: Teachers Management m1326119 1523,Transport m1326661 135,Teacher Training m1326786 1532,Education m1327048 470,Health m1504661 3480
publishtoextweb_dt: 2010-07-01T00:00:00Z
historic_topic: Health, Nutrition and Population
origu: Poverty Reduction/Econ Mngmt (ECSPE)
no_of_pages: 20
model_extractions: I POLICY RESEARCH WORKING PAPER 2938

# **Abstract**

This paper examines the issue of estimating recurrent costs associated with capital projects in the investment budget. It is intended to help overcome budget planning problems which give rise to the chronic underfunding of maintenance and operating costs typical in some developing economies. The objective is to provide guidance in the preparation of budget submissions so that information on the future recurrent cost implications of today's capital spending is quantified in a way that supports the authorities in making project selection and budget decisions.

The paper is in three parts. The first part outlines some concepts and definitions involved in measuring recurrent costs. The second part provides stylized examples of individual projects. And the third part presents some rough empirical guidance drawn from a sample of actual investment projects.

This paper-a product of the Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Sector Unit, Europe and Central Asia Region-is part of a larger effort in the Bank to improve the management of public finances. Copies of the paper are available free from the World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433. Please contact Mickey Galatis, room H4-312, telephone 202-473-1177, fax 202-614-1499, email address mgalatis@worldbank.org. Policy Research Working Papers are also posted on the Web at http://econ.worldbank.org. Ron Hood may be contacted at rhood@worldbank.org. December 2002. (13 pages)

> _The Policy Research WXorking Paper Series dissemtnates the_ **_findings_** _of ivork in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues An objective of the series is to get the findings_ **_out_** _quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished The papers carry the names of the authors and should_ **_be cited_** _accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the_ **_view_** _of the World Bank,_ **_its_** _Executive Directors, or the countries they represent._

Produced by the Research Advisory Staff
# **Recurrent Expenditure Requirements of Capital Projects Estimation for Budget Purposes**

## **Ronald Hood**

Senior Country Economist, ECSPE, The World Bank rhoodiworldbank.org

**David Husband** Global Economics Ltd david husband(,hotmail.com

**Fei Yu,**

Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Fei Yu(Ksgphd.Harvard.Edu
# **Recurrent Expenditure Reouirements of Capital Proiects**

## Estimation for Budget Purposes

Ron Hood David Husband Fei Yu

## **Introduction**

Recurrent expenditures needed to operate and maintain public investment projects should be estimated so as to facilitate their provision in National Budget and Ministry allocations. Such estimates will help ensure a connection between the capital and recurrent components of the budget, leading to sounder macroeconomic management. Further, estimates of recurrent expenditures will contribute to overall evaluation of investment alternatives, thereby improving project selection during the formulation of public investment programs. Estimates of these costs should therefore be presented as along with investment budget spending proposals.

The importance of estimating recurrent expenditures is underscored by the shift in many developing countries to greater emphasis on the social sectors. Public investments in these sectors give rise to high recurrent expenditures - much more so, on a relative basis, than for public investments in transportation, telecommunications, energy and water supply infrastructure.

## **Estimating Recurrent Costs**

## **_Defining Recurrent Expenditures_**

Recurrent expenditures associated with a public investment project are those operations and maintenance expenditures needed to run the project at a level consistent with its expected use, and to maintain the capacity of the investment during its expected lifetime. For example recurrent expenditures in the case of a new school serving an expanded student population would include the teachers' salaries and additional textbooks and teaching materials required to operate the new facility. They would also include electricity, heating and other costs needed to operate the facility, and the regular and periodic maintenance needed to maintain the facility. Importantly, recurrent expenditures should reflect full capacity utilization of the facility - that is, the recurrent expenditures expected when the investment is being used as designed.

Recurrent expenditures will be both direct and indirect. Clearly, increasing the number of teachers to staff additional classrooms is a direct cost of investment in improved access to education. Teacher training to supply the necessary teachers may be an indirect cost - unless explicitly provided for as part of the investment project. If possible, indirect recurrent expenditures should be referenced in public investment proposals. The composition of recurrent expenditures will vary considerably among sectors. For transportation, the main factor is maintenance, whereas for the health and education sectors the main factor is operations. For irrigation projects, both operations and maintenance expenditures are important. With regard to maintenance, sufficient provision should be made to ensure that the facility does not deteriorate beyond normal depreciation. Inadequate road maintenance, for example, results in early reconstruction costs - at great additional expense. On the other hand, maintenance should not be confused with upgrading of capital facilities.

