Assessing conceptions of cost-benefit analysis among road safety decision-makers: Misunderstandings or disputes?

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal

Volumn 28, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 57-67

  Veisten, Knut ^a   Elvik, Rune ^a   Bax, Charlotte ^b  

^a INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORT ECONOMICS   (Norway)

^b SWOV INSTITUTE FOR ROAD SAFETY RESEARCH   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Boundary dispute; Homogeneity analysis; Information reference testing; Ordinal logit

Indexed keywords

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; LOGIT ANALYSIS; ROAD TRANSPORT; TRANSPORTATION PLANNING; TRANSPORTATION SAFETY;

EUROPE;

EID: 77950173930     PISSN: 14615517     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3152/146155110X488790     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Agresti, A 1999. Modelling ordered categorical data: recent advances and future challenges. Statistics in Medicine, 18(17-18), 2191-2207.
2. Alvey, J E 1999. A short history of economics as a moral science. Journal of Markets and Morality, 2(1), 53-73.
3. BASt 2003. Screening of efficiency assessment experiences: report 'State of the art. Road Safety and Environmental Benefit-Cost and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Use in Decision-Making'. Report No M2/D2, July 2003. Bergisch Gladbach, Germany: Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt).
4. Bax, C 2005. Cooperation and organization in decision-making: a more decisive road safety policy? Results from a multiple case study in the Netherlands. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 22(1), 35-44.
5. Bax, C, R Elvik and K Veisten 2009. Knowledge utilisation in road safety policy: barriers to the use of knowledge from economic analysis. Knowledge, Technology and Policy, 22(4), 275-285.
6. Becker, G S 1976. The Economic Approach to Human Behavior. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
7. Bickel, P, R Friedrich, A Burgess, P Fagiani, A Hunt, G De Jong, J Laird, C Lieb, G Lindberg, P Mackie, S Navrud, T Odgaard, A Ricci, J Shires and L Tavasszy 2006. Proposal for Harmonised Guidelines. Deliverable 5, Developing Harmonised European Approaches for Transport Costing and Project Assessment (HEATCO), Project funded by the European Commission under the Transport RTD Programme of the 6th Framework Programme.
8. Braden, J B and C D Kolstad (eds) 1991. Measuring the Demand for Environmental Quality. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
9. Caplan, B 2007. The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
10. Elvik, R 1995. Explaining the distribution of state funds for national road investments between counties in Norway: engineering standards or vote trading? Public Choice, 85, 371-388.
11. Elvik, R 2003. How would setting policy priorities according to cost-benefit analyses affect the provision of road safety? Accident Analysis and Prevention, 35, 557-570.
12. Elvik, R and T Vaa (eds) 2004. The Handbook of Road Safety Measures. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
13. Elvik, R and K Veisten 2005. 'Barriers to the use of efficiency assessment tools for road safety measures.' TØI report 785/2005. Oslo, Norway: Institute of Transport Economics.
14. Epstein, R A 2003. The regrettable necessity of contingent valuation. Unpublished paper. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
15. Fridstrøm, L and R Elvik 1997. The barely revealed preference behind road investment priorities. Public Choice, 92, 145-168.
16. Geer, J G 1991. Do open-ended questions measure 'salient' issues? Public Opinion Quarterly, 55(3), 360-370.
17. Gifi, A 1981. HOMALS Users Guide. Leiden, Netherlands: Department of Data Theory, University of Leiden.
18. Gifi, A 1991. Homogeneity analysis. In: Nonlinear Multivariate Analysis, ed. A Gifi. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
19. Hakkert, S and P Wesemann (eds) 2005. The Use of Efficiency Assessment Tools: Solutions to Barriers. SWOV Report R-2005-02. Leidschendam, The Netherlands: Institute for Road Safety Research (SWOV).
20. Hanley, N and C L Spash 1993. Cost-benefit Analysis and the Environment. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
21. Hausman, D M 1992. The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
22. Hoppe, R 1999. Policy analysis, science and politics: from 'speaking truth to power' to 'making sense together'. Science and Public Policy, 26(3), 201-210.
23. Hoppe, R 2005. Rethinking the science-policy nexus: from knowledge utilization and science technology studies to types of boundary arrangements. Poiesis & Praxis: International Journal of Technology Assessment and Ethics of Science, 3(3), 199-215.
24. Jasanoff, S S 1987. Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science. Social Studies of Science, 17(2), 195-230.
25. Jasanoff, S S 1990. The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
26. Kourilsky, M 1993. Economic education and a generative model of mislearning and recovery. Journal of Economic Education, Winter Issue, 23-33.
27. Kourilsky, M and T Kehret-Ward 1983. Determinants of economic reasoning in monetary and time-allocation decision. Journal of Economic Education, Fall Issue, 23-31.
28. Layard, R and S Glaister (eds) 1994. Cost-benefit Analysis. 2nd edn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
29. McKelvey, R D and W Zavoina 1975. A statistical model for the analysis of ordinal level dependent variables. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 4, 103-120.
30. Nyborg, K 1998. Some Norwegian politicians' use of cost-benefit analysis. Public Choice, 95, 381-401.
31. Nyborg, K and I Spangen 2000. Cost-benefit analysis and the democratic ideal. Nordic Journal of Political Economy, 26(1), 83-93.
32. Odeck, J 1996. Ranking of regional road investment in Norway: does socio-economic analysis matter? Transportation, 23, 123-140.
33. Page, J 2006. Make it easy to your readers: ideas on environmental impact document focus, organization, and style. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 24(3), 233-245.
34. Pfeffer, J 1981. Power in Organizations. Marshfield, WI: Pitman Publishing.
35. Randall, A 1987. Resource Economics: An Economic Approach to Natural Resource and Environmental Policy. 2nd edn. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
36. Rossi, P H, J D Wright and A B Anderson 1983. Handbook of Survey Research. New York: Academic Press.
37. Sagoff, M 1988. Some problems with environmental economics. Environmental Ethics, 10, 55-74.
38. Sen, A 2000. The discipline of cost-benefit analysis. Journal of Legal Studies, 29, 931-952.
39. Simon, H 1976. Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organizations. New York, NY: The Free Press.
40. SPSS 2002. SPSS 11.5 for Windows. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. Chicago, IL: SPSS, Inc.
41. Stigler, G J 1970. The case, if any, for economic literacy. Journal of Economic Education, Spring Issue, 77-84.
42. Stigler, G J and G S Becker 1977. De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum. Journal of Political Economy, 67(2), 76-90.
43. Wildavsky, A 1979. Speaking Truth to Power: The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.
44. Wise, L R 2004. Bureaucratic posture: on the need for a composite theory of bureaucratic behavior. Public Administration Review, 64(6), 669-680.