IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v178y2020ics0921800919316714.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Has Cost Benefit Analysis Improved Decisions in Colombia? Evidence from the Environmental Licensing Process

Author

Listed:
  • Vargas, Andrés
  • Sarmiento Erazo, Juan Pablo
  • Diaz, David

Abstract

Environmental cost benefit analysis, CBA, is often the preferred method for economists to assess policy changes which have environmental consequences. It is argued that CBA can help governments focus their resources to maximize the social returns of investments or projects. CBA is also viewed as a useful framework for organizing disparate information and subsequently improve the decision process. Despite the enthusiasm for the method, there have been few attempts outside developed countries to assess CBA's influence on decisions. In this article we used content analysis of official documents to analyse the role played by CBA in the Colombian environmental licensing process. Our results show that CBA's influence on the final decisions has been limited. The problem, we conclude, does not reside in CBA but in the process. Although there is a procedural requirement to do CBA, there is no requirement that the results must be considered in the decision-making. Since the problem lies in the process, not the instrument, we think that merely using a non-monetary assessment method instead of CBA, such as multicriteria analysis, will not lead to better decisions. This latter point is a discussion missing from the ecological economics literature that deserves more attention.

Suggested Citation

  • Vargas, Andrés & Sarmiento Erazo, Juan Pablo & Diaz, David, 2020. "Has Cost Benefit Analysis Improved Decisions in Colombia? Evidence from the Environmental Licensing Process," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:178:y:2020:i:c:s0921800919316714
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106807
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800919316714
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106807?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wood, B. Dan, 1988. "Principals, Bureaucrats, and Responsiveness in Clean Air Enforcements," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 82(1), pages 213-234, March.
    2. Falk Daviter, 2015. "The political use of knowledge in the policy process," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(4), pages 491-505, December.
    3. Dilip Mookherjee & Ivan Png, 1989. "Optimal Auditing, Insurance, and Redistribution," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 104(2), pages 399-415.
    4. Nyborg, Karine, 2014. "Project evaluation with democratic decision-making: What does cost–benefit analysis really measure?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 124-131.
    5. Nyborg, Karine, 1998. "Some Norwegian Politicians' Use of Cost-Benefit Analysis," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 95(3-4), pages 381-401, June.
    6. Alexandra Dehnhardt, 2013. "Decision-makers' attitudes towards economic valuation - a case study of German water management authorities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(2), pages 201-221, July.
    7. Jonas Eliasson & Maria Börjesson & James Odeck & Morten Welde, 2015. "Does Benefit-Cost Efficiency Influence Transport Investment Decisions?," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 49(3), pages 377-396, July.
    8. Jan Anne Annema & Koen Frenken & Carl Koopmans & Maarten Kroesen, 2017. "Relating cost-benefit analysis results with transport project decisions in the Netherlands," Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 109-127, March.
    9. James K. Hammitt, 2013. "Positive versus Normative Justifications for Benefit-Cost Analysis: Implications for Interpretation and Policy," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(2), pages 199-218, July.
    10. Måns Nilsson & Andrew Jordan & John Turnpenny & Julia Hertin & Björn Nykvist & Duncan Russel, 2008. "The use and non-use of policy appraisal tools in public policy making: an analysis of three European countries and the European Union," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 41(4), pages 335-355, December.
    11. Avinash Dixit, 2002. "# Incentives and Organizations in the Public Sector: An Interpretative Review," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 37(4), pages 696-727.
    12. repec:reg:rpubli:98 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Robert W. Hahn & Paul C. Tetlock, 2008. "Has Economic Analysis Improved Regulatory Decisions?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 22(1), pages 67-84, Winter.
    14. Susan Owens & Tim Rayner & Olivia Bina, 2004. "New Agendas for Appraisal: Reflections on Theory, Practice, and Research," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 36(11), pages 1943-1959, November.
    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. Claudia E. Carter, 2024. "Reconnecting with the social-political and ecological-economic reality," Environmental Values, , vol. 33(2), pages 103-121, April.

