IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/agr/journl/v12(541)(supplement)y2009i12(541)(supplement)p154-160.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Some Remarks On The „Evaluation Problem” In Cost-Benefit Analytics

Author

Listed:
  • Mihaela Iacob

    (Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies)

  • Georgiana Camelia Creţan

    (Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies)

Abstract

According to the common definition, cost-benefit analysis (CBA) estimates and aggregates the monetary equivalent of present and future social costs and benefits regarding public investment projects (PIP), discounted and compared, aiming at deciding their opportunity. Monetary evaluation problem is more complex within the public sector, because market prices might not appropriately reflect social costs and benefits, relative to the evaluation undertaken by companies, where project benefits (revenues) and cost (payments) are both calculated at market prices. The purpose of this paper is to review and compare the fundamental pros and cons of various valuation methodologies used in CBA regarding PIP.

Suggested Citation

  • Mihaela Iacob & Georgiana Camelia Creţan, 2009. "Some Remarks On The „Evaluation Problem” In Cost-Benefit Analytics," Theoretical and Applied Economics, Asociatia Generala a Economistilor din Romania - AGER, vol. 12(12(541)(s), pages 154-160, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:agr:journl:v:12(541)(supplement):y:2009:i:12(541)(supplement):p:154-160
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ectap.ro/documente/suplimente/Finantele%20si%20stabilitatea%20economica_Finante_en2010.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mihaela IACOB & Felicia ALEXANDRU & Meral KAGITCI & Georgiana Camelia CRETAN & Filip IORGULESCU, 2011. "Evaluation Of Cultural Heritage – From The Epistemological Precautions To Pragmatic Approaches," International Conference Modern Approaches in Organisational Management and Economy, Faculty of Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 5(1), pages 218-223, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:agr:journl:v:12(541)(supplement):y:2009:i:12(541)(supplement):p:154-160. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Marin Dinu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/agerrea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.