Members of the Norwegian Parliament were interviewed about the decision process concerning national road investments. Most of them found cost-benefit analysis useful, but apparently not as a device for ranking projects. Rather, the cost-benefit ratio was used to pick project proposals requiring political attention among the large number of projects included in the plan. However, information about project-related local conflicts seemed to be used much more extensively for this latter purpose. Attitudes towards cost-benefit analysis varied along the left-right political axis. These findings are shown to be consistent with a hypothesis that politicians rationally maximize subjective perceptions of social welfare.
Download Info
To our knowledge, this item is not available for
download. To find whether it is available, there are three
options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page
whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be
available.
Publisher Info
Paper provided by Research Department of Statistics Norway in its series Discussion Papers with number
169.
Find related papers by JEL classification: D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Models of Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior D78 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Positive Analysis of Policy-Making and Implementation H54 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - Infrastructures
Cited by: (explanations, 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.)