2
Maintenance of capital also applies to investment in human capital. Training of Ministry staff and other forms of investment in human capital, notably teacher training, should be followed-up after the initial investment by regular and periodic refresher courses.

Incremental recurrent expenditures for are recurrent costs associated with new projects that are above and beyond ongoing recurrent expenditures already built into the budgetary process to cover the existing 'stock' of public investment.

# _Private Versus Public Costs_

Recurrent costs may be bome by both private users of project facilities and government agencies responsible for the operation and maintenance of the facilities. Since the concern here is with better public sector management, only recurrent expenditures that bear upon the budget are considered. ' Excluded, therefore, would be privately borne vehicle operating costs of using a new road. However, care must be exercised against assuming too much of the private sector. In some countries, parents are expected to bear a heavy share of the cost of their children's education, or of providing health care services for their families, undermining universal access. The ratio between capital cost and recurrent expenditures borne by the Government should be consistent with the goals of the Government.

Public investment projects involving state-owned enterprises require some consultation with the Ministry of Finance. While such projects are normally "off budget", they may give rise to contingent liabilities for the Government (e.g., the pension and severance rights of employees of a privatized SOE). These costs may be lump sum or spread over several years. Note should be made of such costs.

# _Project Implementation Costs Versus Post-Implementation Recurrent Expenditures_

As in the case of the World Bank, public investment proposals may refer to recurrent expenditures during project implementation. However, these expenditures should be counted as part of the capital costs of the project.

Project implementation costs include civil works, goods/equipment procurement and services. Extensive land acquisition costs may also be involved, as in the case of hydropower projects. Public investment projects normally include provision to cover the fees of consultants, engineers, project managers and the like that recur each year until the project is fully implemented. Miscellaneous expenses during implementation may include salaries of additional staff needed to implement the project, the cost of hiring vehicles, office expenses etc.

These project implementation costs should be aggregated and classified as a one-time expense, even if spread over several years until project implementation is complete. They should not be confused with true recurrent expenditures associated with operation and maintenance.

'Cost-benefit analysis should, of course, consider both private and public costs.

3
# _Timeframe for Recurrent Expenditures_

Project implementation is typically phased, so components of the project become operational before the full project is complete. In this case, recurrent expenditures related to operation and maintenance will also commence before project implementation is completed.

Project documentation should indicate when true recurrent expenditures are expected to begin, their initial levels, and their build-up to the point of full operation. Project documentation should also indicate the life of the investment and the pattern of recurrent expenditures consistent with this timeframe.

Average annual recurrent costs can be used to indicate medium to long-term recurrent costs. This will help simplify provision for periodic maintenance costs, as arise for transportation and other forms of capital investment.

In some cases provision may be necessary for phased escalation of recurrent costs. For example, scheduled increases in teachers' salaries should be reflected in the salaries of teachers hired so as to add new capacity to the school system.

The estimation of recurrent expenditures should derive from country-based data concerning operating and maintenance costs. However, caution is in order so as to avoid repeating underprovision for recurrent expenditures. Such under-provision is been systemic and serious in many developing countries.

# _Incremental and Indirect Costs_

The cost estimates should be _incremental_ recurrent costs. That is, they. should include only those additional costs that must be made because of the project and would not have been necessary if the project had not been undertaken. Some of these incremental recurrent costs may be indirect. For instance if a project establishes a number of new schools in a province it may be necessary to increase the number of staff for provincial administration. Although these additional staff are not working in the new schools their salaries should be counted as an indirect recurrent cost.

The following two examples are meant to demonstrate the types of costs that should be included in recurrent costs estimates as well as the relationship between implementation and operating periods.

# _Example 1: An Irrigation Project_

The first example is an irrigation project which has four phases. In each of four successive years, pumps are installed and ditches dug to create new irrigated areas. As a result the project lasts four years but the operating period begins in the second year when the first pumps begin pumping. The main operating cost is fuel for the pumps. This cost begins in year two and jumps up again in years three, four and five as each of the new pumps comes on stream. Thereafter the costs increase in line with the expected rise in the price of fuel. Costs for spares for the pumps are relatively small and are shown in the next line. Maintenance has to components. The first is routine maintenance which consists of dredging the ditches to ensure adequate flow. In addition, once every two years the pumps are taken apart and overhauled to ensure their continued operation. Fees collected from the participating farmers are used to pay for a portion of the fuel and this partially offsets the amount that has to be covered from the budget.

