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
Governance regimes for large transport infrastructure investment projects: Comparative analysis of Norway and Sweden
Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute, Society, environment and transport, Transport economics.
Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute, Society, environment and transport, Transport economics.ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7976-5628
2019 (English)In: Case Studies on Transport Policy, ISSN 2213-624X, E-ISSN 2213-6258Article in journal (Refereed) In press
Abstract [en]

The two Nordic countries Norway and Sweden have launched governance regimes for the early phases of transport infrastructure investments after experiencing frequent cost overruns and low cost-benefit ratios. This study seeks to find out if these governance regimes have reduced the escalation of costs from early estimates to finalized projects and influenced the choice of projects away from those with lower benefit to cost ratios. We have compared governance regimes for major transport infrastructure investments in the two countries and examined the development and content of quality assurance activities, the involvement of internal and external parties, their duties and responsibilities, their stage gate models, and how decisions are made. The findings are that both countries have introduced formalizations of their governance regimes that mandate project reviews during the planning process and quality assurance, both of which have increased early cost estimates. One difference was that in Norway, the Ministry of Finance manages the quality assurance scheme and imposes external quality assurance requirements, while Sweden has no corresponding ministerial oversight. Therefore, on the one hand, the process is more strictly formalized in Norway, but on the other hand, cost-benefit ratios appear to have more weight in Sweden. Furthermore, although both countries have done several ex post evaluations, neither country has introduced a formalized ex post evaluation process allowing for systematic examination of the causes of cost overruns and low benefit to cost ratios. Even so, politicians may manoeuvre projects with lower benefit to cost ratios around the governance systems in both countries. Finally, some projects in both countries still have experienced significant cost escalations despite these processes.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier Ltd , 2019.
National Category
Economics
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:vti:diva-14088DOI: 10.1016/j.cstp.2019.07.011Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85069954289OAI: oai:DiVA.org:vti-14088DiVA, id: diva2:1344080
Available from: 2019-08-20 Created: 2019-08-20 Last updated: 2019-08-20Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records BETA

Nyström, JohanPyddoke, Roger

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Nyström, JohanPyddoke, Roger
By organisation
Transport economics
In the same journal
Case Studies on Transport Policy
Economics

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 4 hits
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