Managing the insolvable limitations of cost-benefit analysis: results of an interview based study

Mouter, Niek; Annema, Jan Anne; Wee, Bert van

doi:10.1007/s11116-014-9539-0

Cited by 47 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…And then they give you an answer with four decimal places indicating some sort of degree of exactitude. It's…they're silly… (Paul, policy)This finding is consistent with findings in other areas of policy uncertainty, where policy actors were found to hold “paradoxical positions” where they both privilege the authority of risk‐based policy approaches, while concurrently acknowledging quantitative risk analysis as having a constrained role (Duckett et al ; Mouter, Annema, and van Wee ). The issues with cost–benefit analyses described by these participants are similar to those identified by Mouter, Annema, and van Wee () as “intangible effects.” Intangible effects are effects for which it is difficult to determine: causality between a course of action and an effect, whether the effect will occur and/or whether the effect is beneficial or harmful for national welfare (Mouter, Annema, and van Wee , 280).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 78%

“…It's…they're silly… (Paul, policy)This finding is consistent with findings in other areas of policy uncertainty, where policy actors were found to hold “paradoxical positions” where they both privilege the authority of risk‐based policy approaches, while concurrently acknowledging quantitative risk analysis as having a constrained role (Duckett et al ; Mouter, Annema, and van Wee ). The issues with cost–benefit analyses described by these participants are similar to those identified by Mouter, Annema, and van Wee () as “intangible effects.” Intangible effects are effects for which it is difficult to determine: causality between a course of action and an effect, whether the effect will occur and/or whether the effect is beneficial or harmful for national welfare (Mouter, Annema, and van Wee , 280). Good public policy must recognize the limited capacity for economic instruments to determine policy priorities in complex, competitive, multi‐stakeholder areas, and not succumb to the temptation to simply bracket‐out the inherent uncertainty through exclusive use of apparently “rational” risk‐based approaches (Duckett et al ), which themselves are value‐laden (Meghani and Kuzma ).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 78%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Consumer Concerns Relating to Food Labeling and Trust—Australian Governance Actors Respond

Tonkin¹,

Coveney²,

Webb³

et al. 2017

Journal of Consumer Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to report and critically analyze the responses of governance actors to a set of consumers' concerns relating to food labeling, and by doing so describe how these actors construct both consumer perspectives and the food policy environment in which they work. Fifteen food‐labeling governance actors in Australia and New Zealand were asked to view an online presentation of the findings from a previous study exploring consumer perspectives on food labeling and trust before completing a one‐hour, in‐depth, semi‐structured interview. Colebatch's social constructionist perspective on policy was adopted in the analysis. Participants used their own constructions of Australian food policy, the role of labeling and consumer trust as a means to minimize the consumer concerns. Inadequate critical engagement with the moral dimension of consumer concerns is a core driver of the inertia demonstrated in the Australian government's approach to addressing consumer concerns regarding food matters.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 78%

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 78%

Consumer Concerns Relating to Food Labeling and Trust—Australian Governance Actors Respond

Tonkin¹,

Coveney²,

Webb³

et al. 2017

Journal of Consumer Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Equally, Gardiner (2011) challenges utilitarianism which underpins CBA, followed by the severe criticism of "CBA paralysis" due to weaknesses of this method owed to the discount rate used and intergenerational equity. Others (Beukers et al, 2012;Mouter et al, 2013b;Mouter et al, 2015;Pearce et al, 2006;Thomopoulos et al, 2009) have summarised the disadvantages of CBA, acknowledging though certain strengths of this method largely based on its appeal to policy makers. Nonetheless, acute views about CBA are not a new phenomenon since its critics have expressed their views at least since the 1970s (Turner, 1979).…”

Section: Transport and Ethics Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite the on-going diffusion of ICT to improve data accuracy in a lot of sectors including transport (Thomopoulos et al, 2015), this prevailing position appears not to have been significantly challenged yet due to the virtues of CBA (Mackie, 2011), though it has been subject to an increasing debate in the realm of other sectors such as healthcare. Nevertheless, certain criticisms of CBA practice remain unresolved as highlighted in the literature (Beukers et al, 2012;ITF, 2011;Mouter et al, 2013b;Mouter et al, 2015;Thomopoulos et al, 2009;van Wee, 2011). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An ethical assessment of low carbon vehicles using cost benefit analysis

Thomopoulos

Harrison

2016

IJATM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Global concerns about climate change, as confirmed at COP21, have led to lower carbon emissions environmental policies, particularly in the road transport sector. Through an empirical analysis of Low Carbon Vehicle (LCV) policies in California, this paper contrasts the findings from diverse distribution theories between income quintiles -used as a proxy for social groups -to address vertical equity concerns and offer an overview of impact distribution to policy makers. Thus, it contributes in operationalising ethical theories within transport Cost-Benefit Analysis and revisiting impact distribution when promoting low carbon vehicles. Findings indicate that manufacturer penalties are the most effective policy measure to avoid cost transfer between stakeholders. Yet, the analysis shows that those purchasing small LCVs may face disproportional vehicle purchase cost increases which needs to be considered by policy makers. Thus, this paper makes a methodological contribution regarding CBA in practice as well as providing policy relevant recommendations.

show abstract

“…Therefore, governments at all levels have to face the problem of maintaining service quality and keeping the focus on qualitative analysis [12,17,28,36]. The quantitative studies mainly focus on value for money (VFM) analysis of infrastructure construction and cost-benefit analysis (CBA) [17,[31][32][33][34][35][36][37]. The concept VFM may differ between agencies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying a Financially Sustainable Strategy of Public Transport: Private Capital Investment Considering Passenger Value

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Releaving traffic congestion by developing public transport as an alternative mode of travel is a common practice all over the world. However, the increasing public transport subsidies have created a financial burden for governments. Encouragingly, private capital supplies an opportunity for public transport in sustainable finance. Previous research mainly focuses on qualitative analysis and money-for-value (MFV) analysis. In this paper, a new investment model is proposed based on the concept 'passenger value', and a bi-level programming model (BLPM) is constructed as a quantitative analysis tool. The upper target of BLPM is the total surplus (including the value of time (VOT) of passengers) of the public transport system and the upper constraint is the ticket price. The lower target of BLPM is passenger's surplus, the lower constraints are service capability and the lowest return rate of the private sector. The public transport of Jinan City, China is taken as a case to quantify the impacts of private capital investment in public transport. Results show that the proposed investment model considering passenger value is superior to the traditional one, and effective private capital investment could increase the total societal benefit of the transportation system. The proposed investment strategy satisfies economic viability and is a financially sustainability strategy. Additionally, travelers should be encouraged to use public transport through improving the service quality and passenger returns. Only in this way can the success rate of the private sector investment in public transport be improved efficiently.

show abstract

Managing the insolvable limitations of cost-benefit analysis: results of an interview based study

Cited by 47 publications

References 27 publications

Consumer Concerns Relating to Food Labeling and Trust—Australian Governance Actors Respond

Consumer Concerns Relating to Food Labeling and Trust—Australian Governance Actors Respond

An ethical assessment of low carbon vehicles using cost benefit analysis

Quantifying a Financially Sustainable Strategy of Public Transport: Private Capital Investment Considering Passenger Value

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About