4
|**Irrigation**Project||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||FY01|FY02|FY03|FY04|FY05|FY06|FY07|FY08|FY09|FY10<br>|FY11|
|Implementationperiod||||||||||||
|Operatingperiod||||||||||||
|GrossRecurrentCosts||||||||||||
|OperatingCosts||6.0|120|18.0|24.2|25.6|27.2|28.8|30.5|32.4|34.3|
|fuel||5.0|10.0|15.0|21.0|22 3|23.6|25.0|26.5|281|29.8|
|spares||1.0|2.0|3.0|3.2|3.4|3.6|3.8|4.0|4.3|4.5|
|Maintenance|||20|7.0|3.0|70|3.0|7.0|3.0|8.0|3.0|
|routine|||2.0|3.0|3.0|3.0|3.0|3.0|3.0|3.0|3.0|
|periodic||||4.0||4.0||4.0||5.0||
|Total||6.0|14.0|25.0|27.2|32.6|30.2|35.8|335|40 4|37.3|
|Recurrent Cost recovery||||||||||||
|feesfromfarmers||1.0|2.0|3.0|4.0|4.0|4.0|4.0|4.0|4.0|4.0|
|NetBudgetaryRequirement||5.0|12.0|22.0|23.2|28.6|26.2|31.8|29.5|36.4|33.3|

# **_Example_** _2: A_ **_School Project_**

The second example is a project to build a secondary school. The school is built in FY01 and opens in FY02. So the implementation period is FY01 and the operation period is from FY02 on. However the project actually lasts two years because it includes a component for training for teachers during the first year of operation. Ongoing training will be required every year to maintain the teacher's skills and this is reflected in the stream of recurrent costs under teacher training. However, since training in the first year is included as part of the project budget, the project provides one year of cost recovery for this recurrent cost as shown under FY02.<sup>2</sup> For subsequent years the training has be paid for out of the annual recurrent budget. Fees collected from students provide a further offset to the recurrent budget. The amount of recurrent costs that that will have to be funded out of the budget is given in the last line - Net Budgetary Requirement 2 In effect the 1.0 for training in FY02 is already accounted for in the capital budget (PIP) since it is part of the project.

**_5_**
## **Secondary School Project**

<!-- Start of picture text --> FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09<br>Implementation perod<br>Operating pefiod<br>Gross Recurrent Costs<br>Operating Costs 117.0 122.8 128.9 135.4 142.2 149.3 156.7 164.6<br>teacher salanes 100.0 105.0 110.3 115.8 121.6 127.6 134.0 140.7<br>teacher training 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3<br>matenals and supplies 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.6 12.2 12.8 13.4 14.1<br>utilities 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4<br>Indirect costs<br>new central admin staff wages 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.8 6.1 6.4 6.7 7.0<br>Maintenance 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.8<br>Total Recurrent Costs 119.0 125.0 131.2 137.8 144.6 151.9 159.5 167.4<br>Recurrent Cost recovery<br>recurrent costs covered by project 1.0<br>fees from students 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.9 5.1 5.4 5.6<br>Net budgetary Requirement 114.0 120.8 126.8 133.1 139.8 146.8 154.1 161.8<br><!-- End of picture text -->

# **R-Coefficients**

As a guide to estimating the desired level of recurrent expenditure with any given public investment proposal ratios of recurrent expenditure to investment expenditure have been calculated for 10 categories (and some 75 subcategories) of investment.<sup>3</sup> The ratios are based in World Bank and ADB projects in many countries. Because the ratios reflect averages over a variety of country situations, they should be viewed as no more than indicative of actual requirements in any given country.

