IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/wpaper/hal-00948675.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Limitations of Cost Benefit Analysis to support public debate: the case of public Transportation Decision-making in France

Author

Listed:
  • Sébastien Damart

    (DRM - MLAB - Dauphine Recherches en Management - MLAB - DRM - Dauphine Recherches en Management - Université Paris Dauphine-PSL - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Bernard Roy

    (LAMSADE - Laboratoire d'analyse et modélisation de systèmes pour l'aide à la décision - Université Paris Dauphine-PSL - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) is a tool used to evaluate the potential socio-economic impact of public investment choices. In many countries, particularly in France, this tool is used to support decision-making related to transportation infrastructure. In the context of questionable budgetary arbitrations, taking the multiple effects of the different choices into account makes choosing among transport infrastructure investments is a two-fold problem. On the one hand, public decision-makers have limited resources that they must use in the best way possible. On the other hand, when choosing among alternative investment projects, the decision-makers reveal the priority they have assigned to the different stakes, and these priorities must be perceived as legitimate. The French case illustrates the difficulty of striking the right balance between the expert knowledge produced by CBA methods and what is induced by the participation of various stakeholders to the decision making process. Based on a study of how French institutions make use of the CBA method, this paper aims at examining how the use of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) interacts with the practice of public debate and stakeholder participation in France today.

Suggested Citation

  • Sébastien Damart & Bernard Roy, 2006. "Limitations of Cost Benefit Analysis to support public debate: the case of public Transportation Decision-making in France," Working Papers hal-00948675, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:hal-00948675
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-00948675v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-00948675v1/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eden, Colin & Ackermann, Fran, 2004. "Cognitive mapping expert views for policy analysis in the public sector," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 152(3), pages 615-630, February.
    2. Onsel Sahin, Sule & Ulengin, Fusun & Ulengin, Burc, 2004. "Using neural networks and cognitive mapping in scenario analysis: The case of Turkey's inflation dynamics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 158(1), pages 124-145, October.
    3. Gerardine DeSanctis & R. Brent Gallupe, 1987. "A Foundation for the Study of Group Decision Support Systems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(5), pages 589-609, May.
    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. Damart, Sébastien & Roy, Bernard, 2009. "The uses of cost-benefit analysis in public transportation decision-making in France," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 200-212, August.
    2. Sébastien Damart, 2010. "A Cognitive Mapping Approach to Organizing the Participation of Multiple Actors in a Problem Structuring Process," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 19(5), pages 505-526, September.
    3. repec:dau:papers:123456789/2350 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Meløn, Mønica García & Aragonés Beltran, Pablo & Carmen González Cruz, M., 2008. "An AHP-based evaluation procedure for Innovative Educational Projects: A face-to-face vs. computer-mediated case study," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 754-765, October.
    5. Jae Kwang Lee & Jae Kyeong Kim & Soung Hie Kim & Hung Kook Park, 2002. "An Intelligent Idea Categorizer for Electronic Meeting Systems," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 11(5), pages 363-378, September.
    6. Guo Li & Wenling Liu & Zhaohua Wang & Mengqi Liu, 2017. "An empirical examination of energy consumption, behavioral intention, and situational factors: evidence from Beijing," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 255(1), pages 507-524, August.
    7. David C. Lane, 2010. "OR FORUM---High Leverage Interventions: Three Cases of Defensive Action and Their Lessons for OR/MS Today," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 58(6), pages 1535-1547, December.
    8. Yu, Lean & Wang, Shouyang & Lai, Kin Keung, 2009. "An intelligent-agent-based fuzzy group decision making model for financial multicriteria decision support: The case of credit scoring," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 195(3), pages 942-959, June.
    9. G A Hindle & L A Franco, 2009. "Combining problem structuring methods to conduct applied research: a mixed methods approach to studying fitness-to-drive in the UK," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(12), pages 1637-1648, December.
    10. Terri L. Griffith & Mark A. Fuller & Gregory B. Northcraft, 1998. "Facilitator Influence in Group Support Systems: Intended and Unintended Effects," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 9(1), pages 20-36, March.
    11. Vieira, Fabiana C. & Ferreira, Fernando A.F. & Govindan, Kannan & Ferreira, Neuza C.M.Q.F. & Banaitis, Audrius, 2022. "Measuring urban digitalization using cognitive mapping and the best worst method (BWM)," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    12. Mi, Hwang, 1998. "Did Task Type Matter in the Use of Decision Room GSS? A Critical Review and a Meta-analysis," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 1-15, February.
    13. Gebauer, Judith & Mahoney, Joseph T., 2013. "Joining Supply and Demand Conditions of IT Enabled Change: Toward an Economic Theory of Inter-firm Modulation," Working Papers 13-0100, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business.
    14. Steven Way & Yufei Yuan, 2014. "Transitioning From Dynamic Decision Support to Context-Aware Multi-Party Coordination: A Case for Emergency Response," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 649-672, July.
    15. Salo, Ahti A., 1995. "Interactive decision aiding for group decision support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 134-149, July.
    16. Teich, Jeffrey E. & Wallenius, Hannele & Kuula, Markku & Zionts, Stanley, 1995. "A decision support approach for negotiation with an application to agricultural income policy negotiations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 81(1), pages 76-87, February.
    17. Pedro Antunes & Tânia Ho, 2001. "The Design of a GDSS Meeting Preparation Tool," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 5-25, January.
    18. Ofrit Lesser & Lihi Naamani-Dery & Meir Kalech & Yuval Elovici, 2017. "Group Decision Support for Leisure Activities Using Voting and Social Networks," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 473-494, May.
    19. White, Leroy, 2018. "A Cook's tour: Towards a framework for measuring the social impact of social purpose organisations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 784-797.
    20. Malone, Thomas W. & Crowston, Kevin., 1993. "The interdisciplinary study of coordination," Working papers 3630-93. CCSTR ; #157., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    21. Rutkowski Anne-Francoise & Van de Walle Bartel A & van Groenendaal Willem J.H. & Pol Jan, 2005. "When Stakeholders Perceive Threats and Risks Differently: the Use of Group Support Systems to Develop a Common Understanding and a Shared Response," Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, De Gruyter, vol. 2(1), pages 1-17, March.

    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:hal:wpaper:hal-00948675. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.