scholarly journals The origin of cost–benefit analysis: a comparative view of France and the United States

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Wei Jiang ◽  
Rainer Marggraf
Keyword(s):  
Early Development ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
The United States ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Research Areas ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Almost All

Abstract Background Cost–benefit analysis (CBA), as a common instrument in the decision making process on how to allocate financial resources, has been widely used in various research areas and in almost all of countries over the world. However, the origin and the historical development of CBA has long been subject to neglect. We attempt to fill this gap and clarify the origin and the early development of CBA. Methods A comparative analysis is used to investigate the origin and the early development of CBA in France and the USA. The comparison is focused on two questions: (1) which criteria should be applied to decide whether or not a project should be carried out, and (2) with which procedure these criteria can be used for real projects. Results The origin of CBA can be dated back to the work of Saint-Pierre in France in 1708. Dupuit introduces the concept of consumer’s surplus that founds the economic basis of CBA. These works are not taken seriously in France and do not draw attention from other countries. Hence, until the 1930s, the principle of CBA is newly proposed in the US and the Green Book marks the mature of CBA. Conclusions The early development of CBA in France and the US is independent from the aspects of historical background, personnel, approaches and standardization. This study could help researchers of various disciplines be sure about the history of CBA when they perform this analysis in their research areas.

Precaution, Proportionality, and Cost/Benefit Analysis: False Analogies

2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 281-286 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Rose–Ackerman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Precautionary Principle ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
The United States ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
The Us ◽  
Proportionality Principle

The Politics of Precaution by David Vogel, and the edited volume, The Reality of Precaution each compare the United States with Europe over a range of regulatory areas. Vogel claims that the US and Europe changed places in recent years with Europe becoming more precautionary than the US. The edited volume covers a wider range of topics and finds that the results are mixed. The evidence of diversity in the edited volume appears convincing, but this essay argues that both volumes too narrowly focus on the precautionary principle. Rather it argues for a broader context that confronts precaution both with the proportionality principle, which is a mainstay of European Union law, and with the limitations of cost/benefit analysis and Impact Assessment. It unpacks the normative underpinnings of these concepts to suggest a broader frame for policy analysis.

The Use of Cost-Benefit Analysis for Evaluating Efficiency of Public Investment Projects (The Case of Sochi-2014 Winter Olympic Games)

2011 ◽  
pp. 57-78
Author(s):  
I. Pilipenko
Keyword(s):  
Net Present Value ◽  
Olympic Games ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Public Investment ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Investment Efficiency ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Step Method ◽  
Investment Projects ◽  
The Usa

The paper analyzes shortcomings of economic impact studies based mainly on input- output models that are often employed in Russia as well as abroad. Using studies about sport events in the USA and Olympic Games that took place during the last 30 years we reveal advantages of the cost-benefit analysis approach in obtaining unbiased assessments of public investments efficiency; the step-by-step method of cost-benefit analysis is presented in the paper as well. We employ the project of Sochi-2014 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games in Russia to evaluate its efficiency using cost-benefit analysis for five accounts (areas of impact), namely government, households, environment, economic development, and social development, and calculate the net present value of the project taking into account its possible alternatives. In conclusion we suggest several policy directions that would enhance public investment efficiency within the Sochi-2014 Olympics.

scholarly journals The New Control of Territory and Urban Planning: the Eminent Domain in the US

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 38
Author(s):  
Sonia Paone
Keyword(s):  
Private Property ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
The United States ◽  
Eminent Domain ◽  
Public Utility ◽  
Transfer Property ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
The City

The article analyses the transformations of the use of eminent domain in the United States in the context of urban redevelopment programs. In the past the private property has been expropriated for public use only. Recently it is possible to forcibly transfer property, from a private subject to private developers, on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis that demonstrates that the new use is more efficient than the previous one. This profound change has been possible thanks to a progressive modification of the concept of public use. Traditionally, public use coincided with the construction of infrastructures and public utility, such as highways and railroads. Over the time, it has come to include other aims: firstly, projects of urban renewal and economic development carried forth by private developers. Essentially, it has resulted in the use of expropriation to assemble lands which are then granted to subjects who intervene in the reconfiguration of the city for private purposes. Starting from some important examples of urban development, the main phases of this process are reconstructed, also taking into account the most important decisions of the US Supreme Court that contributed to the change of doctrine, invalidating the postulate of public use as justification for expropriation.

