scholarly journals Structured and Unstructured Valuation

1994 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
John Broome
Keyword(s):  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Theoretical Structure ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Structured Approach

AbstractEconomists can value things for cost-benefit analysis using either a structured or an unstructured approach. The first imposes some theoretical structure on the valuation; the second does not. This paper explains the difference between the approaches and examines the relative merits of each. Cost-benefit analysis may be aimed at finding what would be the best action, or alternatively at finding which action should be done in a democracy. The paper explains the difference, and argues that the appropriate aim is the first. Given that, it comes down in favour of the structured approach to valuation. As an example, it discusses different approaches to valuing life in economics.

Cost–benefit and water resources policy: a survey

Water Policy ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 250-280 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank A. Ward
Keyword(s):  
Water Policy ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Policy Cost ◽  
The Right

This paper reviews recent developments in cost–benefit analysis for water policy researchers who wish to understand the applications of economic principles to inform emerging water policy debates. The cost–benefit framework can provide a comparison of total economic gains and losses resulting from a proposed water policy. Cost–benefit analysis can provide decision-makers with a comparison of the impacts of two or more water policy options using methods that are grounded in time-tested economic principles. Economic efficiency, measured as the difference between added benefits and added costs, can inform water managers and the public of the economic impacts of water programs to address peace, development, health, the environment, climate and poverty. Faced by limited resources, cost–benefit analysis can inform policy choices by summarizing trade-offs involved in designing, applying, or reviewing a wide range of water programs. The data required to conduct a cost–benefit analysis are often poor but the steps needed to carry out that analysis require posing the right questions.

scholarly journals Estimating Shadow Wage Rates for Economic Project Appraisal

2004 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 253-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iraj Saleh
Keyword(s):  
Wage Rate ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Investment Projects ◽  
Scarce Resources ◽  
Project Appraisal ◽  
Wage Rates ◽  
Market Wage ◽  
The Difference

One of the central concerns in cost benefit analysis is the adjustment of distortions in markets to provide a better guide to a more effective allocation of scarce resources. The objectives of this paper are to develop a model for the estimation of the shadow wage rate (SWR) for groups of occupations and to estimate the SWRs for the major groups of occupations in Australia. The main findings of the analysis indicate that estimated SWRs for major groups of occupations are different from the corresponding market wage rates, and that estimated SWRs of the groups are different. The results of the study demonstrate the importance of estimation of the SWR as a part of the appraisal process of investment projects. The ratio analysis indicates the significance of the difference between SWR and market wage rate, which is recommended to be adjusted is economic analysis of projects.

Cost benefit analysis of war

2016 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 454-469 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kjell Hausken
Keyword(s):  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Economic Value ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Costs And Benefits ◽  
Sequential Decision ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Theoretical Structure ◽  
The Rich ◽  
The Many

Purpose Among the many perspectives to analyze war, such as rational actor, organizational process, governmental politics and ethics, the perspective that actually incorporates the costs and benefits into a systematic theoretical structure has hardly been analyzed. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the costs and benefits perspective. Design/methodology/approach Three kinds of value are distinguished, i.e. human, economic and influence. Different actors (politicians, populations, stakeholders, etc). assign different weights to the three kinds of value. Six gradually more complicated models are developed. The first subtracts losses from gains for the three kinds of value. Thereafter, the paper accounts for multiple periods, time discounting, attitude towards risk, multiple stakeholders, subcategories for the three kinds of value, sequential decision-making and game theory. Findings The rich theoretical structure enables assessing costs and benefits more systematically and illuminatingly. The cost benefit analysis is illustrated with the 2003-2011 Iraq War. The paper estimates gained and lost value of human lives, economic value and influence value, and show how different weights impact the decision of whether to initiate war differently. Originality/value The paper provides scientists and policy makers with a theoretical structure within which to evaluate the costs and benefits of war, accounting for how different actors estimate weights, the future, risk and a variety of parameter values differently.

scholarly journals Quantitative Cost-Benefit Analysis of Direct Disposal and Pyroprocessing in Korea’s Nuclear Fuel Cycle

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (14) ◽  
pp. 7789
Author(s):  
Sungki Kim ◽  
Jinseop Kim ◽  
Dongkeun Cho ◽  
Sungsig Bang
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Fuel Cycle ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Economic Feasibility ◽  
Economic Viability ◽  
Maintenance Cost ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Spent Fuel ◽  
The Difference

The purpose of this study is to compare the economic viability of direct disposal and pyroprocessing. This is because the selection of an alternative cannot be justified without a guarantee of economic feasibility. This paper sets the KRS (Korea Reference System) spent fuel repository and KAPF+ (Korea Advanced Pyroprocess Facility plus) as the cost objects, administers a cost-benefit analysis, and presents the results on the net cost. The results of the calculation demonstrate that the net costs of direct disposal and pyroprocessing are USD 17,719,319,040 and USD 19,329,252,755, respectively. The difference in the net cost for the two alternatives is thus not insignificant. However, the economic viability of direct disposal was found to be superior compared to that of pyroprocessing. In the end, it was found that the operating and maintenance cost of a pyroprocessing facility is comparatively high. Accordingly, direct disposal costs less than pyroprocessing. The direct disposal option is advantageous in terms of economical nuclear power sustainability.

scholarly journals Estimation of increased regional income that emanates from economically justified road construction projects

2005 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 108-117
Author(s):  
W. J. Pienaar
Keyword(s):  
Construction Projects ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Road Construction ◽  
Economic Benefits ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Regional Income ◽  
Income Multiplier ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Input Variables

This article identifies the possible development benefits than can emanate from economically justified road construction projects. It shows how the once-off increase in regional income resulting from investment in road construction projects, and the recurring additional regional income resulting from the use of new or improved roads can be estimated. The difference is shown that exists between a cost-benefit analysis (to determine how economically justified a project is) and a regional economic income analysis (to estimate the general economic benefits that will be developed by investment in and usage of a road). Procedures are proposed through which the once-off and recurring increases in regional income can be estimated by using multiplier and accelerator analyses respectively. Finally guidelines are supplied on the appropriate usage of input variables in the calculation of the regional income multiplier.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document