Policy Analysis in Canada: The State of the Art



Download 2.59 Mb.
Page8/34
Date07.08.2017
Size2.59 Mb.
1   ...   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   ...   34

Conclusion


Table 12 summarizes the specific methods that fall within the four choice method classes. It provides a detailed elucidation of Table 1.

***Insert Table 12 about Here***

The four method classes can be summarized as follows:


  • Cost-Benefit Analysis – efficiency is the only goal and all dimensions of efficiency are monetized. It is equivalent to a multi-goal analysis with a single row in which all cell entries are monetized.

  • Efficiency Analysis – efficiency is the only goal, but not all dimensions of efficiency are monetized. Other dimensions of efficiency may be quantified and some may be expressed in qualitative terms.

  • Embedded Cost-Benefit Analysis – all efficiency impacts are monetized. Thus, there is an embedded NPV component. Other goals, such as equity or impact on government revenue are also included.

  • Multi-Goal Analysis – there are multiple goals, including efficiency. Not all dimensions of efficiency are monetized. Other goals are expressed quantitatively or qualitatively.

A clearer understanding of metachoice issues is a useful step in improving Canadian public sector policy analysis. Both the empirical evidence and experience working with analysts from several levels of Canadian governments suggest that there is confusion about the differences between the various analytical methods and when they are appropriate in specific circumstances. Some of this stems from the lack of a metachoice framework. The increasing requirement for the formal consideration of costs and benefits certainly represents progress in reducing confusion, in spite of the lack of preciseness as to their meanings. But, metachoice clarity is by no means a panacea. Offsetting this progress is the continued prominence of EIA—it is like Dracula movies, no matter how many times a wooden stake is driven through the Count’s heart you know he will be back for the sequel. Furthermore, even with a transparent metachoice framework, policy actors can and will engage in strategic behavior (De Alessi 1996; Flyvbjerg, Holm, and Buhl 2002; Sanders 2002), ignore analysis (Radin 2002) or deliberately use idiosyncratic definitions of benefits and costs (Boardman, Vining, and Waters 1993).


References


Ackerman, Frank and Lisa Heinzerling. 2002. ‘Pricing the Priceless: Cost-Benefit

Analysis of Environmental Protection’ University of Pennsylvania Law Review 150(5), 1553-1584.

Adams, J. 1992. ‘Horse and Rabbit Stew.’ In A. Coker and C. Richards eds., Valuing the

Environment: Economic Approaches to Environmental Evaluation NY: John Wiley & Sons, 65-73.

Adler, Matthew D. 1998. ‘Incommensurability and Cost-Benefit Analysis.’ University of



Pennsylvania Law Review. 146(5), 1371-1419.

Adler, Matthew D. and Eric A. Posner. 2000. ‘Implementing Cost-Benefit Analysis

When Preferences Are Distorted.’ Journal of Legal Studies. 29(2) Part 2, 1105-47.

Anderson, David A. 1999. ‘The Aggregate Burden of Crime’ Journal of Law and



Economics. 42(2), 611-642.

ARA Consulting Group. 1995. ‘Prince George Timber Supply Area Socio-Economic

Analysis.’ Victoria: The Queen’s Printer.

Arrow, Kenneth J., Cropper, Maureen L., Eads, George C., Hahn Robert W., Lave, Lester

B., Noll, Roger, C., Portney, Paul R., Russell, Milton, Schmalensee, Richard, Smith, V. Kerry, and Stavins, Robert N. 1996. ‘Benefit-Cost Analysis in Environmental, Health and Safety Regulation: A Statement of Principles.’ Washington D.C: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.

Auditor General of Canada. 1996. Report of the Auditor General of Canada 1996.

‘Evaluation in the Federal Government,’ (Chapter 3, May), ‘The Canada Infrastructure Works Program; Lessons Learned,’ (Chapter 26, November).

- 1997. Report of the Auditor General of Canada 1997, ‘Reporting Performance in the

Expenditure Management System,’ (Chapter 5, April), ‘Moving Toward Managing for Results,’ (Chapter 11, April).

- 2000. Report of the Auditor General of Canada 2000, ‘Reporting Performance to

Parliament – Progress too Slow,’ (Chapter 19, December), ‘Managing Departments for Results...,’ (Chapter 20, December).

