Cost-benefit analysis: too often biased

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorVejchodská, Eliška
dc.contributor.otherEkonomická fakultacs
dc.date.accessioned2015-12-07
dc.date.available2015-12-07
dc.date.defense2015-12-01
dc.description.abstractCost-benefit analysis (CBA) is widely applied in many countries in evaluating public projects and regulatory instruments. It is employed, for example, as a basis for decisions within the European Union’s subsidy policy. CBA enables to express the comprehensive effect of a project or a governmental regulation on social welfare and thereby to introduce expertise to political decision-making. However, its practical applications face many problems. Different methodological choices in performing CBA enable to obtain diametrically opposite conclusions. Moreover, the way how investors apply for EU Fund subsidies encourages CBA performers to adjust CBA results to requirements of subsidy applicants. The unavoidable consequence is frequently mendacious, unreliable and misleading CBA. The paper brings an overview of the flexibility in CBA methodological choices. It further focuses on analysing the CBA performance practice in the area of CBA project appraisal for the purposes of applying for EU funding. We examine the reasons for manipulating results using a theoretical analysis and support our findings by our own empirical survey among CBA performers. As our survey among commercial CBA performers uncovers, many entities performing CBA lack expert background for CBA performance and performed CBA are often biased and misleading. Our theoretical analysis shows its main reason: The person choosing and remunerating the CBA performer for the purposes of a project appraisal for EU funding is at the same time the subsidy applicant and thus with a clear interest in the optimistic result of the CBA. CBA performers are happy to oblige their customers. The remedy to this situation is to get rid of this unintentional alliance among CBA performers and subsidy applicants.en
dc.formattext
dc.format.extent10 s.cs
dc.identifier.doi10.15240/tul/001/2015-4-005
dc.identifier.eissn2336-5604
dc.identifier.issn12123609
dc.identifier.urihttps://dspace.tul.cz/handle/15240/13436
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherTechnická Univerzita v Libercics
dc.publisherTechnical university of Liberec, Czech Republicen
dc.publisher.abbreviationTUL
dc.relation.isbasedonADLER, M.D. and POSNER, E. Rethinking Cost-Benefit Analysis. Yale Law Journal. 1999, Vol. 109, Iss. 2, pp. 165-247. ISSN 0044-0094. DOI: 10.2307/797489.
dc.relation.isbasedonALMANSA, C. and MARTÍNEZ-PAZ, J.M. What weight should be assigned to future environmental impacts? A probabilistic cost benefit analysis using recent advances on discounting. Science of the Total Environment. 2011, Vol. 409, Iss. 7, pp. 1305-1314. ISSN 0048-9697. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.12.004.
dc.relation.isbasedonARROW, K.J. Social Choice and Individual Values. New York: Wiley, 1951. ISBN 0300013647.
dc.relation.isbasedonBEDNAŘÍKOVÁ, Z. and JÍLKOVÁ, J. Why is the Agricultural Lobby in the European Union Member States so Effective? E+M Ekonomie a Management. 2012, Vol. 12, Iss. 2, pp. 26-37. ISSN 1212-3609.
dc.relation.isbasedonCOLETTI, P. and RADAELLI, C.M. Economic Rationales, Learning, and Regulatory Policy Instruments. Public Administration. 2013, Vol. 91, Iss. 4, pp. 1056-1070. ISSN 1467-9299. DOI: 10.1111/padm.12006.
dc.relation.isbasedonDRYZEK, J.S. The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. ISBN 0-19-927739-7.
dc.relation.isbasedonFOGLIA, A.T. and JENNINGS, A.K. A Happiness Approach to Cost-Benefit Analysis. Duke Law Journal. 2013, Vol. 62, Iss. 8, pp. 1503-1508. ISSN 0012-7086.
dc.relation.isbasedonFRANK, R.H. Why is Cost-Benefit Analysis so Controversial? In: HAUSMAN, D.M. (Ed). The Philosophy of Economics, An Anthology. 3rd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008. pp. 251-269. ISBN 0-521-88350-4.
dc.relation.isbasedonGARROD, G. and WILLIS, K.G. Economic Valuation of the Environment, Methods and Case Studies. Edward Elgar, 1999. ISBN 1-85898-684-2.
dc.relation.isbasedonGRAMLICH, E.M. A Guide to Cost-Benefit Analysis. London: Prentice-Hall, 1990. ISBN 0881339881.
dc.relation.isbasedonGRIEBSCH, I., COAST, J. and BROWN, J. Quality-Adjusted Life-Years Lack Quality in Pediatric Care: A Critical Review of Published Cost-Utility Studies in Child Health. Pediatrics. 2005, Vol. 115, Iss. 5, pp. 600-614. ISSN 0031-4005. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2004-2127.
dc.relation.isbasedonHANLEY, N., SHOGREN, J.F. and WHITE, B. Environmental Economics in Theory and Practice. 2nd ed. Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. ISBN 0-333-97137-x.
dc.relation.isbasedonHANLEY, N. and SPASH, C.L. Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment. Aldershot: Edward Elgar, 1995. ISBN 1-85278-455-5.
