IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/94389.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Explaining low economic return on road investments. New evidence from Norway

Author

Listed:
  • Halse, Askill Harkjerr
  • Fridstrøm, Lasse

Abstract

Is regional policy to blame for the negative economic return on many road projects, or can road investments give value for money also in remote areas? In Norway, a large majority of planned road projects have negative net benefits according to cost-benefit analysis (CBA). In this paper, we point at geographic characteristics that can explain this, comparing Norway with its neighbors Sweden and Denmark. We then show econometric evidence that such factors also explain a substantial part of the variation in the benefit-cost ratio within Norway. Projects in areas that are far from the largest cities or have difficult topography have lower net benefits. This implies that there is a trade-off between economic efficiency and investing in roads in rural areas with difficult topography. We also discuss the role of road design requirements, decision-making processes and the electoral system for road investment policy.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:94389
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/94389/2/MPRA_paper_94389.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Börjesson, Maria & Fosgerau, Mogens & Algers, Staffan, 2012. "On the income elasticity of the value of travel time," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 368-377.
    2. Stefano Gagliarducci & Tommaso Nannicini & Paolo Naticchioni, 2011. "Electoral Rules and Politicians' Behavior: A Micro Test," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 3(3), pages 144-174, August.
    3. Nyborg, Karine, 1998. "Some Norwegian Politicians' Use of Cost-Benefit Analysis," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 95(3-4), pages 381-401, June.
    4. Jonas Eliasson & Maria Börjesson & James Odeck & Morten Welde, 2015. "Does Benefit-Cost Efficiency Influence Transport Investment Decisions?," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 49(3), pages 377-396, July.
    5. Andersen, Jørgen Juel & Fiva, Jon H. & Natvik, Gisle James, 2014. "Voting when the stakes are high," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 157-166.
    6. Persson, Torsten & Tabellini, Guido, 1999. "The size and scope of government:: Comparative politics with rational politicians," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(4-6), pages 699-735, April.
    7. Thomas Stratmann & Martin Baur, 2002. "Plurality Rule, Proportional Representation, and the German Bundestag: How Incentives to Pork-Barrel Differ Across Electoral Systems," CESifo Working Paper Series 650, CESifo.
    8. Gian Maria Milesi-Ferretti & Roberto Perotti & Massimo Rostagno, 2002. "Electoral Systems and Public Spending," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 117(2), pages 609-657.
    9. Fridstrom, Lasse & Elvik, Rune, 1997. "The Barely Revealed Preference behind Road Investment Priorities," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 92(1-2), pages 145-168, July.
    10. Knight, Brian, 2004. "Parochial interests and the centralized provision of local public goods: evidence from congressional voting on transportation projects," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(3-4), pages 845-866, March.
    11. Thiemo Fetzer, 2019. "Did Austerity Cause Brexit?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(11), pages 3849-3886, November.
    12. Mackie, Peter & Worsley, Tom & Eliasson, Jonas, 2014. "Transport appraisal revisited," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 3-18.
    13. Nicola Persico & Alessandro Lizzeri, 2001. "The Provision of Public Goods under Alternative Electoral Incentives," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(1), pages 225-239, March.
    14. Minken, Harald, 2016. "Project selection with sets of mutually exclusive alternatives," Economics of Transportation, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 11-17.
    15. Patricia Funk & Christina Gathmann, 2013. "How Do Electoral Systems Affect Fiscal Policy? Evidence From Cantonal Parliaments, 1890–2000," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 11(5), pages 1178-1203, October.
    16. Jussila Hammes, Johanna & Nilsson, Jan-Eric, 2016. "The allocation of transport infrastructure in Swedish municipalities: Welfare maximization, political economy or both?," Economics of Transportation, Elsevier, vol. 7, pages 53-64.
    17. Leif Helland & Rune Sørensen, 2009. "Geographical redistribution with disproportional representation: a politico-economic model of Norwegian road projects," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 139(1), pages 5-19, April.
    18. Sandberg Hanssen, Thor-Erik & Jørgensen, Finn, 2015. "Transportation policy and road investments," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 49-57.
    19. 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.
    20. Halse, Askill H., 2016. "More for everyone: The effect of local interests on spending on infrastructure," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 41-56.
    21. 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)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Kim, Jinwon, 2022. "Does roadwork improve road speed? Evidence from urban freeways in California," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    2. 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.
    3. Welde, Morten & Tveter, Eivind, 2022. "The wider local impacts of new roads: A case study of 10 projects," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 164-180.
    4. Jussila Hammes, Johanna & Volden, Gro Holst & Welde, Morten & Börjesson, Maria & Odeck, James, 2021. "Finding transport projects with high value for money : what are the socio-geographic determinants?," Working Papers 2021:4, Swedish National Road & Transport Research Institute (VTI).