|Comparison o|fADBandW<br> <br>|BProjects: <br>ADBProjects<br>|Summaryof <br>|'r'coefficients<br>W<br>|,bySector:<br>orldBankProjects<br>||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Sector|Numberof<br>projects|Averager-<br>coefficient|Medianr-<br>coefficient|Numberof<br>projects|Averager-<br>coefficient|Medianr-<br>coefficient|
|Agriculture|7|0.023|0.010|22|0047|0019|
|Education|3|0.029|0.011|17|0.074|0032|
|Energy|7|0.047|0.037|14|0.013|0.002|
|Environment|5|0.074|0.056|12|0.017|0.014|
|Health|5|0.073|0.020|15|0.030|0.029|
|Telecommunications|4|0.043|0.027|3|0.003|0.000|
|Transportation|6|0.019|0.010|15|0.025|0.009|
|Urban Development|2|0.016|0.016|11|0.017|0.013|
|Water supply/sanitation|_5_|0.054|0.063|12|0.044|0.021|
|Averageallsectors (unweighted)|44|0.042|0.028|123|0.030|0.014|
|Averageallsectors(weighted)|44|0.043|0.028|123|0.035|0.017|

3This follows a method similar to that described in Heller, Peter; "Underfinancing of Recurrent Development Costs", Finance and Development. 16:1:38-41 March 1979, World Bank and IMF.

6
The r coefficients shown above indicate annual incremental recurrent expenditures expressed as a proportion of total project investment costs. The average for all sectors is indicated as 0.035. This suggests that for every $1 million of project investment included in the PIP, some $35,000 per year is needed to meet incremental recurrent expenditures. Officials need to judge whether or not this ratio approximates what is needed in their own country.

# _Distinguishing Between Quality and Quantity_

There is a substantial range in r coefficients across projects even within a sector. This highlights the need to distinguish between projects that add to capacity versus those that lead to quality improvements in existing facilities or services. Reference to primary education is again illustrative. Investment in rehabilitation or construction of a new school to upgrade an existing primary school facility may give rise to only small additional operational costs, as the costs of teachers' salaries and teaching materials are already provided for. Also, investment in quality improvements is normally accompanied by teacher training and other upgrades. These tend to have very beneficial effects in reducing repetition rates, especially at the primary level, and may even lead to savings in recurrent costs. Public investment project proposals should factor in efficiency gains as possible offsets to future recurrent costs.

Investment in a new school designed either to accommodate an increase in the student population or to extend education services to remote areas, give rise to much higher recurrent expenditures. Most importantly, of course, are the costs of salaries for the additional teachers needed for the additional classrooms. Other costs include teaching materials, lighting costs, maintenance etc.

This distinction between quantity versus quality improvements applies across a broad range of public investment projects. In addition to education, Appendix A notes this distinction for irrigation, health, water supply and sanitation, and transportation projects. The tables with more detailed project classification given in the appendix show that the "r" coefficients for expansion of the capacity of the systems is generally much higher than for quality improvements. It will also be noted that the "r" coefficients for the education and health sectors are much higher that for other sectors - reflecting the importance of annual salary costs.

# _Blended Projects_

Many projects, of course, will blend quantity and quality improvements. Furthermore, they may include several very different project components, such as institutional capacity building, each with its own "r" coefficient. In these cases, officials will need to disassemble the project into its respective parts and apply the relevant "r" coefficients, summing to get incremental annual recurrent expenditures. Alternatively, officials may apply a blencded "r" coefficient.

# _Gross Versus Net Recurrent Expenditures_

To more accurately reflect potential contingent liabilities for the Government from public investment proposals, recurrent expenditures should first be estimated in terms of gross or overall annual operating and maintenance costs. If there are user charges or other mechanisms through which the private sector bearing a portion of the costs, then these should be shown as offsets - as indicated in the introduction.

Very often, public investment proposals incorporating user charges are based on overly optimistic expectations regarding such revenues. The record of many developing countries concerning pricing of public services (e.g., water, irrigation and electricity rates) is poor. Further, collection 7
of user charges is often extremely weak. The cumulative effect is that recurrent expenditures met by the Government more closely approximate gross rather than net requirements.

Nonetheless, where relevant, public investment proposals should include plans for revenue offsets to recurrent expenditures. These plans should be credible, having received the approval of the Government Committee responsible for preparing and vetting the PIP.

Public investment proposals should also indicate donor assistance that has been committed in support for operating and maintenance expenditures. Lao P.D.R.'s newly established Road Maintenance Fund, by way of example, includes considerable donor support for road maintenance over the next five years.
# Appendix A: R-Coefficient Calculations

> R-coefficients were calculated for a set of World Bank and ADB projects by taking the following steps:

- classifying projects into types appropriate for estimating recurrent costs;

- identifying recurrent costs in each case;

- calculating recurrent costs as a ratio of capital costs for each type of project.