U.S. Army Engineers and the Rise of Cost-Benefit Analysis

2020 ◽  
pp. 148-190
Author(s):  
Theodore M. Porter
Keyword(s):  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
The United States ◽  
Army Corps ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Bureau Of Reclamation ◽  
Conflict Cost ◽  
Utility Companies ◽  
Economic Analyses

This chapter traces the history of cost–benefit analysis in the United States bureaucracy from the 1920s until about 1960. It is not a story of academic research, but of political pressure and administrative conflict. Cost–benefit methods were introduced to promote procedural regularity and to give public evidence of fairness in the selection of water projects. Early in the century, numbers produced by the Army Corps of Engineers were usually accepted on its authority alone, and there was correspondingly little need for standardization of methods. About 1940, however, economic numbers became objects of bitter controversy, as the Corps was challenged by such powerful interests as utility companies and railroads. The really crucial development in this story was the outbreak of intense bureaucratic conflict between the Corps and other government agencies, especially the Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Reclamation. The agencies tried to settle their feuds by harmonizing their economic analyses. When negotiation failed as a strategy for achieving uniformity, they were compelled to try to ground their makeshift techniques in economic rationality. On this account, cost–benefit analysis had to be transformed from a collection of local bureaucratic practices into a set of rationalized economic principles.

Prices and clinical benefit of cancer drugs in the USA and Europe: a cost–benefit analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 664-670 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kerstin N Vokinger ◽  
Thomas J Hwang ◽  
Thomas Grischott ◽  
Sophie Reichert ◽  
Ariadna Tibau ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Benefit ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cancer Drugs ◽  
The Usa

Cost-benefit analysis of AR-V7 testing in patients (Pts) with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) eligible for abiraterone (Abi) or enzalutamide (Enza).

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (2_suppl) ◽  
pp. 283-283
Author(s):  
Mark Christopher Markowski ◽  
Kevin D. Frick ◽  
James R. Eshleman ◽  
Jun Luo ◽  
Emmanuel S. Antonarakis
Keyword(s):  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer ◽  
The Us ◽  
Effective Option ◽  
Current Price ◽  
Societal Challenge ◽  
The Cost

283 Background: The rising cost of oncology care in the US is an ongoing societal challenge, and identifying biomarkers that inform clinical decisions and reduce the use of ineffective therapies remains elusive. A splice variant of the androgen receptor, AR-V7, was found to confer resistance to Abi and Enza in men with mCRPC, but did not negatively affect responses to taxanes, suggesting that early use of chemotherapy may be a more effective option for AR-V7(+) pts. With the recent development of a CLIA-certified clinical assay for AR-V7 at Johns Hopkins, we hypothesized that AR-V7 testing in mCRPC pts may result in cost savings by avoiding futile treatment with Abi/Enza in men with AR-V7(+) disease. Methods: We calculated the cost savings of performing AR-V7 testing in mCRPC pts prior to starting Abi/Enza (and avoiding these drugs in AR-V7(+) men) versus treating all mCRPC pts with Abi/Enza (without use of the biomarker). We have set the cost of the AR-V7 assay at $1000. The cost of 3 months of Abi/Enza (the minimum time it would take to determine resistance, clinically) was approximated at $20,000. We estimated that 30,000 mCRPC pts per year are eligible for Abi/Enza in the US. Results: In our prior studies, about 30% of mCRPC pts previously treated with Abi/Enza had detectable AR-V7 in CTCs. Assuming an AR-V7 prevalence of 30%, about 9,000 AR-V7(+) mCRPC pts per year would receive ineffective treatment with Abi/Enza, at an estimated cost of $180 Million. The upfront cost of testing all mCRPC pts who are Abi/Enza-eligible for AR-V7 is $30 Million, resulting in a net cost savings of $150 Million. When performing a continuous cost-benefit analysis after assuming other prevalences of AR-V7 (ranging from 4% to 50%) and a range of costs for Abi/Enza ($2000 to $24,000 per 3 months), we determined that AR-V7 testing would result in a cost savings as long as the prevalence of AR-V7 is > 5% (if the cost of 3 months of Abi/Enza remains at $20,000). Conclusions: AR-V7 testing in mCRPC pts (at $1000/test) is cost-beneficial when considering the current price of Abi/Enza, and may reduce the ineffective use of Abi/Enza leading to a net cost savings to the healthcare system.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document