This paper provides a systematic overview of the attitudes of key actors in the Dutch Cost–Benefit Analysis (CBA) practice towards the role of CBA in the decision-making process for spatial-infrastructure projects. The main aim of this paper is to scrutinize the extent to which there is agreement among these Dutch actors in regard to the role of the CBA in the decision-making process. A secondary goal is to provide possible explanations for agreements and controversies among key actors in the Dutch CBA practice. In this study two research methods are combined to study the key actors’ attitudes. Firstly, 86 key actors (e.g. consultants, scientists, policy makers) were interviewed in-depth. Secondly, 74 of them completed a written questionnaire. The most important conclusion of this paper is that in the Dutch CBA practice there is agreement that CBA must have a role in the appraisal process of spatial-infrastructure projects. However, there is a lot of controversy among economists and spatial planners in the Dutch CBA practice concerning the value that is and should be assigned to CBA in the decision-making process. Economists predominantly believe that not enough value is assigned to the CBA in the decision-making process, whereas spatial planners predominantly think that too much value is assigned to the CBA. Both economists and spatial planners believe that this controversy is problematic as it results in debates about the pros and cons of CBA instead of the pros and cons of the spatial-infrastructure projects. This paper analyzes some solutions for this controversy.
The (Social) Cost–Benefit Analysis (CBA) is a widely used ex-ante evaluation tool used to support the decision-making process in transport in most western countries (e.g. Grant-Muller et al., 2001, Hayashi and Morisugi, 2000, Odgaard et al., 2005 and Vickerman, 2007). Despite its popularity, the role of CBA in decision-making processes for transport projects is a continuous topic of debate in countries and institutions where it is used (e.g. Hamers et al., 2012, Mackie, 2010, Sager and Ravlum, 2005 and World Bank, 2010). The topic of the role of CBA is often discussed in academic literature as well. For the purpose of this paper, we distinguish two categories of literature. One category aims to determine the actual influence of CBA on investment decisions with both quantitative and qualitative analysis (e.g. Eliasson and Lundberg, 2012, Grant-Muller et al., 2001, Nellthorp and Mackie, 2000, Nyborg, 1998, Odeck, 1996 and Odeck, 2010). The broad picture is that these studies show that planners’/politicians’ rankings of investments are to some extent influenced by Benefit–Cost Ratios and CBAs are in some cases used for enhancing project alternatives and for evaluating alternative options (for the same project) but not for making a final decision.
A second category of literature analyzes the disagreement about the usefulness of CBA as a decision-making support tool, reflects on the actual role of CBA or presents a view on the ideal role in the decision-making process (e.g. Frank, 2000, Lohmann, 1997, Mackie, 2010, Quinet, 2000, Sen, 2000, Shapiro, 2010, Sunstein, 2000 and World Bank, 2010). Although this literature produces many useful recommendations for improved use of and the role of CBA in the decision-making process, it should be acknowledged that the analyses and recommendations are solely based on deep knowledge and the perceptions of the author(s).
Based on the literature, we conclude that CBA is used to some extent (in other words, plays some role) in actual decision-making processes in the world. The main aim of this paper is to add to the literature by systematically analyzing the attitudes of 86 key actors (e.g. consultants, scientists, policy makers) in the Dutch CBA practice towards the role of CBA in the decision-making process for spatial-infrastructure projects.1 This paper also aims to give possible explanations for converging and diverging attitudes towards the role of CBA in a decision-making process based on the 86 actors’ perceptions of advantages and disadvantages of CBA.
In our view, analyzing key actors’ attitudes towards CBA’s role is scientifically relevant in itself because, to the best of our knowledge, this focus on attitudes of actual CBA actors has never been carried out before. The societal contribution of this paper is that the results can lead to more productive and efficient discussions regarding the role of CBA in decision making, because actors with different backgrounds (e.g. economists and spatial planners) may understand each other better if their attitudes towards CBA’s role (which may be very different) are made explicit. Additionally, we think that more insight into the converging and diverging attitudes of key actors in regard to the role of CBA can pave the way for more specific scientific research towards (understanding and enhancing) the role of the CBA in practice.
Section 2 presents the research methodology. Section 3 presents the results. Section 4 provides some possible explanations for the results. Finally, Section 5 provides conclusions and discusses the results.
The most important conclusion of this paper is that in the Dutch CBA practice there is agreement that CBA must have ‘a’ role in the appraisal process of spatial-infrastructure projects. However, despite this wide support for CBA, there is a lot of controversy among economists and spatial planners concerning the value that is and should be assigned to CBA in the decision-making process. Economists predominantly believe that too little value is assigned to the CBA in the decision-making process, whereas spatial planners predominantly think that too much value is assigned to the CBA. Both economists and spatial planners believe that this controversy is problematic as it results in debates about the pros and cons of CBA instead of the pros and cons of the spatial-infrastructure projects. We think that this result is noteworthy and surprising for two reasons. First, we did not expect that even the respondents who were known as CBA-antagonists are not opposed to the use of CBA completely, but are ‘only’ against attributing too strong a value to CBA in the decision-making process. Second, we think it clearly clarifies that an actor’s ‘specialism’ is more decisive for explaining his/her attitude towards the value that is assigned to CBA in the decision-making process than his/ her ‘profession’.
Next, we discuss three topics based on our results. The first one concerns solutions to overcome the controversy among economists and spatial planners. In the second topic we discuss some suggestions for further research. The third topic is about the limitations of this study.