# World Bank Projects

Using the World Bank Data Bank, Project Appraisal Documents (PADs), were scanned to identify those that appeared to include enough information about recurrent costs to enable estimation of the r coefficient. Some 123 PADs were drawn upon.

> The classification of projects by sector generally followed that of the WB site. The level of detail and quality of data varies significantly across the PADs, despite the overall

> similarity of document and annex structure. Different sectors tend to have different

> analytical characteristics, which have implications for the ease of identification of incremental recurrent costs attributable to investments made under the projects.

The PADs normally identify 'incremental operating costs' during project implementation (as these are sometimes covered by a WB loan). The scale and type of these costs during the project implementation period are rarely similar to the incremental recurrent expenditure implications for governments thereafter.

> Sometimes relevant material about incremental cost issues is contained in the economic analysis even if it is not summarised in the financial analysis tables. Calculating r

> coefficients therefore typically involves the process of scanning all sections of the PAD.

9
# Annual Recurrent Expenditures as a Proportion of Public Investment Projects: Indicative **"r"** Coefficients

|**Sector**|**"r"coeffilcient**|
|---|---|
|**Agriculture**||
|**I**<br>AgnculcsralResearchandExtensionSerwFces|0.035-0.054|
|2Agro-indus<br>andMarketin|0.008-0.380|
|3<br>FisheriesandAqua-culture|0.206|
|4Forestry|**0.01u0c.036**|
|5Irrigation&Draliage||
|_6_<br>_ExpansionoEcapacity_|0.011-0.033|
|<br>7<br>_Rehabilitation_|0.017-0.046|
|8GeneralAgriculture|0.003-0.042|
|9<br>SoilConservationandWatershedDeveloment|0.042|
|10AgricultureInstitutionsCapacityBuilding|0.014|
|**uaioEducation**||
|20AccessreQuantty:ExpansionorNewFaciliies Resultng**in**More Capacity|0.071-0.137|
|12<br>_PrimaryEducation_|0.019-0.331|
|123<br>_SecondaryEducation_||
|14<br>_TertiaryEducation_||
|_15 _AccessreQuality:RehabilitationorReplacementofExistingFacilities|0.030-0.331|
|16<br>_PrimaryEducation_|0.030-0.071|
|_17_<br>_SecondaryEducation_|0.030|
|18<br>_TertiaryEducation_|0.044|
|19<br>QualityofEducation||
|<br>20<br>_TeacherTraining_|0.008-0.012|
|21<br>_CurriculumandEducationMaterialsEquipment_|0.040-0.080|
|22<br>VocationalEducationandTraining|0.032-0249|
|23<br>EducatonInstitutionsCapacityBuilding|0.003-0.094|
|**Energy**||
|24<br>Generataon|0.001-0.028|
|25<br>_HydroelectricPower_|0.008-0.050|
|<br>26<br>_RenewableEnergy_|0.000-0.101|
|<br>27<br>_ThermoelectricPower_|0.012-0.101|
|28<br>Transmission|0.001-0.008|
|29<br>Distribution|0.001-0.003|
|30<br>_Ruralelectrification_|_<br>0.020|
|3 1<br>_UrbanServices_||
|32<br>EnergyInstitutionsCapacityBuilding|0.001-0.003|
|**Environment**||
|33BiodiversityConservation|0.008-0.019|
|<br>34 Land Conservation|0.030|
|35WaterResourcesManagementand Conservation|0.000-0.046|
|<br>36IndustrialPollution Control|0.016|
|37Wastewater Treatment||
|38<br>_Upgrading_|0.010|
|39<br>_NwFacilities_||
|40Enviro'nmentalInstitutions Capacity Building||