- 2003. Report of the Auditor General of Canada 2000. ‘Rating Departmental

Performance Reports,’ (Chapter 1).

Bergson, Abram. 1938. ‘A Reformulation of Certain Aspects of Welfare Economics.’



Quarterly Journal of Economics. 52, 314-44.

Birch, Stephen and Cam Donaldson. 2003.’Valuing the Benefits and Costs of Health

Care Programmes: Where’s the ‘Extra’ in Extra-Welfarism?’ Social Science & Medicine. 56(5), 1121-1133.

Boardman, Anthony, E., Aidan R. Vining and William Waters III. 1993. ‘Costs and

Benefits through Bureaucratic Lenses: Example of a Highway Project.’ Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 12(3), 532-555.

Boardman, Anthony, E., Wendy L. Mallery and Aidan R. Vining. 1994. ‘Learning from



Ex Ante/Ex Post Cost-Benefit Comparisons: The Coquihalla Highway Example.’ Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 28(2), 69-84.

Boardman, Anthony E., David H. Greenberg, Aidan R. Vining and David L. Weimer.

1997. ‘Plug-In Shadow Price Estimates for Policy Analysis’ Annals of Regional Science. 31(4), 299-324.

Boardman, Anthony, E., David H. Greenberg, Aidan R. Vining and David L. Weimer.

2001. Cost-Benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice 2nd. Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bowden, Gary K and Wally H. Malkinson. 1982. ‘Bt-Cost Analysis of the North East

Coal Development.’ Victoria, BC: Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development.

Buss, Terry F., and Laura C. Yancer. 1999. ‘Cost-Benefit Analysis: A Normative

Perspective’ Economic Development Quarterly. 13(1), 29-37.

Cavanagh, Sheila M., Robert W. Hahn and Robert N. Stavins. 2001. ‘National

Environmental Policy During the Clinton Years,’ Washington, DC: AEI-Brookings Joint Center Working Paper No. 01-09.

Congressional Budget Office (CBO). 1992. Auctioning Radio Spectrum Licenses,

Washington, D.C., March.

Crown Corporations Secretariat. 1993. Multiple Account Evaluation Guidelines, Victoria,

BC: Province of British Columbia.

Currie, Janet. 2001. ‘Early Childhood Education Programs.’ Journal of Economic



Perspectives. 15(2), 213-238.

Davey, Anne, David Olson and Jyrki Wallenius. 1994.’The Process of Multiattribute

Decision Making: A Case Study of Selecting Applicants for a Ph. D. Program.’ European Journal of Operational Research. 72(3), 469-85.

Davis, H. Craig. 1990. Regional Economic Impact Analysis and Project Evaluation,

Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press.

De Alessi, Louis. 1996. ‘Error and Bias in Benefit-Cost Analysis: HUD’s Case for the

Wind Rule.’ Cato Journal. 16(1), 129-147.

DiNardo, John and Justin L. Tobias. 2001. ‘Nonparametric Density and Regression

Estimation.’ Journal of Economic Perspectives. 15(4), 11-28.

Dodgson, John, Michael Spackman, Alan Pearman and Lawrence Phillips. 2001. Multi-



Criteria Analysis: A Manual, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM).

Dolan, Paul and Richard Edlin. 2002. ‘Is It Really Possible to Build a Bridge Between

Cost-Benefit Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis?’ Journal of Health Economics. 21(5), 827-843.

Dyer, James S., Peter C. Fishburn, Ralph E. Steuer, Jyrki Wallenius and Stanley Zionts.

1992. ‘Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Multiattribute Utility Theory: The Next Ten Years.’ Management Science. 38(5), 645-654.

Easton, Allan. 1973. Complex Managerial Decisions Involving Multiple Objectives,

N.Y.: John Wiley & Sons.

Edwards, Ward and J. Robert Newman (with the collaboration of Kurt Sapper and David

Server). 1982. Multiattribute Evaluation, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Flyvbjerg, Bent, Mette S. Holm and Soren Buhl. 2002. ‘Underestimating Costs in Public

Works Projects,’ Journal of the American Planning Association, 68(3), 279-295.