    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. Bondemark, Anders & Sundbergh, Pia & Tornberg, Patrik & Brundell-Freij, Karin, 2020. "Do impact assessments influence transport plans? The case of Sweden," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 52-64.
    2. Johanna Jussila Hammes, 2021. "The Impact of Career Concerns and Cognitive Dissonance on Bureaucrats’ Use of Benefit-Cost Analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 80(2), pages 409-424, October.
    3. Niek Mouter, 2017. "Dutch politicians’ use of cost–benefit analysis," Transportation, Springer, vol. 44(5), pages 1127-1145, September.
    4. Nyborg, Karine, 2014. "Project evaluation with democratic decision-making: What does cost–benefit analysis really measure?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 124-131.
    5. Mouter, Niek & van Cranenburgh, Sander & van Wee, Bert, 2017. "An empirical assessment of Dutch citizens' preferences for spatial equality in the context of a national transport investment plan," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 217-230.
    6. Eliasson, Jonas, 2023. "Tillbaka till framtiden: en nygammal planprocess [Back to the future: a renewed infrastructure planning process]," MPRA Paper 118658, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Vigren, Andreas & Ljungberg, Anders, 2018. "Public Transport Authorities’ use of Cost-Benefit Analysis in practice," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 560-567.
    8. Kuhn, Michael & Siciliani, Luigi, 2013. "Manipulation and auditing of public sector contracts," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 251-267.
    9. Michaelowa, Katharina & Borrmann, Axel, 2004. "What Determines Evaluation Outcomes? Evidence from Bi- and Multilateral Development Cooperation," HWWA Discussion Papers 310, Hamburg Institute of International Economics (HWWA).
    10. Volden, Gro Holst, 2018. "Public project success as seen in a broad perspective," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 109-117.
    11. Asplund, Disa & Eliasson, Jonas, 2016. "Does uncertainty make cost-benefit analyses pointless?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 195-205.
    12. Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne & Sirén, Elina & Brunner, Sibyl Hanna & Weibel, Bettina, 2017. "Review of decision support tools to operationalize the ecosystem services concept," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PB), pages 306-315.
    13. Niek Mouter & Paul Koster & Thijs Dekker, 2019. "Participatory Value Evaluation versus Cost-Benefit Analysis: comparing recommendations in the context of urban mobility investments," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 19-046/VIII, Tinbergen Institute, revised 27 Jan 2020.
    14. Halse, Askill Harkjerr & Fridstrøm, Lasse, 2019. "Explaining low economic return on road investments. New evidence from Norway," MPRA Paper 94389, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Duncan Russel & John Turnpenny & Andrew Jordan, 2018. "Mainstreaming the environment through appraisal: Integrative governance or logics of disintegration?," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(8), pages 1355-1370, December.
    16. Mouter, Niek, 2017. "Dutch politicians’ attitudes towards Cost-Benefit Analysis," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 1-10.
    17. Dave Huitema & Andrew Jordan & Eric Massey & Tim Rayner & Harro Asselt & Constanze Haug & Roger Hildingsson & Suvi Monni & Johannes Stripple, 2011. "The evaluation of climate policy: theory and emerging practice in Europe," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 44(2), pages 179-198, June.
    18. Zimmermann, Michel & Pye, Steve, 2018. "Inequality in energy and climate policies: Assessing distributional impact consideration in UK policy appraisal," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 594-601.
    19. Niek Mouter & Paul Koster & Thijs Dekker, 2019. "An introduction to Participatory Value Evaluation," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 19-024/V, Tinbergen Institute, revised 15 Dec 2019.
    20. M. Martin Boyer, 2007. "Resistance (to Fraud) Is Futile," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 74(2), pages 461-492, June.

    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:eee:ecolec:v:178:y:2020:i:c:s0921800919316714. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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.