IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/wbecrv/2001151141--164.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does Ignoring Heterogeneity in Impacts Distort Project Appraisals? An Experiment for Irrigation in Vietnam

Author

Listed:
  • Dominique van de Walle
  • Dileni Gunewardena

Abstract

Could the simplifying assumptions made in project appraisal be so far from the truth that the expected benefits of public investments are not realized? Using data for Vietnam, commonly used estimates of the benefits from irrigation investments based on means are compared with impacts assessed through an econometric modeling of marginal returns that allows for household and area heterogeneity using integrated household-level survey data. The simpler method performs well in estimating average benefits nationally but can be misleading for some regions, and, by ignoring heterogeneity, it overestimates gains to the poor and underestimates gains to the rich. At moderate to high cost levels, ignoring heterogeneity in impacts results in enough mistakes to eliminate the net benefits from public investment. When irrigating as little as 3 percent of Vietnam's nonirrigated land, the savings from the more data-intensive method are sufficient to cover the full cost of the extra data required, ignoring other benefits from that data.

Suggested Citation

  • Dominique van de Walle & Dileni Gunewardena, 2001. "Does Ignoring Heterogeneity in Impacts Distort Project Appraisals? An Experiment for Irrigation in Vietnam," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 15(1), pages 141-14-164.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:wbecrv:2001:15:1:141--164
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3990074
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:wbecrv:2001:15:1:141--164. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/wrldbus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.