Friedlander, David, David H. Greenberg and Philip K. Robins. 1997. Journal of



Economic Literature. 35(4), 1809-55.

Gray, John B. 2002. ‘The Economic Impact of the Winter Olympic & Paralympic

Games.’ Report Prepared by the Capital Projects Branch, Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise.

General Accounting Office (GAO). 1998. ‘Regulatory Reform: Agencies Could Improve

Development, Documentation, and Clarity of Regulatory Economic Analyses,’ Report to the Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, GAO/RCED-98-142, May.

Greenberg, David, H. 1992. ‘Conceptual Issues in Cost-Benefit Analysis of Welfare-to-

Work Programs.’ Contemporary Policy Issues. 10(4), 51-63.

Greene, Ian. 2002. ‘Lessons Learned from two Decades of Program Evaluation in

Canada.’ In Deitmar Braunig and Peter Eichorn eds., Evaluation and Accounting Standards in Public Management, Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 44-53.

Hahn, Robert W., Jason K. Burnett, Yee-Ho I. Chan, Elizabeth A. Mader, and Petrea R.

Moyle. 2000. ‘Assessing Regulatory Impact Analyses: The Failure of Agencies to

Comply with Executive Order 12,866.’ Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. 23(3), 859-885.

Hahn, Robert W. and Cass R. Sunstein. 2002. ‘A New Executive Order for Improving

Federal Regulation? Deeper and Wider Cost-Benefit Analysis.’ University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 150(5), 1489-1552.

Hahn, Robert W. 2000. ‘State and Federal Regulatory Reform: A Comparative Analysis.’

Journal of Legal Studies. 29(2), 873-912.

Harberger, Arnold C. 1978. ‘On the Use of Distributional Weights in Social Cost-

Benefit Analysis.’ Journal of Political Economy. 86(2), S87-120.

Harberger, Arnold C. 1997. ‘Economic Project Evaluation, Part 1: Some Lessons for the

1990s.’ Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation. Special Issue, 5-46.

Health Canada. 2004. ‘Economic Evaluation of Health Canada’s Regulatory Proposal for

Reducing Fire Risks from Cigarettes,’ Ottawa, ON: Health Canada.

Heckman James, L. 2001. ‘Micro Data, Heterogeneity, and the Evaluation of Public

Policy: Nobel Lecture.’ Journal of Political Economy. 109(4), 673-748.

Herfindahl, Orris C. and Allan V. Kneese. 1974. Economic Theory of Natural Resources,

Columbus, OH: Charles Merrill.

HLB Decision Economics (in association with ICF Consulting and PB Consult). 2002.



Cost-Benefit Framework and Model for the Evaluation of Transit and Highway Investments: Final Report, Ottawa, ON., 23 January.

HM Treasury. 1997. Appraisal and Valuation in Central Government: Treasury



Guidance. ‘The Green Book,’ London: The Stationary Office.

Hrudey, Steve E. (Chair), Vic Adamowicz, Alan Krupnick, John McConnell, Paolo

Renzi, Robert dales, Morton Lippmann and Beverley Hale. 2001. Report of an Expert Panel to Review the Socio-Economic Models and Related Components Supporting the Development of Canada-Wide Standards for Particulate Matter and Ozone to the Royal Society of Canada, RSC EPR 01-2, Ottawa, ON: Royal Society of Canada.

Hurley, J. 1998. ‘Welfarism, Extra-Welfarism and Evaluative Economic Analysis in

the Health Sector.’ In Morris Barer, T. Getzen and G. L. Stoddard eds., Health, Health Care and Health Economics: Perspectives on Distribution, Chichester, U.K: John Wiley, 373-395.

InterVISTAS Consulting Inc. 2002. ‘The Economic Impact of the 2010 Winter Olympic

and Paralympic Games.’ Prepared for Honourable Ted Bebbeling, Minister of State for Community Charter and 2010 Olympic Bid.

Joubert, Alison, R., Anthony Leiman, Helen M. de Klerk, Stephen Katua and J. Coenrad

Aggenbach. 1997. ‘Fynbos (Fine Bush) Vegetation and the Supply of Water: A

Comparison of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis and Cost-Benefit Analysis.’ Ecological Economics. 22(2), 123-140.

