IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/ffispa/277658.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Infrastructure Project Prioritization in Theory and Practice

Author

Listed:
  • Bennon, Michael
  • Sharma, Rajiv

Abstract

The 2011 congressional ban on earmarks for infrastructure projects formally transferred responsibility for prioritizing federal infrastructure investments to the executive branch, and has redoubled the importance of how, exactly, the federal government evaluates and selects infrastructure projects that will receive federal funding. The Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) study is one such method of evaluating and prioritizing infrastructure projects or other policy alternatives which has been widely studied in literature and largely adopted by U.S. federal agencies. Despite their renewed and significant impact on the selection of infrastructure projects, however, the use and applications of BCAs in the U.S. varies significantly between sectors, agencies and levels of government. In this paper, we review the BCA and other project prioritization policies in U.S. federal agencies and compare them with other, international programs in the comparable economies of Australia and Canada.

Suggested Citation

  • Bennon, Michael & Sharma, Rajiv, 2018. "Infrastructure Project Prioritization in Theory and Practice," Issue Reports 277658, Farm Foundation.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:ffispa:277658
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.277658
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/277658/files/BennonSharmaIR%20Summary.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/277658/files/FP%20BennonSharma.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.277658?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
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Community/Rural/Urban Development;

    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:ags:ffispa:277658. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/farmfus.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.