The use of ex post cost-benefit analysis to assess the long-term effects of major infrastructure projects

Journal title RIV Rassegna Italiana di Valutazione
Author/s Massimo Florio, Silvia Vignetti
Publishing Year 2014 Issue 2013/55
Language Italian Pages 19 P. 88-106 File size 597 KB
DOI 10.3280/RIV2013-055006
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

This paper draws from a recent ex-post evaluation carried out for the European Commission aimed at assessing the long term effects produced by a sample of ten major infrastructures in the Transport and Environment sectors and interpreting the key determinants of the observed performance. It discusses some methodological and institutional implications related to the use of cost-benefit analysis with an ex-post perspective.

Keywords: Cost-benefit analysis, ex-post evaluation, infrastructure, cohesion policy

  1. Alacevich M. (2012), “Visualizing Uncertainties, or How Albert Hirschman and The World Bank Disagreed on Project Appraisal and Development Approaches”, Policy Research Working Paper 6260.
  2. Bain R. (2009), “Error and optimism bias in toll road traffic forecasts”, Transportation, 36 (5): 469-482.
  3. Beria P., Giove M. and Miele M. (2012), A comparative analysis of assessment approaches. Six cases from Europe in International Journal of Transport Economics, Vol. XXXIX, 2: 185-217.
  4. Biehl D. et al. (1986), The contribution of infrastructure to regional development, Commission of the European Communities, Sudy Group, Bruxelles.
  5. Boardman A.E., Mallery W.L., Vining A.R. (1994), “Learning from ex ante/ex post costbenefit comparisons: the Coquihalla highway example”, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 28(2): 69-84.
  6. Boardman A.E., Greenberg D.H., Vining A.R. and Weimer D.L. (2006), Cost-Benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice, 3rd edn, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
  7. Boldrin M., Canova F. (2003), Regional policies and EU enlargement, CEPR Discussion paper 3722, CEPR Discussion Papers.
  8. Bråthen S., Hervik A. (1997), “Strait crossings and economic development, Developing economic impact assessment by means of ex post analyses”, Transport Policy, 4, 4: 193-200, 1997.
  9. Cella M., Florio M. (2007), “Hierarchical contracting in grant decisions: ex-ante and expost evaluation in the context of the EU Structural Funds”, Working paper 22, University of Milan, Research Papers in Economics, Business, and Statistics.
  10. Del Bo C., Florio M. (2010), “Cost-benefit analysis and rates of return of infrastructure projects: evidence from international organizations”, Transition Studies Review, 17 (3): 587-610.
  11. European Commission (2005), Ex Post evaluation of a sample of projects co-financed by the Cohesion Fund (1993-2002), DG Regional Policy.
  12. European Commission (2008), Guide to Cost Benefit Analysis of Investment Projects, Brussels: Directorate General Regional Policy, European Commission. European Commission (2010a), Ex post evaluation of cohesion policy interventions 2000-2006 financed by the Cohesion Fund (including former ISPA) – Work Package B – Cost benefit analysis of selected transport projects, DG Regional Policy.
  13. European Commission (2010b), Ex post evaluation of cohesion policy interventions 2000-2006 financed by the Cohesion Fund (including former ISPA) – Work Package C – Cost
  14. benefit analysis of environmental projects, DG Regional Policy.
  15. European Commission (2012a), Ex post evaluation of investment projects co-financed by the European Fund for Regional Development (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) in the period 1994-1999, DG Regional Policy.
  16. European Commission (2012b), Ex post evaluation of the Cohesion Fund (including former ISPA) in the 2000-2006 period – Synthesis report. DG Regional Policy.
  17. European Investment Bank (2013), The Economic Appraisal of Investment Projects at the EIB, Projects Directorate, Luxembourg.
  18. EVA-TREN (2007), Improved Decision-Aid Methods and Tools to Support Evaluation of Investment for Transport and Energy networks in Europe. Deliverable 1: Evaluating the State-of-the-Art in Investment for Transport and Energy Networks, Policy-oriented research in the framework of the Sixth Framework Programme 2002-06. Project duration May 2006-October 2008.
  19. Gómez-Lobo A. (2012), “Institutional Safeguards for Cost Benefit Analysis: Lessons from the Chilean National Investment System”, Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 3: 1, 1.
  20. Florio M., Vignetti S. (2005), “Cost-Benefit Analysis of infrastructure projects in an enlarged European Union: an incentive oriented approach”, in Economic Change and Restructuring, 38, 3.
  21. Florio M., Vignetti S. (2011), “Intellectual bridges across project evaluation traditions: the contribution of EU Regional Policy”, Cuadernos Economicos de ICE, 80: 29-48.