Kaplan, Robert S. and David P. Norton. 1996. ‘Linking the Balanced Scorecard to

Strategy.’ California Management Review. 39(1), 53-79.

Keeney, Ralph L. and Raiffa, Howard. 1976. Decisions with Multiple Objectives:

Preferences and Value Tradeoffs, N.Y.: John Wiley & Sons.

KPMG. 1996. ‘Benefits and Costs of Treaty Settlements in British Columbia – A

Financial and Economic Perspective,’ Victoria, B.C.: Queen’s Printer.

LaLonde, Robert J. 1997. ‘The Promise of Public Sector-Sponsored Training Programs.’



Journal of Economic Perspectives 9(2), 149-168.

Levelton, Paul, Lisa Kershaw and William Reid. 1966. ‘Estimating Economic Impacts

and Market Potential Associated with the Development and Production of Fuel Cells in British Columbia.’ KPMG Report Prepared for the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC: 60058/WPL/br.

Long, David, Charles D. Mallar and Craig V. Thornton. 1981. ‘Evaluating the Benefits

and Costs of the Jobs Corps.’ Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 1(1), 55-76.

Martin, Fernand. 2001. ‘Evaluating a Large-Scale Infrastructure Project: A High-Speed

Railway Along the Quebec City to Windsor Corridor.’ In Aidan R. Vining and John Richards, eds., Building the Future: Issues in Public Infrastructure in Canada, Toronto, ON: C.D. Howe Institute, 195-213.

Marvin Shaffer & Associates Ltd. 1992. ‘Kispiox Resource Management Plan Socio-

Economic Impact Assessment,’ Final Report, Submitted to Economic and Trade Branch, Ministry of Forests.

Mayer, Igor S., C. Els van Daalen and Peter W.G. Bots. 2004. ‘Perspectives on Policy

Analyses: A Framework for Understanding and Design.’ International Journal of Technology Policy and Management. 4(2), 169-191.

Mayne, John. 1994. ‘Utilizing Evaluation in Organizations: The Balancing Act.’ In Frans

L. Leeuw, Ray C. Rist and Richard C. Sonnichsen, eds., Can Governments Learn? New Brunswick, N.J: Transaction Publishers, 17-44.

Ministry of Transportation. 2001. Highway 99 Alternative Routes Analysis Vancouver to



Squamish and Corridor Improvement Analysis Squamish to Cache Creek (Draft), Vancouver, BC: Ministry of Transportation, June.

Moore, John L. 1995. ‘Cost-Benefit Analysis: Issues in its Use in Regulation.’



Congressional Research Service Report for Congress. Washington, D.C: The

Committee for the National Institute for the Environment, June.

Mueller, Dennis C. 1989. Public Choice II, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Muller-Clemm, Werner J. and Maria P. Barnes. 1997. ‘A Historical Perspective on

Federal Program Evaluation in Canada.’ Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation. 12(1), 47-70.

Myers, Samuel L. 2002. ‘Presidential Address—Analysis of Race as Policy Analysis.’



Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 21(2), 169-190.

Nijkamp, Peter P. 1997. Theory and Application of Environmental Economics,

Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Nord, Erik, Jeff Richardson, Andrew Street Hega Kuhse and Peter Singer. 1995

‘Maximizing Health Benefits vs. Egalitarianism: An Australian Survey of Health Issues.’ Social Science & Medicine. 41(10), 1429-1437.

Nussbaum, Martha C. 2000. ‘The Costs of Tragedy: Some Moral Limits of Cost-Benefit

Analysis.’ Journal of Legal Studies. 29(2), Part 2, 1005-36.

OECD. 1995. Recommendation on Improving the Quality of Government Regulation.

Okun, Arthur, M. 1975. Equality and Efficiency: The Big Tradeoff, Washington D.C:

The Brookings Institution.

Pearce, David. 1998. ‘Cost-Benefit Analysis and Environmental Policy’ Oxford Review

of Economic Policy. 14(4), 84-100.

Phillips, Patti P. and Jack J. Phillips. 2004. ‘ROI in the Public Sector: Myths and

Realities.’ Public Personnel Management. 33(2), 139-149.