I10
|Health&Population<br>||
|---|---|
|41PrimaryHealthCare<br>42<br>_UpgradingHealthCenters_|0.002-0.044<br>0.004-0.069|
|43<br>_ExpandingHealthCenterServices_<br>|0.042-0.060<br>|
|44<br>_PublicHealthPrograms_|0.018-0.050|
|<br>45CurativeHealthCare||
|46<br>_Upgradingofprovincialandnationalhospitals_<br> <br>||
|47<br>_Provisionofnewhospitals_||
|<br>48<br>_Medicalequipmentprojects_|0.055|
|49 HealthInstitutionsCapacityBuilding|0.002-0.055|
|Mining||
|50UpgradingofMiningFacilities|0.040<br>|
|51NewFacilities/InstitutionalStrengthening|0.017|
|Telecommunications&Informatics<br>||
|52ModernizationofExistingSystems||
|53Investmentin NewSystems<br>||
|54Information TechnologyServices|0.000|
|<br>55TelecommunicationsInstitutions CapacityBuilding|0.000-0.009|
|Transportation||
|56UpgradingofExistingRoadFacilities|0.000-0.050|
|<br>57<br>_Highways_|0.000-0.053|
|<br>58<br>_SecondaryRoads_<br> <br>|0.009<br>|
|59<br>_UrbanRoads_|0.002-0.006|
|_60_<br>_RuralRoads_||
|61<br>_FeederRoads._||
|_<br>62InvestmentinNewRoads||
|63<br>_Highways_<br>64<br>_SecondaryRoads_||
|<br> <br>65<br>_UrbanRoads_|0.022|
|66<br>_RuralRoads_||
|67<br>_FeederRoads_|0.345|
|<br> <br>68RoadMaintenance Fund|0.050-0.100<br>|
|69UpgradingofExisting Water Transportation Facilities|0.050|
|70InvestmentinNew WaterTransportation Facilities||
|71UpgradingofExistingRailTransportation Facilities<br>|0.033|
|72InvestmentinNewRailTransportation Facilities||
|<br>73UpgradingofExisting Air Transportation Facilities||
|74Investment in NewAir Transportation Facilities|0.050<br>|
|75Transportation InstitutionsCapacity Building|0.050|
|UrbanDevelopment||
|76MunicipalDevelopment|0.000-0.037|
|77Solid WasteDisposal/Treatment|0.050<br>|
|78<br>_Upgrading_|0.004-0.008|
|<br>79<br>_NewFacilities_||
|WaterSupply&Sanitation<br> Sl&Sii||
|80RuralWateruppy antaton<br>81<br>_Uradin_|0.007-0.024|
|<br>_pgg_<br>82<br>_NewFacilities_|0.087|
|83UrbanWater Supply&Sanitation|0.020-0.053|
|84<br>_Upgrading_|0.000-0.053|
|85<br>_NewFacilities_<br>|0.027-0.262<br>|
|86SewerageCollectionandTreatment|0.022-0.027|
|<br>87InstitutionalCapacityBuilding|0.021|
# **ADB Projects**

Data on recurrent expenditures were obtained from two types of ADB published documents: (i) Report and Recommendations of the President to ADB Board of Directors (RRPs) that contained project cost estimates, and, in some cases, details of economic and financial analyses; and (ii) Project Performance Audit Reports (PPARs) that contained actual project costs, and, in some cases, detailed post-evaluation economic and financial analyses. The source documents were downloaded from ADB's website. However, in the case of PPARs, hardcopies of the documents were requested from ADB's Secretary's Office since the appendices that contained the required information had been omitted in the web version. Over 70 project documents in the form of ADOBE Acrobat PDF files were downloaded, of which 44 projects (of the 70 downloaded) were included in the computation of the R-coefficients as only these projects contained the needed information.

# **Details of the Calculation of the R-coefficients**

The R-coefficients were estimated using one of the following methodologies, the choice of which was made based on the availability of the required information:

- (i) Ratio of the average annual incremental operating and maintenance expenditures contained in either the financial or economic IRR computations to the total project cost amount _(the total project cost differed slightly from the total investment cost since the latter included interest expense during construction and contingencies);_

- (ii) Ratio of the calculated average incremental recurrent expenditures that was part of the project cost estimate to the total investment cost; and

- (iii) Ratio of the observed/assumed annual incremental recurrent expenditures to either total project cost or total investment cost.

In addition to the arithmetic average of R-coefficients that was computed for each sector, the median was also obtained as an alternative measure of central location. The median was computed for both ADB- and World Bank-assisted projects.

