IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nan/wpaper/1205.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Cost-Benefit Analysis in Developing Countries: What’s Different?

Author

Listed:
  • Euston QUAH

    (Division of Economics, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 637332, Singapore)

Abstract

There are both similarities and differences between conducting cost-benefit analysis in developed and developing countries . While the fundamental principles and theory underlying cost-benefit analysis maybe the same , the methodologies and the estimation techniques that are most appropriate in each context may substantially differ . The incompleteness and deficiencies of the labour , goods, and financial markets in developing economies may render revealed preference approaches to valuation unsuitable and inferior to stated preference models . But yet , even stated preference models are difficult to operationalize in developing countries where the literacy rates may not be too encouraging to allow for complete understanding of such valuation methods . It is largely because of the latter’s complexity that the paper here suggests the newer method of adapting to the damage schedules approach to yield meaningful and more straightforward valuation of non-market goods and services . Understanding the differences in applying cost-benefit analysis to developed and developing countries will go a long way to helping policy makers make informed decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Euston QUAH, 2012. "Cost-Benefit Analysis in Developing Countries: What’s Different?," Economic Growth Centre Working Paper Series 1205, Nanyang Technological University, School of Social Sciences, Economic Growth Centre.
  • Handle: RePEc:nan:wpaper:1205
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www3.ntu.edu.sg/hss2/egc/wp/2012/2012-05.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jack L. Knetsch & J. A. Sinden, 1984. "Willingness to Pay and Compensation Demanded: Experimental Evidence of an Unexpected Disparity in Measures of Value," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 99(3), pages 507-521.
    2. Kahneman, Daniel & Ritov, Ilana & Schkade, David A, 1999. "Economic Preferences or Attitude Expressions?: An Analysis of Dollar Responses to Public Issues," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 203-235, December.
    3. Dinwiddy,Caroline L. & Teal,Francis J., 1996. "Principles of Cost-Benefit Analysis for Developing Countries," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521479165.
    4. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L., 1992. "Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 57-70, January.
    5. H. Semih Yildirim & George Philippatos, 2007. "Efficiency of Banks: Recent Evidence from the Transition Economies of Europe, 1993-2000," The European Journal of Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 123-143.
    6. Beal, Diana J., 1995. "A Travel Cost Analysis of the Value of Carnarvon Gorge National Park for Recreational Use," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(02), pages 1-12, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Sungki Kim & Jinseop Kim & Dongkeun Cho & Sungsig Bang, 2021. "Quantitative Cost-Benefit Analysis of Direct Disposal and Pyroprocessing in Korea’s Nuclear Fuel Cycle," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-15, July.
    2. Raluca-Maria Bala, 2014. "A Proposal for Assessing the Economic Welfare Of Romania," Romanian Statistical Review, Romanian Statistical Review, vol. 62(3), pages 11-30, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Loomes, Graham, 2006. "(How) Can we value health, safety and the environment?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 713-736, December.
    2. Gong, Min & Baron, Jonathan, 2011. "The generality of the emotion effect on magnitude sensitivity," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 17-24, February.
    3. Franz Hackl & Gerald J. Pruckner, 2005. "Warm glow, free‐riding and vehicle neutrality in a health‐related contingent valuation study," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(3), pages 293-306, March.
    4. Powe, N. A. & Bateman, I. J., 2003. "Ordering effects in nested 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' contingent valuation designs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 255-270, June.
    5. Henk Folmer & Olof Johansson-Stenman, 2011. "Does Environmental Economics Produce Aeroplanes Without Engines? On the Need for an Environmental Social Science," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(3), pages 337-361, March.
    6. Henrik Svedsäter, 2003. "Economic Valuation of the Environment: How Citizens Make Sense of Contingent Valuation Questions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(1), pages 122-135.
    7. Clark, Jeremy & Friesen, Lana, 2008. "The causes of order effects in contingent valuation surveys: An experimental investigation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 195-206, September.
    8. Desvousges, William H. & Gard, Nicholas & Michael, Holly J. & Chance, Anne D., 2018. "Habitat and Resource Equivalency Analysis: A Critical Assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 74-89.
    9. Clive L Spash, 2009. "Social Ecological Economics," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2009-08, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
    10. Lo, Alex Y. & Spash, Clive L., 2011. "Articulation of Plural Values in Deliberative Monetary Valuation: Beyond Preference Economisation and Moralisation," MPRA Paper 30002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Banzhaf, H. Spencer, 2016. "Constructing markets: environmental economics and the contingent valuation controversy," MPRA Paper 78814, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Johansson-Stenman, Olof & Mahmud, Minhaj & Martinsson, Peter, 2013. "Trust, trust games and stated trust: Evidence from rural Bangladesh," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 286-298.
    13. Ivo Bischoff, 2008. "Endowment effect theory, prediction bias and publicly provided goods: an experimental study," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 39(3), pages 283-296, March.
    14. Lo, Alex Y. & Jim, C.Y., 2015. "Protest response and willingness to pay for culturally significant urban trees: Implications for Contingent Valuation Method," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 58-66.
    15. Johansson-Stenman, Olof, 2006. "Cost Benefit Rules when Nature Counts," Working Papers in Economics 198, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics, revised 09 May 2006.
    16. Bernard van denBerg & Werner Brouwer & Job van Exel & Marc Koopmanschap, 2005. "Economic valuation of informal care: the contingent valuation method applied to informal caregiving," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(2), pages 169-183, February.
    17. Johansson-Stenman, Olof, 2008. "Who are the trustworthy, we think?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 68(3-4), pages 456-465, December.
    18. Bruno S. Frey & Simon Luechinger & Alois Stutzer, "undated". "Valuing Public Goods: The Life Satisfaction Approach," IEW - Working Papers 184, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    19. Andersson, Henrik & Hole, Arne Risa & Svensson, Mikael, 2016. "Valuation of small and multiple health risks: A critical analysis of SP data applied to food and water safety," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 41-53.
    20. Zendehdel, Kamran & Rademaker, Michael & De Baets, Bernard & Van Huylenbroeck, Guido, 2008. "Qualitative valuation of environmental criteria through a group consensus based on stochastic dominance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 253-264, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Cost- benefit analysis; public project evaluation; policy economics; valuation methods; reviewed preference; related preference;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
    • Q5 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics
    • H43 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Project Evaluation; Social Discount Rate
    • E6 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Macroeconomic Policy, Macroeconomic Aspects of Public Finance, and General Outlook

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:nan:wpaper:1205. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Magdalene Lim (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dentusg.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.