IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/transr/v30y2009i4p473-494.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Determines Decision‐Makers’ Preferences for Road Investments? Evidence from the Norwegian Road Sector

Author

Listed:
  • James Odeck

Abstract

What determines decision‐makers’ preferences for road projects has been a subject of debate in the transport economics literature for decades. Because economic assessments of road projects are conducted subject to demands by decision‐makers in almost all western European countries and the USA, it should be expected that they use these assessments in one way or another to determine the preferred portfolios of projects. This paper attempts to reveal the preference of decision‐makers with respect to road investment projects to be included in the Norwegian National Transport Plan for the period 2002--11. The decision‐makers are the Norwegian parliament members. The basis for considering each individual project for investment is the Impact Assessment sheet containing monetized and non‐monetized impacts that will accrue to society if a project is implemented. The dataset comprises a pool of 1121 independent projects, of which 184 were selected for investment. We hypothesize different models that may explain decision‐making using a multinomial logit model. The preferred model shows that most of the variables determining decisions are actually included in the traditional benefit--cost analyses (BCAs), except that the decision‐maker takes account of them in non‐monetary units rather than in a composite benefit--cost ratio or net present value. Further, among the government’s three stated objectives of efficiency, safety and regional development, only safety is found to be significant in the preferred model. These results support other previous studies to the extent that a BCA per se does not matter in decision‐making, but its components matter in a non‐monetized form.

Suggested Citation

  • James Odeck, 2009. "What Determines Decision‐Makers’ Preferences for Road Investments? Evidence from the Norwegian Road Sector," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(4), pages 473-494, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:transr:v:30:y:2009:i:4:p:473-494
    DOI: 10.1080/01441640903138640
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01441640903138640
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/01441640903138640?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. Daniel McFadden, 1975. "The Revealed Preferences of a Government Bureaucracy: Theory," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 6(2), pages 401-416, Autumn.
    2. Nellthorp, J. & Mackie, P. J., 2000. "The UK Roads Review--a hedonic model of decision making," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 127-138, April.
    3. Daniel McFadden, 1976. "The Revealed Preferences of a Government Bureaucracy: Empirical Evidence," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 7(1), pages 55-72, Spring.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Jonas Eliasson & Mattias Lundberg, 2011. "Do Cost--Benefit Analyses Influence Transport Investment Decisions? Experiences from the Swedish Transport Investment Plan 2010--21," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(1), pages 29-48, April.
    2. 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.
    3. Jan Anne Annema & Koen Frenken & Carl Koopmans & Maarten Kroesen, 2017. "Relating cost-benefit analysis results with transport project decisions in the Netherlands," Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 109-127, March.
    4. Ait Ali, Abderrahman & Eliasson, Jonas & Warg, Jennifer, 2022. "Are commuter train timetables consistent with passengers’ valuations of waiting times and in-vehicle crowding?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 188-198.
    5. Salvador Bertomeu & Antonio Estache, 2016. "Unbundling Political and Economic Rationality: a Non-Parametric Approach Tested on Spain," Working Papers ECARES ECARES 2016-17, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    6. Dominique Prunetti & Alexandre Muzy & Eric Innocenti & Xavier Pieri, 2014. "Utility-based Multi-agent System with Spatial Interactions: The Case of Virtual Estate Development," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 43(3), pages 271-299, March.
    7. Wallace E. Oates & Paul R. Portney & Wallace E. Oates & Paul R. Portney, 2004. "The Political Economy of Environmental Policy," Chapters, in: Environmental Policy and Fiscal Federalism, chapter 1, pages 3-30, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Helland, Eric, 1998. "The Revealed Preferences of State EPAs: Stringency, Enforcement, and Substitution," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 242-261, May.
    9. Daniel L. McFadden, 1976. "Quantal Choice Analysis: A Survey," NBER Chapters, in: Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, Volume 5, number 4, pages 363-390, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Takalo, Tuomas & Tanayama, Tanja & Toivanen, Otto, 2008. "Evaluating innovation policy : a structural treatment effect model of R&D subsidies," Research Discussion Papers 7/2008, Bank of Finland.
    11. Marc Gaudry & Emile Quinet, 2012. "Shannon's measure of information, path averages and the origins of random utility models in transport itinerary or mode choice analysis," Working Papers halshs-00713168, HAL.
    12. Tuomas Takalo & Tanja Tanayama & Otto Toivanen, 2005. "Selection Or Self-Rejection? Applications Into A Treatment," Industrial Organization 0510002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Bondemark, Anders & Andersson, Henrik & Brundell-Freij, Karin, 2022. "Public preferences for distribution in the context of transport investments," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 160-184.
    14. Ostrihoň, Filip, 2022. "Exploring macroeconomic imbalances through EU Alert Mechanism Reports," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    15. Takalo, Tuomas & Tanayama, Tanja & Toivanen, Otto, 2008. "Evaluating innovation policy: a structural treatment effect model of R&D subsidies," Bank of Finland Research Discussion Papers 7/2008, Bank of Finland.
    16. Hochman, Gal & Zilberman, David, 2016. "Corn Ethanol and US Biofuel Policy Ten Years Later: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235467, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. Bergman, Mats A. & Jakobsson, Maria & Razo, Carlos, 2005. "An econometric analysis of the European Commission's merger decisions," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 23(9-10), pages 717-737, December.
    18. repec:zbw:bofrdp:2008_007 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Richard Barke & William Riker, 1982. "A political theory of regulation with some observations on railway abandonments," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 73-106, January.
    20. Marc Gaudry & Emile Quinet, 2012. "Shannon's measure of information, path averages and the origins of random utility models in transport itinerary or mode choice analysis," PSE Working Papers halshs-00713168, HAL.
    21. Jan Anne Annema, 2013. "The use of CBA in decision-making on mega-projects: empirical evidence," Chapters, in: Hugo Priemus & Bert van Wee (ed.), International Handbook on Mega-Projects, chapter 13, pages 291-312, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    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:taf:transr:v:30:y:2009:i:4:p:473-494. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/TTRV20 .

    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.