Why don't cost-benefit results count for more? The case of Norwegian road investment priorities
Journal article, Peer reviewed
Åpne
Permanent lenke
http://hdl.handle.net/11250/2404432Utgivelsesdato
2016Metadata
Vis full innførselSamlinger
Originalversjon
Urban, Planning and Transport Research 2016, 4(1):101-121 10.1080/21650020.2016.1192957Sammendrag
The starting point is that the benefit/cost ratio is virtually uncorrelated
to the likelihood of a Norwegian classified road project entering
the list of investments selected for the National Transport Plan. The
purpose of the article is to explain what pushes cost-benefit results
into the background in the prioritization process. The reasons for
their downgrading point to mechanisms that are at work not only
in Norway. Explanatory factors are searched for in incentives for
cost-ineffective action among planners, bureaucrats and national
politicians, respectively, as well as in features of the planning process
and the political system. New data are used to show that the road
experts’ list of prioritized projects changes little after submission
to the national politicians, suggesting that the Norwegian Public
Roads Administration puts little emphasis on its own cost-benefit
calculations. Besides, it is shown that the petroleum revenues
of the state do not provide a strong reason for neglecting costbenefit
accounts. The overall contribution of the article is to offer a
comprehensive explanation why professional and political authorities
in Norway set road-building priorities diverging massively from those
suggested by cost-benefit analysis.