  22. Florio M. (2007), Introduction: multi-government cost-benefit analysis, shadow prices and incentives, in Florio M. ed. Cost-Benefit Analysis and Incentives in Evaluation, the Structural Funds of the European Union (Edgar Elgar, Chelthenam, UK).
  23. Flyvbjerg B., Bruzelius N., Rothengatter W. (2003), Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (U.K.).
  24. Flyvbjerg B. (2005), “Measuring inaccuracy in travel demand forecasting: methodological considerations regarding ramp up and sampling”, Transportation Research Part A, 39 (6), 522-530.
  25. Flyvbjerg B. (2007), Policy and planning for large-infrastructure projects: problems, causes, cures. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 34 (4), 578-597.
  26. Gómez-Lobo A. (2012), “Institutional Safeguards for Cost Benefit Analysis: Lessons from the Chilean National Investment System”, Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 3(1): 1.
  27. Gramlich E. (1994), “Infrastructure Investment: A review Essay”, Journal of Economic Literature, 32: 1176-96.
  28. Hirschman A.O. (1967), Development Projects Observed, The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C.
  29. HM Treasury (2003), The Green Book – Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government, Treasury Guidance, London: TSO.
  30. HM Treasury (2011a), The Magenta Book: Guidance for evaluation, Treasury Guidance, London.
  31. HM Treasury (2011b), Valuation Techniques for Social Cost-Benefit Analysis. Stated preferences, Revealed Preferences, Subjective Well-Being Approaches: a discussion of the current issues, prepared by Fujiwara, D. and Campbell, R., Department of Work and
  32. Pensions, London. Jenkins G.P., 1997, Project Analysis and the World Bank, The American Economic Review, Vol. 87, issue 2, pp. 38-42.
  33. Kamin K.A., Rachlinski J.J. (1995), “Ex post ≠ex ante”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 19(1): 89-104.
  34. Kjerkreit A. and Odeck J. (2009), “The accuracy of ex-ante benefit cost analysis – a post opening evaluation in the case of Norwegian road projects”, International Transport Economics Conference (ITrEC), University of Minnesota, Minneapolis Minnesota, June 15-16, 2009.
  35. Mackie P., Preston J. (1998), “Twenty-one sources of error and bias in transport project appraisal”, Transport Policy, 5: 1-7.
  36. NOU (2012), Cost-Benefit Analysis, Official Norwegian Reports: NOU: 2012 16.
  37. Odeck J. (1996), “Ranking of regional road investment in Norway: does socio-economic analysis matter?”, Transportation, 23: 123-140.
  38. Odeck J., Kleven O.A., Johansen K. (2009), “Prognoser treffer bedre nå enn før”; trans. “Forecasts more accurate than before”, Samferdsel, 9: 10-11.
  39. OPD/OED (1995), “A Review of the Quality of Economic Analysis in Staff Appraisal Reports for Projects Approved in 1993”, Operations Policy Department/Operations Evaluation Department, World Bank, Washington, DC.
  40. Pearson S., Chudleigh P., Simpson S., Schofield N. (2012), “Learning to invest better: Using ex-post investment analysis on agri-environmental research and development”, Research Evaluation 21(2): 136-151.
  41. Picciotto R. (2007), “Is development evaluation relevant to the European project?”, in Florio M. (ed.) Cost-benefit analysis and incentives and evaluation: the Structural funds of the European Union, Edward Elgar Publishing.
  42. Rajaram A., Tuan Minh Le, Biletska N., Brumby J. (2010), A diagnostic framework for assessing public investment management, Policy Research Working Paper 5397, World Bank, Washington D.C.
  43. Sirtori E., Vignetti S. (2011), “Infrastructure investment opportunities in the New EU Member States: the role of regional policies”, in M. Florio (ed) Public Investment
  44. Growth and Fiscal Constraints – Challenges for the EU New Member States, Edward Elgar.
  45. Weiss J., Potts D. (eds) (2012), Current Issues In Project Analysis For Development, Edward Elgar.
  46. Welde M., Odeck J. (2011), “Do Planners Get it Right? The Accuracy of Travel Demand Forecasting in Norway”, European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 11(1): 80-95.
  47. Whitehead J.C., Cherry T.L. (2004), Mitigating the Hypothetical Bias of Willingness to Pay: A Comparison of Ex-Ante and Ex-Post Approaches, Working paper No 04-21, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
  48. The World Bank – Independent Evaluation Group (2009), Annual Review of Development Effectiveness – Achieving Sustainable Development, Washington DC.
  49. The World Bank (2011), Cost-Benefit Analysis in World Bank Projects, The World Bank, Washington, DC.
  50. The World Bank – Independent Evaluation Group (2012), Results and Performance of the World Bank Group 2012.

Massimo Florio, Silvia Vignetti, The use of ex post cost-benefit analysis to assess the long-term effects of major infrastructure projects in "RIV Rassegna Italiana di Valutazione" 55/2013, pp 88-106, DOI: 10.3280/RIV2013-055006