Privy Council Office. 1999. Government of Canada Regulatory Policy, Ottawa, ON.

Radin, Beverly. 2002. ‘The Government Performance and Results Act and the Tradition

of Federal Management Reform: Square pegs in Round Holes? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 10(1), 111-135.

Rees, William E. 1998. ‘How Should a Parasite Value Its Host? Ecological Economics.

25(1), 49-52.

Rich, M.J. 1989. ‘Distributive Politics and the Allocation of Federal Grants.’ American

Political Science Review. 83(1), 193-213.

Reinke, William A. 1999. ‘A Multi-Dimensional Program Evaluation Model:

Considerations of Cost-Effectiveness, Equity, Quality, and Sustainability.’ Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation. 14(2), 145-160.

Richards, John, Aidan Vining, D. Brown, M. Krashinsky, W. Milne, E. Lightman, and S.

Hoy. 1995. Helping the Poor: A Qualified Case for ‘Workfare,’ Toronto, ON: C.D. Howe Institute.

Sanders, Heywood T. 2002. ‘Convention Myths and Markets: A Critical Review of

Convention Center Feasibility Studies.’ Economic Development Quarterly, 16(3), 195-210.

Schwindt, Richard, Aidan Vining and David Weimer. 2003. ‘A Policy Analysis of the BC

Salmon Fishery.’ Canadian Public Policy. 29(1), 73-93.

Svenson, Ola. 1979. ‘Process Description of Decision Making.’ Organizational Behavior



and Human Performance. 23(1), 89-92.

(TBS) Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. 1976. Benefit-Cost Analysis Guide, Ottawa,

ON: Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.

- 1997. Program Evaluation Methods, Third Edition, Ottawa, ON: Treasury Board of

Canada Secretariat, (www.tbs-sct.gc.ca).

- 1998. Benefit-Cost Analysis Guide, Ottawa, ON: Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat

(www.tbs-sct.gc.ca).

- no date. Study of the Evaluation Function in the Federal Government.

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/eval/stud_etud/func-fonc-01_e.asp.

Vining, Aidan R. and David L. Weimer. 2001. ‘Criteria for Infrastructure Investment:

Normative, Positive, and Prudential Perspectives.’ In Aidan R. Vining and John Richards, eds., Building the Future: Issues in Public Infrastructure in Canada, Toronto: C.D. Howe Institute, 131-165.

1W.W. Waters, II. Undated. ‘A Reanalysis of the North East Coal Development,’ UBC:

mimeo.

Webber, David J. 1986. ‘Analyzing Political Feasibility: Political Scientists’ Unique



Contribution to Policy Analysis.’ Policy Studies Journal., 14(4), 545-564.

Weimer, David L. and Aidan R.Vining. 2005. Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice.

4th. Ed., Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Whitehead, Paul C. and William R. Avison. 1999. ‘Comprehensive Evaluation: The

Intersection of Impact Evaluation and Social Accounting.’ Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 14(1), 65-83.

Table 1

Metachoice Framework and Choice Classes





Single Goal of Efficiency

Multiple Goals Including Efficiency




Comprehensive Monetization of Efficiency Impacts

Cost-Benefit Analysis


Embedded Cost-Benefit Analysis




Less-than-Comprehensive Monetization of Efficiency Impacts



Efficiency Analysis



Multi-Goal Analysis




Table 2

Benefit-Cost Analysis of the North East Coal Project







Benefits

Costs

Net

Benefits

Mining Sector

3316

3260

56













Transport Sector










Trucking

33

33

0

Canadian National Railway

504

358

146

B.C. Railway

216

202

14

Port Terminal

135

150

-15

Analysis & Survey

11

11

0













British Columbia










Royalties & Taxes

231




231

Infrastructure

0

88

-88

Tumbler Ridge Branchline

91

267

-176













Canada










Corporate Taxes

134

0

134

Highways, port navigation

0

26

-26













Totals

4671

4395

276

Source: (Bowden and Malkinson 1982, 108). All figures are present values in 1980 dollars, using a 10% discount rate and assuming no terminal value in 2003, the end of the discounting period.