12
# _Summary of Findings_

|**Comparison o**|**fADBandW **<br> <br>|**BProjects:S **<br>ADBProjects<br>|**ummaryof **<br>|**'rcoefficients,**<br>W<br>|**bySector:**<br>orldBankProjects<br>||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Sector|Numberof<br>projects|Averager-<br>coefficient|Medianr-<br>coefficient|Numberof<br>projects|Averager-<br>coefficient|Medianr-<br>coefficient|
|Agriculture|7|0.023|0.010|22|0.047|0.019|
|Education|3|0.029|0.011|17|0.074|0.032|
|Energy|7|0.047|0.037|14|0.013|0.002|
|Environment|_5_|0.074|0.056|12|0.017|0.014|
|Health|_5_|0.073|0.020|15|0.030|0.029|
|Telecommunications|4|0.043|0.027|3|0.003|0.000|
|Transportation|6|0.019|0.010|15|0.025|0.009|
|UrbanDevelopment|2|0.016|0016|11|0.017|0.013|
|Water supply/sanitation|5|0.054|0.063|12|0.044|0.021|
|Averageallsectors(unweighted)|44|0.042|0.028|123|0.030|0.014|
|Averageallsectors(weighted)|44|0043|0028|123|0.035|0.017|

For most of the sectors in both the ADB and World Bank calculated R-coefficients, the median was found to be lower than the arithmetic average, indicating that the distributions of R-coefficients were positively skewed. This implies that for most of the sectors, a significant number of R-coefficients were lower than the sectoral arithmetic average. A cursory look at the tables confirmed this finding. Further, this implies that the values of the sectoral arithmetic averages were influenced by a few "outlying" high R- coefficients.

A statistical test of hypothesis was performed to determine whether or not there is a significant difference in the average R-coefficients of ADB- and World Bank-assisted projects. The test showed that there is no significant difference between the two averages based on the data given in the above table.

|t-Test: Two-Sample As|sumingUnequalVaria|nces|
|---|---|---|
||_ADB_|_WorldBank_|
|Mean|0.041984795|0.029955493|
|Variance|0.000477514|0.000479818|
|Observations|9|9|
|HypothesizedMeanDifference|0||
|df|16||
|tStat|1.166354174||
|P(T<=t)one-tail|0.130281398||
|tCriticalone-tail|1.745884219||
|P(T<=t)two-tail|0.260562796||
|tCriticaltwo-tail|2.119904821||
|Conclusion:Thereisno significant di|fferencebetweenthea|verage|
|"r"ratioforADB-andWorld Bank-fi|nancedprojects.||

13
# **Policy Research Working Paper Series**

||**Title**|**Author**|**Date**|**Contact**<br>**forpaper**|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|WPS2910|BoondogglesandExpropriation:<br>Rent-SeekingandPolicyDistortion<br>when PropertyRightsareInsecure|PhilipKeefer<br>Stephen Knack|October2002|PSintim-Aboagye<br>38526|
|WPS2911|Micro-LevelEstimationofWelfare|ChrisElbers<br>Jean0Lanjouw<br>Peter Lanjouw|October2002|PSader<br>33902|
|WPS2912|Short-RunPain,Long-RunGain'<br>TheEffectsofFinancial<br>Liberalization|GracielaLauraKaminsky<br>SergioL.Schmukler|October2002|EKhine<br>37471|
|WPS2913|FinancialDevelopmentandDynamic<br>InvestmentBehavior:Evidencefrom<br>PanelVector Autoregression|InessaLove<br>LeaZicchino|October2002|KLabrie<br>31001|
|WPS2914|The ImpactofCash Budgetson<br>Poverty ReductioninZambia'ACase<br>Studyof theConflictbetweenWell-<br>IntentionedMacroeconomicPolicy<br>andService DeliverytothePoor|HinhTDinh<br>AbebeAdugna<br>BernardMyers|October2002|DSidibe<br>35074|
|WPS2915|FederalPoliticsandBudgetDeficits.<br>Evidencefromthe StatesofIndia|StutiKhemani|October 2002|HSladovich<br>37698|
|WPS2916|Ex-anteEvaluationofConditional<br>CashTransferPrograms.TheCase<br>ofBolsaEscola|FrancoisBourguignon<br>FranciscoH GFerreira<br>PhillippeGLeite|October2002|PSader<br>33902|
|WPS2917|EconomicDevelopment,Competition<br>Policy,andtheWorldTrade<br>Organization|Bernard Hoekman<br>PetrosC.Mavroidis|October2002|RMartin<br>39065|
|WPS2918|ReducingAgriculturalTariffs versus<br>Domestic Support.What'sMore<br>ImportantforDeveloping Countries?|BernardHoekman<br>FrancisNg<br>MarceloOlarreaga|October2002|RMartin<br>39065|
|WPS2919|FinancialRegulatoryHarmonization<br>andtheGlobalizationofFinance|Cally Jordan<br>GiovanniMajnoni|October2002|HIssa<br>30154|
|WPS2920|SocialPolarization,Political<br>Institutions,andCountry<br>Creditworthiness|PhilipKeefer<br>StephenKnack|October2002|PSintim-Aboagye<br>37656|
|WPS2921|InitialConditionsandIncentivesfor<br>Arab EconomicIntegrationCanthe<br>EuropeanCommunity's Success<br>BeEmulated?|BernardHoekman<br>PatrickMesserlin|October2002|PFlewitt<br>32724|
|WPS2922|"DoesGlobalizationHurtthePoor?|Pierre-Richard Agenor|October2002|MGosiengfiao<br>33363|
|WPS2923|Does ForeignDirectInvestment<br>IncreasetheProductivityofDomestic<br>Firms?InSearchofSpilloversthrough<br>BackwardLinkages|BeataKSmarzynska|October2002|PFlewitt<br>32724|
|WPS2924|Financial Development, Property<br>Rights,andGrowth|StilnClaessens<br>LucLaeven|November2002|R. Vo<br>33722|
# **Policy Research Working Paper Series**

