Dutch politicians’ use of cost–benefit analysis

Abstract

28 Dutch politicians and 10 top-level civil servants were interviewed about the way Dutch politicians use cost-benefit analysis (CBA). Various types of use were identified. Politicians use CBA: (1) When forming their opinion about the desirability of transport projects; (2) As political ammunition (opportunistic use); (3) To make themselves and their decisions look more rational (symbolic use). None of the politicians stated that they solely base their judgment on CBAs. Politicians mention seven barriers that hamper the use of CBA when forming their opinion: (1) The process of forming an opinion is trivial; (2) Politicians prefer to form their opinion based on conversations rather than on reading reports; (3) Politicians don't trust CBA's impartiality; (4) Politicians disagree with normative choices made in CBA. An example of such a normative choice is that CBA attaches an equally large weight to everybody's utility changes. (5) Politicians think that CBA's explanatory power is limited; (6) Politicians receive CBAs too late; (7) When there is plenty of money, politicians care less about a project's social profitability. Members of Parliament identified barriers 3 and 6 as the most important barriers. They regard publishing CBAs one or two months before a debate as the most auspicious solution for rectifying these barriers. An interesting observation is that no barriers for the opportunistic and symbolic use of CBA by politicians were identified. Hence, it can be concluded that it is highly likely that when politicians receive CBAs for transport projects, they will use the CBA in an opportunistic and symbolic way, but politicians will not necessarily use CBA when forming their opinion.

How to road price in a world with electric vehicles and government budget constraints

“…Rather, it constructs a model that will allow for analysis of optimal road prices in an economy with distortionary taxes. Any analyst or decision-maker using the model, may choose to disallow marginal costs of public funds above 1, perhaps as a part of a "moral sensitivity analysis" (see e.g., Mouter, 2016). The model can thus serve a purpose as a flexible and practical tool for analyzing costs and benefits of road prices under varying assumptions.…”

An empirical assessment of Dutch citizens' preferences for spatial equality in the context of a national transport investment plan

“…Grahem, 2007;Mouter et al, 2013a) and several researchers have investigated the relation between CBA and political decisions (e.g. Annema et al, 2017;Eliasson et al, 2015;Nellthorp and Mackie, 2000;Mouter, 2016;Nyborg, 1998;Odeck, 1996Odeck, , 2010Sager and Ravlum, 2005). Cost-Benefit Analysis is often criticized in the academic literature for ignoring equity and other ethically important implications of policies (e.g.…”

“…Brodie, 2015;Martens, 2016;Pereira et al, 2016), studies investigating political decision-making regarding transport projects established that politicians particularly regard 'spatial equality' of transport investments as a key consideration in their decisions involving the allocation of investments in a national transport program for infrastructure investments (e.g. Mouter, 2016;Fridstrøm and Elvik, 1997;Sager, 2016;van der Hoeven, 2015). For instance, Dutch politicians argue that it is fair to balance transport investments across the country to some extent, because all over the country Dutch citizens pay taxes which makes it justifiable to improve citizens' mobility all over the country (Mouter, 2016).…”

“…Mouter, 2016;Fridstrøm and Elvik, 1997;Sager, 2016;van der Hoeven, 2015). For instance, Dutch politicians argue that it is fair to balance transport investments across the country to some extent, because all over the country Dutch citizens pay taxes which makes it justifiable to improve citizens' mobility all over the country (Mouter, 2016). Recently, the spatial fairness of the Dutch National Program for Transport Investment (MIRT) was disputed as a result of the conclusion of a Dutch study (BNR, 2016a) that 80% of infrastructure investments in the period 2010-2015 were located in the Randstad (urbanized region in the west of the Netherlands).…”

Toll Roads in Indonesia: Transport System, Accessibility, Spatial and Equity Impacts

“…Studies in Norway (Odeck, 2010) and Sweden (Nilsson, 1991) show that the decision-makers do not select projects primarily based on outcomes of CBA but focus on specific benefits such as reducing travel time, minimising accidents rates and encouraging regional developments. Mouter (2017) shows that Dutch politicians also use CBA in an opportunistic and symbolic way. In most countries, including Indonesia, cost-benefit analyses are used for the planning of major infrastructure rather than for local infrastructure, however.…”