IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/retrec/v82y2020ics073988592030072x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Contradictory outcomes of cost-benefit analyses – Findings from Norwegian public-investment projects

Author

Listed:
  • Bardal, Kjersti Granås

Abstract

This paper addresses the issue with contradictory outcomes of cost-benefit analyses (CBA) performed on the same project that can be seen in many Norwegian public-investment projects. Different stakeholders may order “their own” appraisals of a specific project, which sometimes conclude quite differently from the other appraisals. This phenomenon is explored by studying the appraisals performed on eight Norwegian public-investment projects. Each of the projects analysed have been subject to many appraisals, which have all been compared and analysed. The following research questions have been explored: (1) How may various appraisals of the same project differ? (2) How may clients be able to influence the results of the appraisals? (3) How may the challenge with differing results, technical bias and low transparency of the appraisals be addressed in order to help decision-makers evaluate the various outcomes of CBAs? The findings show that the appraisals did vary in the projects studied; for some of them, quite substantially. The differences between appraisals were mostly related to the benefit side of the projects, both regarding which types of benefits were quantified and how they were measured and monetised. Important project-specific assumptions also differed among the appraisals. The findings indicate that the clients ordering the appraisals may have impacted the outcome of the appraisals by, for example, impacting project specific assumptions and demanding certain methodologies and standards to be used when quantifying and valuing benefits. A CBA can never be a complete, objective description of the matters under consideration. However, it is crucial that the appraisals are transparent and report on important factors that have large impact on the results so that decision-makers can evaluate the various appraisals and are able to use the information from them in decision-making processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Bardal, Kjersti Granås, 2020. "Contradictory outcomes of cost-benefit analyses – Findings from Norwegian public-investment projects," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:retrec:v:82:y:2020:i:c:s073988592030072x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.retrec.2020.100874
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S073988592030072X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.retrec.2020.100874?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John M. Gowdy, 2004. "The Revolution in Welfare Economics and Its Implications for Environmental Valuation and Policy," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 80(2), pages 239-257.
    2. Laird, James J. & Venables, Anthony J., 2017. "Transport investment and economic performance: A framework for project appraisal," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 1-11.
    3. Nyborg, Karine, 1998. "Some Norwegian Politicians' Use of Cost-Benefit Analysis," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 95(3-4), pages 381-401, June.
    4. de Rus Ginés & Socorro M. Pilar, 2017. "Planning, Evaluation and Financing of Transport Infrastructures: Rethinking the Basics," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 16(2), pages 143-160, June.
    5. Fiva, Jon H. & Halse, Askill H., 2016. "Local favoritism in at-large proportional representation systems," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 15-26.
    6. Thor-Erik Hanssen, 2012. "The influence of interview location on the value of travel time savings," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(6), pages 1133-1145, November.
    7. Lucas, Karen, 2006. "Providing transport for social inclusion within a framework for environmental justice in the UK," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 801-809, December.
    8. Ingebrigtsen, Stig & Jakobsen, Ove, 2009. "Moral development of the economic actor," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2777-2784, September.
    9. Straatemeier, Thomas, 2008. "How to plan for regional accessibility," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 127-137, March.
    10. Cash, David & Clark, William & Alcock, Frank & Dickson, Nancy & Eckley, Noelle & Jager, Jill, 2002. "Salience, Credibility, Legitimacy and Boundaries: Linking Research, Assessment and Decision Making," Working Paper Series rwp02-046, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    11. Sandberg Hanssen, Thor-Erik & Jørgensen, Finn, 2015. "Transportation policy and road investments," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 49-57.
    12. Abrantes, Pedro A.L. & Wardman, Mark R., 2011. "Meta-analysis of UK values of travel time: An update," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 1-17, January.
    13. Morten Welde & James Odeck, 2017. "Cost escalations in the front-end of projects – empirical evidence from Norwegian road projects," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(5), pages 612-630, September.
    14. Mouter, Niek & Annema, Jan Anne & Wee, Bert van, 2013. "Attitudes towards the role of Cost–Benefit Analysis in the decision-making process for spatial-infrastructure projects: A Dutch case study," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 1-14.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Carlos Romero & Clara Zamorano & Emilio Ortega & Belén Martín, 2021. "Access to Secondary HSR Stations in the Urban Periphery: A Generalised Cost-Based Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-19, November.