Table 3:

Typology of Efficiency Analysis Methodologies










Benefits’ Inclusion and Monetization







No ‘Benefits’ Included

Agency Revenue Only

Some Non-Agency Benefits also Included

All Social Benefits Included, but Not All Monetized

All Social Benefits Included and Monetized

Costs’ Inclusion and Monetiz-ation



No ‘Costs’ Included

No

Efficiency Analysis



Revenue Analysis

Effectiveness Analysis; Economic Impact Analysis

Effectiveness Analysis

Effectiveness Analysis

Agency Costs Only

Cost Analysis

Revenue-Expenditure Analysis

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, MNBA, IQCBA

IQCBA, MNBA

IQCBA, MNBA

Some Non-Agency Costs also Included

Incomplete Social Costing

IQCBA,

MNBA


Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, MNBA, IQCBA

IQCBA,

MNBA


IQCBA,

MNBA


All Social Costs Included, but Not All Monetized

Incomplete Social Costing

IQCBA,

MNBA


Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, MNBA, IQCBA

Qualitative CBA,

MNBA+


Qualitative CBA,

MNBA+


All Social Costs Included and Monetized

Complete Social Costing

IQCBA,

MNBA


Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, MNBA, IQCBA

Qualitative CBA/ MNBA+

CBA

Table 4

A Hypothetical Example of MNBA+ Analysis







Policy Alternatives

Goals/Impacts

Alternative A

Alternative B

Alternative C

NPV of monetized efficiency impacts

$105 M

$78 M

$96 M

Environmental Protection

Low

Medium

High

Table 5


A Hypothetical Example of MNBA+ Analysis: Alternative Highway Projects





Policy Alternatives

Impacts (Criteria)

Alternative A

Alternative B

Alternative C

NPV of monetized efficiency impacts

$30M

$43M

$60M

Lives Saved

6

3

2

Equitable Access to Wilderness

Medium

Low

High


Table 6

Monetized Net Benefit Analysis of Proposed Ignition Propensity Standard







Analyst’s Estimates

Industry’s Estimates




Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Benefits:













Reduced Fatalities

6960

3480

6960

3480

Reduced Injuries

7

3

7

3

Reduced Property Damage

637

320

637

320
















Costs:













Compliance

867

867

1766

1766

Net Benefits

6737

2936

5837

2036

Source: Derived from Health Canada 2004. All figures are present values in 2002 $CA millions, assuming impacts occur in perpetuity and a 3 percent discount rate.



Table 7

An Example of Embedded NPV Analysis







Policy Alternatives


Goals


Alternative A


Alternative B


Alternative C

Efficiency (NPV of all efficiency impacts)

$55 M

$28 M

$46 M

Equity

Medium

Low

High


Table 8

Total Net Financial Benefits to British Columbia of Treaty Settlements





Scenario 1

Scenario 2

($5 Millions, 1995 Constant Dollars)

($5 Millions, 1995

Constant Dollars)



First Nations







  • Cash, resource revenues & cash equivalents

$5,300

$6,000


  • Tenures from third parties

380

160

  • Interest-free loans and grants

90

90

  • Funding of First Nations’ core institutions

250

380

Total Financial Benefits to First Nations

$6,020

$6,630

Costs to other British Columbians










  1. Provincial Government Costs










  • Provincial share of cash, cash equivalent and resource revenues to First Nations

$ 640

$1,330


  • Pre-treaty costs

780

750

  • Implementation costs

1,040

980

  • Costs to third parties for purchase of tenures

190


80


  • Reduction in provincial program costs

(740)

(1,710)




$1,910

$ 1,430

  1. Other British Columbians Costs







  • Provincial taxpayers’ share of net Federal costs

200

(60)


Total Financial Costs to other British Columbians


$2,110


$ 1,370

Total Net Financial Benefits to British Columbia


$3,910


$5,260


Table 9

An Example of a Multi-Goal Analysis: B.C Salmon Fishery











Alternative Policies



Goals



Criteria


Current Policy: Continued Implementation of the Mifflin Plan


Harvesting Royalties and License Auction (Pearse Plan)