    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. Garance Genicot & Laurent Bouton & Micael Castanheira, 2021. "Electoral Systems and Inequalities in Government Interventions [“Distributive Politics and Electoral Incentives: Evidence from Seven US State Legislatures.”]," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 19(6), pages 3154-3206.
    2. Vincenzo Galasso & Tommaso Nannicini, 2017. "Political selection under alternative electoral rules," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 171(3), pages 257-281, June.
    3. Albanese, Giuseppe & Cioffi, Marika & Tommasino, Pietro, 2019. "Legislators' behaviour and electoral rules: Evidence from an Italian reform," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 423-444.
    4. Frank, Marco & Stadelmann, David, 2021. "More federal legislators lead to more resources for their constituencies: Evidence from exogenous differences in seat allocations," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 230-243.
    5. Stefano Gagliarducci & Tommaso Nannicini & Paolo Naticchioni, 2011. "Electoral Rules and Politicians' Behavior: A Micro Test," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 3(3), pages 144-174, August.
    6. Raffaella Santolini, 2017. "Electoral Rules And Public Spending Composition: The Case Of Italian Regions," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 35(3), pages 551-577, July.
    7. Monika Köppl-Turyna, 2016. "Opportunistic politicians and fiscal outcomes: the curious case of Vorarlberg," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 168(3), pages 177-216, September.
    8. Emanuele Bracco & Alberto Brugnoli, 2012. "Runoff vs. plurality," Working Papers 23767067, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    9. 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.
    10. Braendle, Thomas, 2013. "Do Institutions Affect Citizens' Selection into Politics?," Working papers 2013/04, Faculty of Business and Economics - University of Basel.
    11. Florian Kiesow Cortez & Jerg Gutmann, 2021. "Domestic Institutions and the Ratification of International Agreements in a Panel of Democracies," International Law and Economics, in: Florian Kiesow Cortez (ed.), The Political Economy of International Agreements, pages 37-62, Springer.
    12. Marco Portmann & David Stadelmann & Reiner Eichenberger, 2010. "District Magnitude and Representation of the Majority?s Preferences: Quasi-Experimental Evidence from Popular and Parliamentary Votes," CREMA Working Paper Series 2010-13, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    13. 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.
    14. Raffaella SANTOLINI, 2013. "Electoral rules and public expenditure composition: Evidence from Italian regions," Working Papers 396, Universita' Politecnica delle Marche (I), Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Sociali.
    15. Jussila Hammes, Johanna & Volden, Gro Holst & Welde, Morten & Börjesson, Maria & Odeck, James, 2021. "Finding transport projects with high value for money : what are the socio-geographic determinants?," Working Papers 2021:4, Swedish National Road & Transport Research Institute (VTI).
    16. Sandberg Hanssen, Thor-Erik & Jørgensen, Finn, 2015. "Transportation policy and road investments," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 49-57.
    17. Alpino, Matteo, 2020. "Mitigating the tradeoff between proportionality and accountability in electoral systems: Evidence from the Italian senate 1994-2006," ZEW Discussion Papers 20-002, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    18. Maaser, Nicola & Stratmann, Thomas, 2018. "Election rules, legislators' incentives, and policy outcomes: Evidence from the mixed member system in Germany," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 227-239.
    19. Dario Debowicz & Alejandro Saporiti & Yizhi Wang, 2021. "Redistribution, power sharing and inequality concern," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 57(2), pages 197-228, August.
    20. Mouter, Niek, 2017. "Dutch politicians’ attitudes towards Cost-Benefit Analysis," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 1-10.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Cost-benefit analysis; road investments; regional policy; distributive politics;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
    • D7 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making
    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • R42 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Transportation Economics - - - Government and Private Investment Analysis; Road Maintenance; Transportation Planning

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:pra:mprapa:94389. 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.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.