    2. Baranauskienė Jurgita, 2024. "Evaluation of Public Projects in the Light of Sustainability," Management Theory and Studies for Rural Business and Infrastructure Development, Sciendo, vol. 46(2), pages 174-182.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Niek Mouter & Paul Koster & Thijs Dekker, 2019. "Participatory Value Evaluation versus Cost-Benefit Analysis: comparing recommendations in the context of urban mobility investments," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 19-046/VIII, Tinbergen Institute, revised 27 Jan 2020.
    2. Halse, Askill Harkjerr & Fridstrøm, Lasse, 2019. "Explaining low economic return on road investments. New evidence from Norway," MPRA Paper 94389, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. te Brömmelstroet, Marco, 2017. "Towards a pragmatic research agenda for the PSS domain," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 77-83.
    4. Bondemark, Anders & Sundbergh, Pia & Tornberg, Patrik & Brundell-Freij, Karin, 2020. "Do impact assessments influence transport plans? The case of Sweden," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 52-64.
    5. Geoffrey A. Battista & Kevin Manaugh, 2019. "My way or the highway? Framing transportation planners’ attitudes in negotiating professional expertise and public insight," Transportation, Springer, vol. 46(4), pages 1271-1290, August.
    6. Johanna Jussila Hammes, 2021. "The Impact of Career Concerns and Cognitive Dissonance on Bureaucrats’ Use of Benefit-Cost Analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 80(2), pages 409-424, October.
    7. Jussila Hammes , Johanna, 2017. "The impact of career concerns and cognitive dissonance on bureaucrats’ use of cost-benefit analysis," Working papers in Transport Economics 2017:5, CTS - Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm (KTH and VTI).
    8. Vigren, Andreas & Ljungberg, Anders, 2018. "Public Transport Authorities’ use of Cost-Benefit Analysis in practice," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 560-567.
    9. Asplund, Disa & Eliasson, Jonas, 2016. "Does uncertainty make cost-benefit analyses pointless?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 195-205.
    10. Levine, Jordan & Chan, Kai M.A. & Satterfield, Terre, 2015. "From rational actor to efficient complexity manager: Exorcising the ghost of Homo economicus with a unified synthesis of cognition research," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 22-32.
    11. Sandberg Hanssen, Thor-Erik & Larsen, Berner, 2020. "The influence of waiting time on the value of headway time on a ferry service in Norway," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    12. Boisjoly, Geneviève & El-Geneidy, Ahmed M., 2017. "The insider: A planners' perspective on accessibility," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 33-43.
    13. Mouter, Niek, 2017. "Dutch politicians’ attitudes towards Cost-Benefit Analysis," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 1-10.
    14. Mouter, Niek & van Cranenburgh, Sander & van Wee, Bert, 2017. "An empirical assessment of Dutch citizens' preferences for spatial equality in the context of a national transport investment plan," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 217-230.
    15. Bouscasse, Hélène & de Lapparent, Matthieu, 2019. "Perceived comfort and values of travel time savings in the Rhône-Alpes Region," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 370-387.
    16. Hirte, Georg & Tscharaktschiew, Stefan, 2018. "The impact of anti-congestion policies and the role of labor-supply margins," CEPIE Working Papers 04/18, Technische Universität Dresden, Center of Public and International Economics (CEPIE).
    17. Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Andersson, Henrik & Beaumais, Olivier & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Hess, François-Charles & Wolff, François-Charles, 2017. "Stated preferences: a unique database composed of 1657 recent published articles in journals related to agriculture, environment, or health," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 98(3), November.
    18. Kristjanson, Patti & Reid, Robin & Dickson, Nancy & Clark, William C. & Vishnubhotla, Prasad & Romney, Dannie & Bezkorowajnyj, Peter & Said, Mohammed & Kaelo, Dickson & Makui, Ogeli & Nkedianye, David, 2008. "Linking International Agricultural Research Knowledge with Action for Sustainable Poverty Alleviation: What Works?," Working Paper Series rwp08-045, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    19. Vargas, Andrés & Sarmiento Erazo, Juan Pablo & Diaz, David, 2020. "Has Cost Benefit Analysis Improved Decisions in Colombia? Evidence from the Environmental Licensing Process," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    20. Julie Le Gallo & Yannick L'Horty & Pascale Petit, 2014. "Does subsidising young people to learn to drive promote social inclusion? Evidence from a large controlled experiment in France," TEPP Working Paper 2014-15, TEPP.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Cost benefit analysis; Technical bias; Decision-making; Public investment projects;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • R42 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Transportation Economics - - - Government and Private Investment Analysis; Road Maintenance; Transportation Planning

    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:eee:retrec:v:82:y:2020:i:c:s073988592030072x. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/620614/description#description .

    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.