||**Title**|**Author**|**Date**|**Contact**<br>**forpaper**|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|WPS2925|Crime and LocalInequalityin<br>SouthAfrica|GabrielDemombynes<br>BerkOzler|November2002|P.Sader<br>33902|
|WPS2926|Distinguishing between<br>ObservationallyEquivalentTheories<br>ofCrises|RashmiShankar|November2002|P.Holt<br>37707|
|WPS2927|MilitaryExpenditure:Threats,Aid,<br>and Arms Races|PaulCollier<br>AnkeHoeffler|November 2002|A.Kitson-Walters<br>33712|
|WPS2928|Growthwithout Governance|DanielKaufmann<br>Aart Kraay|November 2002|K.Morgan<br>37798|
|WPS2929|AssessingtheImpactof<br>CommunicationCostson<br>InternationalTrade|Carsten Fink<br>AadityaMattoo<br>lleanaCristinaNeagu|November2002|P.Flewitt<br>32724|
|WPS2930|LandRentalMarketsasan<br>AlternativetoGovernment<br>Reallocation?EquityandEfficiency<br>Considerationsinthe Chinese<br>LandTenureSystem|KlausDeininger<br>SongqingJin|November2002|M.Fernandez<br>33766|
|WPS2931|TheImpactofPropertyRightson<br>Households'Investment,Risk<br>Coping,andPolicy Preferences<br>EvidencefromChina|KlausDeininger<br>SongqingJin|November2002|M.Fernandez<br>33766|
|WPS2932|China's Accessiontothe World<br>TradeOrganization: TheServices<br>Dimension|Aaditya Mattoo|December2002|P.Flewitt<br>32724|
|WPS2933|Small-and Medium-Size Enterprise<br>FinancinginEasternEurope|LeoraF.Klapper<br>Virginia Sarria-Allende<br>VictorSulla|December2002|A.Yaptenco<br>31823|
|WPS2934|AftertheBigBang"Obstaclesto the<br>Emergenceofthe Ruleof Lawin<br>Post-CommunistSocieties|KarlaHoff<br>JosephE.Stiglitz|December 2002|A.Bonfield<br>31248|
|WPS2935|Missed Opportunities. Innovationand<br>Resource-BasedGrowthinLatin<br>America|WilliamF.Maloney|December2002|P.Soto<br>37892|
|WPS2936|Industrial Ownershipand<br>EnvironmentalPerformance:<br>Evidencefrom China|HuaWang<br>YanhongJin|December 2002|Y.D'Souza<br>31449|
|WPS2937|The DeterminantsofGovernment<br>EnvironmentalPerformance:An<br>EmpiricalAnalysisofChinese<br>Townships|HuaWang<br>WenhuaDi|December2002|Y.D'Souza<br>31449|