Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

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

Contents:

Author Info

  • Euston QUAH

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

Registered author(s):

    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.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://www3.ntu.edu.sg/hss2/egc/wp/2012/2012-05.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Bibliographic Info

    Paper provided by Nanyang Technolgical University, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Economic Growth centre in its series Economic Growth centre Working Paper Series with number 1205.

    as in new window
    Length: 14 pages
    Date of creation: May 2012
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:nan:wpaper:1205

    Contact details of provider:
    Postal: Nanyang Avenue, Singapore 639798.
    Fax: 6794 2830
    Web page: http://egc.hss.ntu.edu.sg/
    More information through EDIRC

    Related research

    Keywords: Cost- benefit analysis; public project evaluation; policy economics; valuation methods; reviewed preference; related preference;

    Find related papers by JEL classification:

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    References

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
    as in new window
    1. 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.
    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 203-35, December.
    3. 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.
    4. 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), August.
    5. Knetsch, Jack L & Sinden, J A, 1984. "Willingness to Pay and Compensation Demanded: Experimental Evidence of an Unexpected Disparity in Measures of Value," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 99(3), pages 507-21, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nan:wpaper:1205. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Magdalene Lim).

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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