چگونه تنظیم اولویت های سیاست با توجه به تجزیه و تحلیل هزینه - فایده به تامین ایمنی جاده تاثیر می گذارد ؟
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|23435||2003||14 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||7811 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Accident Analysis & Prevention, Volume 35, Issue 4, July 2003, Pages 557–570
This paper analyses how setting priorities for road safety strictly according to cost–benefit analysis would affect the provision of road safety in Norway and Sweden. The paper is based on recent analyses of the efficiency of road safety policies in these two countries. The argument sometimes made by critics of cost–benefit analysis, that only a few road safety measures are cost-effective (have benefits greater than costs), is not supported. Cost-effective road safety policies could prevent between 50 and 60% of the current number of road accident fatalities in both Norway and Sweden, if pursued consistently during a period of 10 years (2002–2011). If current policies are continued, only about 10–15% of the current number of road accident fatalities are likely to be prevented during the next 10 years. A number of sources of inefficiency in road safety policy are identified. A source of inefficiency is anything that prevents policy priorities from being set according to cost–benefit analysis. These include: (a) lack of power, which means that national governments do not have the formal authority to introduce a certain road safety measure, in Europe, this applies to new vehicle safety standards, which are passed almost exclusively by the European Union; (b) the existence of social dilemmas, which means that measures that are cost-effective from a societal point of view are not so from the point of view of individual road users; (c) priority given to other policy objectives, in particular regional development. Scarcity of resources, which obtains when public budgets have to be increased to make room for all cost-effective measures, was not found to be a constraint. All cost-effective measures can be funded within current budgets, provided the use of inefficient measures ceases.
Road safety has been greatly improved in many motorised countries since the number of road accident fatalities reached an all-time high around 1970. Nevertheless, there is still a large potential for further improving road safety, even in countries that have a comparatively good road safety record, like Norway and Sweden (Elvik, 2001a and Elvik, 2001b). Current road safety policies in these two countries are, however, rather ineffective in improving road safety. Recent analyses (Elvik, 1999a, Elvik, 2001a and Elvik and Amundsen, 2000) indicate that current policy priorities are inefficient in both Norway and Sweden. These analyses conclude that road safety could be improved substantially if policy priorities were based on cost–benefit analyses to a greater extent than they are today. The use of cost–benefit analysis to set priorities for road safety policy, is controversial. At least two arguments are often made against the use of cost–benefit analyses to set priorities for road safety: 1. Cost–benefit analysis is based on the assumption that road safety ought to be provided only to the extent that there is a demand for it (i.e. a willingness-to-pay for reduced risk). But, critics claim that one of the major problems of road safety policy, is that there is no demand for road safety. Hence, providing for road safety only to the extent that monetary benefits exceed costs will not result in a large improvement in safety. An OECD report (OECD Scientific Expert Group, 1993), for example, is based on the assumption that road safety needs to be “marketed” otherwise there will be an insufficient demand for it. 2. It is unethical to reject proposals for improving safety simply because monetary benefits are believed to be smaller than monetary costs. Based on these arguments, this paper examines whether it is true that setting priorities for the provision of road safety according to cost–benefit analyses would in fact lead only to a small improvement in safety. The main question to be discussed is: does setting priority for road safety measures on the basis of cost–benefit analysis greatly restrict the scope for improving road safety? Next, the question is asked: what prevents priorities from being based on cost–benefit analysis, given the fact that such policy priorities would improve road safety more than current policy priorities are doing? The objective of the paper is to try to identify and assess the contributions of various constraints to road safety policy making, in particular constraints that prevent priorities from being based on cost–benefit analysis. The ethical objections to using cost–benefit analysis will not be considered. A brief discussion is given in another paper (Elvik, 2001b).
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
This paper has analysed the implications for road safety in Norway and Sweden of basing the provision of road safety strictly on cost–benefit analysis, which means using only those road safety measures whose benefits are greater than the costs. The main conclusions of the analysis can be summarised as follows: 1. Analyses have been made to determine the potential for improving road safety in Norway and Sweden, and to develop alternative strategies for road safety policy. 2. It was found that, by applying all road safety measures that are potentially effective to the maximum conceivable extent during a period of 10 years, it is in principle possible to prevent close to 80% of the current number of road accident fatalities in both Norway and Sweden. 3. If policy priorities are set strictly according to cost–benefit analysis, meaning that only those road safety measures whose benefits are greater than the costs (cost-effective measures) are used during a period of 10 years, about 50–60% of the current number of road accident fatalities can be prevented in both Norway and Sweden. 4. If current road safety policies are continued, only about 10–15% of the current number of road accident fatalities will be prevented during the next 10 years. Current road safety policies are inefficient. A number of sources of inefficiency, that is factors that prevent priorities from being set strictly according to cost–benefit analysis, were identified. 5. The main sources of inefficiency in current road safety policies in Norway and Sweden are: (a) lack of power to introduce new vehicle safety standards. This power now resides with the European Union; (b) the existence of social dilemmas, that is situations in which measures that are cost-effective from a societal point of view, are loss-making from the point of view of individual road users; (c) priority given to other policy objectives, which cannot be adequately assessed by means of cost–benefit analyses, primarily objectives related to regional development. 6. Scarcity of resources was not found to be a constraint for efficient road safety policy. The amounts that are currently being spent on road safety measures are large enough to cover the expenses of all cost-effective road safety measures, provided the use of inefficient measures ceases.