IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/ctswps/2017_005.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The impact of career concerns and cognitive dissonance on bureaucrats’ use of cost-benefit analysis

Author

Abstract

Previous research shows that a Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) is most often not conducted ahead of decisions about environmental, energy and climate policy in Sweden. Our point of departure is the observation that civil servants can have real authority (Maskin & Tirole, 2004). We proceed to construct a theoretical model that explains why bureaucrats may choose not to conduct a CBA. We show that given the initial policy chosen by an agenda setter, those bureaucrats who choose to stay put working with the policy are those whose policy preferences are closest to the initial policy. Moreover, bureaucrats over time adjust their preferences in the direction of the initial policy. Those bureaucrats who strongly disagree with the initial policy choose to quit instead of taking the cognitive costs associated with the initial policy. A CBA might call the initial policy into question. The civil servants then have an incentive not to conduct a CBA and take on the cognitive costs associated with having to adjust their attitudes in a new direction. Only in the presence of a binding governmental budget constraint may the civil servants have an incentive to conduct a CBA.

Suggested Citation

  • Jussila Hammes , Johanna, 2017. "The impact of career concerns and cognitive dissonance on bureaucrats’ use of cost-benefit analysis," Working papers in Transport Economics 2017:5, CTS - Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm (KTH and VTI).
  • Handle: RePEc:hhs:ctswps:2017_005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.transportportal.se/swopec/CTS2017-5.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gregg, Paul & Grout, Paul A. & Ratcliffe, Anita & Smith, Sarah & Windmeijer, Frank, 2011. "How important is pro-social behaviour in the delivery of public services?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(7-8), pages 758-766, August.
    2. Alberto Alesina & Guido Tabellini, 2007. "Bureaucrats or Politicians? Part I: A Single Policy Task," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(1), pages 169-179, March.
    3. Aghion, Philippe & Tirole, Jean, 1997. "Formal and Real Authority in Organizations," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 105(1), pages 1-29, February.
    4. Alesina, Alberto & Tabellini, Guido, 2008. "Bureaucrats or politicians? Part II: Multiple policy tasks," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(3-4), pages 426-447, April.
    5. Frode Alfnes & Chengyan Yue & Helen H. Jensen, 2010. "Cognitive dissonance as a means of reducing hypothetical bias," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 37(2), pages 147-163, June.
    6. John Turnpenny & Måns Nilsson & Duncan Russel & Andrew Jordan & Julia Hertin & Bjorn Nykvist, 2008. "Why is integrating policy assessment so hard? A comparative analysis of the institutional capacities and constraints," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(6), pages 759-775.
    7. Acharya, Avidit & Blackwell, Matthew & Sen, Maya, 2015. "Explaining Attitudes from Behavior: A Cognitive Dissonance Approach," Working Paper Series rwp15-026, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    8. Akerlof, George A & Dickens, William T, 1982. "The Economic Consequences of Cognitive Dissonance," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(3), pages 307-319, June.
    9. George A. Akerlof & Rachel E. Kranton, 2000. "Economics and Identity," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 115(3), pages 715-753.
    10. Ellingsen, Tore & Johannesson, Magnus & Mollerstrom, Johanna & Munkhammar, Sara, 2012. "Social framing effects: Preferences or beliefs?," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 117-130.
    11. Mouter, Niek & Annema, Jan Anne & Wee, Bert van, 2013. "Attitudes towards the role of Cost–Benefit Analysis in the decision-making process for spatial-infrastructure projects: A Dutch case study," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 1-14.
    12. 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.
    13. Nyborg, Karine, 1998. "Some Norwegian Politicians' Use of Cost-Benefit Analysis," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 95(3-4), pages 381-401, June.
    14. Mathias Dewatripont & Ian Jewitt & Jean Tirole, 1999. "The Economics of Career Concerns, Part I: Comparing Information Structures," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 66(1), pages 183-198.
    15. George A. Akerlof & Rachel E. Kranton, 2005. "Identity and the Economics of Organizations," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(1), pages 9-32, Winter.
    16. Sunstein, Cass R, 2000. "Cognition and Cost-Benefit Analysis," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 29(2), pages 1059-1103, June.
    17. Mathias Dewatripont & Ian Jewitt & Jean Tirole, 1999. "The Economics of Career Concerns, Part II: Application to Missions and Accountability of Government Agencies," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 66(1), pages 199-217.
    18. Potrafke, Niklas & Fischer, Mira & Ursprung, Heinrich, 2013. "Does the Field of Study Influence Students' Political Attitudes?," Annual Conference 2013 (Duesseldorf): Competition Policy and Regulation in a Global Economic Order 79934, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    19. Eric Maskin & Jean Tirole, 2004. "The Politician and the Judge: Accountability in Government," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(4), pages 1034-1054, September.
    20. Heski Bar-Isaac & Johannes Hörner, 2014. "Specialized Careers," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(3), pages 601-627, September.
    21. Cropper, Maureen L. & William N. Evans & Stephen J. Berard & Maria M. Ducla-Soares & Paul R. Portney, 1992. "The Determinants of Pesticide Regulation: A Statistical Analysis of EPA Decision Making," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 100(1), pages 175-197, February.
    22. Fredrik Carlsson & Dinky Daruvala & Henrik Jaldell, 2012. "Do administrators have the same priorities for risk reductions as the general public?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 79-95, August.
    23. Philipp C. Wichardt, 2012. "Norms, cognitive dissonance, and cooperative behaviour in laboratory experiments," International Journal of Social Economics, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 39(5), pages 342-356, April.
    24. Paolo Polidori & Désirée Teobaldelli, 2013. "Prosocial behavior in the production of publicly provided goods and services: an overview," International Review of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(2), pages 285-296, March.
    25. Johansson-Stenman Olof & Svedsäter Henrik, 2008. "Measuring Hypothetical Bias in Choice Experiments: The Importance of Cognitive Consistency," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 1-10, September.
    26. Arya, Anil & Mittendorf, Brian, 2015. "Career concerns and accounting performance measures in nonprofit organizations," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 1-12.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Bureaucrats; Career concerns; CBA; Cognitive dissonance; Environmental policy; Norms;

    JEL classification:

    • D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
    • D73 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Bureaucracy; Administrative Processes in Public Organizations; Corruption
    • H41 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Public Goods

    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:hhs:ctswps:2017_005. 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: (CTS). General contact details of provider: http://www.cts.kth.se/ .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.