Transport and ethics: Dilemmas for CBA researchers. An interview-based study from the Netherlands
This paper presents the results of an interview- and web questionnaire-based study into the ethics-related dilemmas of researchers in the field of cost–benefit analysis (CBA) in the Netherlands. The results reveal first that ethical codes are only known to a limited extent by researchers in the Dutch CBA community, and formalized. Second, having the promoter of major infrastructure projects as the client for 'independent' ex ante CBA of those projects creates a conflict of interest, and limits the usefulness of CBA in modern societies. Third, respondents with a university background tend to value the interests of society more highly than consultants, who value the client's interests more. Fourth, role-related dilemmas can easily occur. A first dilemma in this category relates to the trade-off between the quality of research and constraints (on time, money, and delivery), a second dilemma relates to what research a university should or should not do, a third dilemma follows from the publication culture at universities. Fifth, the respondents believe that the Dutch OEI-guidelines (guidelines that explain that a CBA should be carried out for large national infrastructure projects, including how these CBAs should be carried out) increased the quality of CBAs for national projects in the Netherlands and reduced ethical dilemmas for researchers. We present several possible implications of our research, including arguments for developing codes of conduct for clients of research; doing CBA for more than only large national projects; and an independent second opinion or an independent committee supervising the CBA research.
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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 24 (2012)
Issue (Month): C ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30473/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:24:y:2012:i:c:p:30-36. 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: (Zhang, Lei)
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.