dc.relation.isbasedonHARRISON, M. Valuing the Future: The Social Discount Rate in Cost-Benefit Analysis. Visiting Researcher Paper. Canberra: Productivity Commission, 2010.
dc.relation.isbasedonHYARD, A. Cost-benefit analysis according to Sen: An application in the evaluation of transport infrastructures in France. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 2012, Vol. 46, Iss. 4, pp. 707-719. ISSN 0965-8564. DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2012.01.002.
dc.relation.isbasedonKOTÍKOVÁ, E. Ochrana životního prostředí v ekonomické teorii. Politická ekonomie. 2006, Vol. 54, Iss. 2, pp. 261-273. ISSN. 0032-3233. DOI: 10.18267/j.polek.557.
dc.relation.isbasedonLEUNG, H.W., et al. Systematic Review and Quality Assessment of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Pharmaceutical Therapies for Advanced Colorectal Cancer. The Annals of Pharmacotherapy. 2013, Vol. 47, Iss. 4, pp. 506-518. ISSN 1060-0280. DOI: 10.1345/aph.1R152.
dc.relation.isbasedonLEVIN, H.M. and MCEWAN, P.J. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2001. ISBN-10:0761919341.
dc.relation.isbasedonMANDELL, S. Carbon emission values in cost benefit analyses. Transport Policy. 2011, Vol. 18, Iss. 6, pp. 888-892. ISSN 0967-070X. DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2011.06.005.
dc.relation.isbasedonMOUTER, N., ANNEMA, J.A. and VAN WEE, B. Ranking the substantive problems in the Dutch Cost–Benefit Analysis practice. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 2013, Vol. 49, pp. 241-255. ISSN 0965-8564. DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2013.01.020.
dc.relation.isbasedonNORDHAUS, W.D. A Review of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change. Journal of Economic Literature. 2007, Vol. 45, Iss. 3, pp. 686-702. ISSN 0022-0515. DOI: 10.1257/jel.45.3.686.
dc.relation.isbasedonPORTNEY, P. and WEYANT, J. Introduction. In: PORTNEY, P. and WEYANT, J. (Eds). Discounting and Intergenerational Equity, Resources for the Future Press, 1999. pp. 1-11. ISBN 0915707896.
dc.relation.isbasedonRADAELLI, C.M. Measuring Policy Learning: Regulatory Impact Assessment in Europe. Journal of European Public Policy. 2009, Vol. 16, Iss. 8, pp. 1145-1164. ISSN 1350-1763. DOI: 10.1080/13501760903332647.
dc.relation.isbasedonRUSSELL, L.B., et al. The Role of Cost-effectiveness Analysis in Health and Medicine. JAMA, The Journal of the American Medical Association. 1996, Vol. 276, Iss. 14, pp. 1172-1177. ISSN 1538-3598. DOI: 10.1001/jama.1996.03540140060028.
dc.relation.isbasedonSEN, A. The Discipline of Cost-Benefit Analysis. The Journal of Legal Studies. 2000, Vol. 29, Iss. S2, pp. 931-952. ISSN 1744-1722. DOI: 10.1086/468100.
dc.relation.isbasedonSLAVÍKOVÁ, L., VEJCHODSKÁ, E., SLAVÍK, J., et al. Ekonomie životního prostředí: teorie a politika. Praha: Alfa, 2012. ISBN 978-80-87197-45-5.
dc.relation.isbasedonSTERN, N. The Economics of Climate Change, The Stern Review. Cambridge University Press, 2007. ISBN 9780521700801.
dc.relation.isbasedonŠAUER, P., et al. Assessment of Environmental Policy Implementation: Two Case Studies from the Czech Republic. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies. 2012, Vol. 21, Iss. 5, pp. 1383-1391. ISSN 1230-1485.
dc.relation.isbasedonVINING, A. and WEIMER, D.L. An assessment of important issues concerning the application of benefit-cost analysis to social policy. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis. 2010, Vol. 1, Iss. 1. ISSN 2152-2812. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2202/2152-2812.1013.
dc.relation.isbasedonVOJÁČEK, O. and PECÁKOVÁ, I. Comparison of Discrete Choice Models for Economic Environmental Research. Prague Economic Papers. 2010, Vol. 19, Iss. 1, pp. 35-53. ISSN 1210-0455. DOI: 10.18267/j.pep.363.
dc.relation.ispartofEkonomie a Managementcs
dc.relation.ispartofEconomics and Managementen
dc.relation.isrefereedtrue
dc.rightsCC BY-NC
dc.subjectcost-benefit analysisen
dc.subjectCBAen
dc.subjectbiasen
dc.subjectreflectionen
dc.subjectCzech Republicen
dc.subject.classificationD61
dc.subject.classificationQ38
dc.titleCost-benefit analysis: too often biaseden
dc.typeArticleen
local.accessopen
local.citation.epage77
local.citation.spage68
local.facultyFaculty of Economics
local.fulltextyes
local.relation.abbreviationE&Men
local.relation.abbreviationE+Mcs
local.relation.issue4
local.relation.volume18
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Stránky z EM_4_2015_05.pdf
Size:
721.43 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download
Collections
Číslo 4