River-Specific Exclusive Ownership Rights


Individual Transferable Quotas to Current License Holders



Efficient Resource Use



Impact on Rent Dissipation

Poor — large negative net present value


Good — considerable improvement over status quo


Very good — major improvement over status quo, lowest cost technology


Good — considerable improvement over status quo




Protection


Impact on the Number of Viable Runs

Poor — high risk


Poor — continued risk for vulnerable runs


Good — very good except possibly for Fraser River


Reasonable (provided ‘share’ quotas used)



Equitable Distribution

Fairness to Current License Holders

Good

Good

Depends upon compensation for licenses

Very good




Fairness to Native Fishers

Neutral, good for incumbents

Neutral, good for incumbents

Good

Neutral, very good for incumbents




Fairness to Taxpayers

Poor, large net costs

Excellent after phase-in

Excellent

Poor, but depends on fees


Source: (Schwindt, Vining and Weimer 2003)

Table 10

Multi-Goal Analysis of Alternative Routes Between Vancouver and Squamish



COST and IMPACT FACTORS

1 = least preferable to 5 = most preferable



ROUTE OPTIONS

Highway

99 North

upgrade

Capilano

River

Seymour

River

Indian Arm

/Indian River

Hybrid Seymour-Indian River

FINANCIAL ACCOUNT

  • Capital cost
















- route cost

5

3

1

1

2

- link to Provincial network

5

3

3

1

3

- network upgrade cost

4

4

4

2

4

  • Added operating/maintenance cost

5

4

3

1

4

  • Traffic disruption cost

1

4

5

4

5

CUSTOMER SERVICE ACCOUNT

  • User travel time reduction

3

5

5

2

5


  • System integration

3

3

3

5

3

  • Mode shift potential

5

3

3

1

3

  • Timing of benefits

5

1

1

1

1

  • Vehicle operating cost reduction

5

4

3

3

3

  • Accident cost reduction

5

5

5

5

5

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACCOUNT

  • developable land accessed

5


3


1


1


1


  • interior interaction

2

2

2

2

2

  • generated travel

3

3

3

5

3

SOCIAL ACCOUNT

  • urban land use impact

3

3

3

2

3


  • park/recreation impact

4

4

3

1

3

4

4

3

1

3

  • consistency with regional growth plans

5

3

3

1

3

  • emergency route

1

2

3

5

4

ENVIRONMENTAL ACCOUNT

  • watershed impact

5

1

1

3

3


  • geotechnical concern

3

5

1

1

1

  • physical env. impact

3

2

2

1

2

  • avalanche concern

5

4

2

1

1

  • archaeology

5

3

2

1

2

TOTAL

94

78

65

51

69

Source: (Ministry of Transportation 2001,12).


Table 11

An Example of A Multi-Goal Valuation Matrix








POLICY ALTERNATIVES

Alternative A

Alternative B

Alternative C




Efficiency
(MNBA)


$30M

3


$43M

5


$60M

8





Revenue-Expenditure
Impact


-$100M

8


-$100M

8


-$200M

3


GOALS



Equity

Medium

5


Low

2


High

7





Pollution Reduced

3.0%

7


2.6%

4


2.4%

3





Impact on
Employees



No Change

8


10% Layoff

3


Increased Workloads,
No Layoffs

5





Sum of Equally-weighted Scores

31

22

26


Table 12

Sample Goals/Criteria For Metachoice Alternatives






Single Goal of
Efficiency

Multiple Goals
(including Efficiency)




NW

NE

Comprehensive


Monetization of Efficiency




CBA
Analysis







Embedded CBA
Analysis







NPV

Benefit-Cost Ratio

IRR

Payback Period










NPV + Other Goals (Equity, Human Dignity, Net Revenues)

Distributionally-Weighted CBA

Budget-Constrained CBA








SW

SE

Less-than- Comprehensive
Monetization of Efficiency






Efficiency
Analysis







Multi-Goal
Analysis







Cost Analysis

Social Costing

Revenue Analysis

Effectiveness Analysis

Revenue-Expenditure Analysis

Economic Impact Analysis

CEA

Qualitative CBA



MNBA

MNBA+ (MBA plus intangible impacts)









Additive Utility Rule

Highest Product of Utility

Qualitative Assessment

Satisfycing

Lexicographic ordering






Download 2.59 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   ...   34




The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2020
send message

    Main page