Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Economic Analysis and Investment Priorities in Sweden's Transport Sector
University of Toulouse.
Örebro Universitet.
Institute of Transport Economics.
Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute, Society, environment and transport, Transport economics.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-5814-917X
2018 (English)In: Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, ISSN 2194-5888, E-ISSN 2152-2812, Vol. 9, no 1, p. 120-146Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Beginning as a planning tool within Sweden's national road administration some 50 years ago, benefit-cost analysis (BCA) has come to be a pillar of the national transport policy because of subsequent strategic choices made by the national parliament. These choices made it necessary to widen the analysis of costs to include also externalities and a foregone conclusion was that efficient investment priorities should be made based on BCA. But no one asked whether the political decision makers or the BCA models were up to that task. This paper reviews the institutional framework and practice of BCA in Sweden for transport infrastructure investment, and considers design issues that have been and still are debated, such as whether the discount rate should include a risk term and how to account for the marginal cost of public funds. A main concern with BCA results is the underestimation of construction costs, making transport sector projects look better than they are. Several ex post analyses have established that a higher NPV ratio increases the probability of being included in the investment program proposal prepared by the agency. The requirement to let projects undergo BCA seems to make planners trim project proposals by trying to reduce investment costs without significantly reducing benefits. This relationship is weaker among profitable projects. Moreover, there is no correlation between rate of return and the probability of being included in the final program, which is established on political grounds.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS , 2018. Vol. 9, no 1, p. 120-146
National Category
Economics
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:vti:diva-13047DOI: 10.1017/bca.2018.3ISI: 000431405400006OAI: oai:DiVA.org:vti-13047DiVA, id: diva2:1221709
Available from: 2018-06-20 Created: 2018-06-20 Last updated: 2018-06-20Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full text

Authority records BETA

Andersson, HenrikNilsson, Jan-Eric

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Andersson, HenrikNilsson, Jan-Eric
By organisation
Transport economics
In the same journal
Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis
Economics

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf