Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T17:23:48.891Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economic Analysis and Investment Priorities in Sweden’s Transport Sector

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 March 2018

Henrik Andersson ,
Lars Hultkrantz ,
Gunnar Lindberg  and
Jan-Eric Nilsson
Henrik Andersson
Affiliation:
Toulouse School of Economics, University of Toulouse Capitole, 31000 Toulouse, France
Lars Hultkrantz*
Affiliation:
Örebro University, School of Business, 701 82 Örebro, Sweden, e-mail: [email protected]
Gunnar Lindberg
Affiliation:
The Institute of Transport Economics, Gaustadalleen 21, 0349 Oslo, Norway
Jan-Eric Nilsson
Affiliation:
Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute (VTI), Box 55685, 102 15 Stockholm, Sweden Centre for Transport Studies, Sweden
*
*e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Beginning as a planning tool within Sweden’s national road administration some 50 years ago, benefit-cost analysis (BCA) has come to be a pillar of the national transport policy because of subsequent strategic choices made by the national parliament. These choices made it necessary to widen the analysis of costs to include also externalities and a foregone conclusion was that efficient investment priorities should be made based on BCA. But no one asked whether the political decision makers or the BCA models were up to that task. This paper reviews the institutional framework and practice of BCA in Sweden for transport infrastructure investment, and considers design issues that have been and still are debated, such as whether the discount rate should include a risk term and how to account for the marginal cost of public funds. A main concern with BCA results is the underestimation of construction costs, making transport sector projects look better than they are. Several ex post analyses have established that a higher NPV ratio increases the probability of being included in the investment program proposal prepared by the agency. The requirement to let projects undergo BCA seems to make planners “trim” project proposals by trying to reduce investment costs without significantly reducing benefits. This relationship is weaker among profitable projects. Moreover, there is no correlation between rate of return and the probability of being included in the final program, which is established on political grounds.

Keywords

H43H54R42benefit-cost analysisrailroadSwedentransport sector institutions
Type
Article
Information
Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , Spring 2018 , pp. 120 - 146
Copyright
© Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abrantes, Pedro A. L. & Wardman, Mark R. (2011). Meta-Analysis of U.K. Values of Time: An Update. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 45(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
Algers, Staffan, Dillén, Johanna Lindqvist & Widlert, Staffan(1995). The National Swedish Value of Time Study. Stockholm, Transek consultancy.Google Scholar
Andersson, Henrik (2005). The Value of Safety as Revealed in the Swedish Car Market: An Application of the Hedonic Pricing Approach. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 30(3), 211–239.Google Scholar
Andersson, Henrik (2013). Consistency in Preferences for Road Safety: An Analysis of Precautionary and Stated Behavior. Research in Transportation Economics, 43(1), 41–49.Google Scholar
Andersson, Henrik, Hole, Arne Risa & Svensson, Mikael (2016). Valuation of Small and Multiple Health Risks: A Critical Analysis of SP Data Applied to Food and Water Safety. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 75, 41–53.Google Scholar
ASEK (2016). Samhällsekonomiska principer och kalkylvärden för transportsektorn: ASEK 6.0. Borlänge, Sweden, Trafikverket, www.trafikverket.se/ASEK.Google Scholar
Asplund, Disa & Eliasson, Jonas (2016). Does Uncertainty Make Cost-Benefit Analyses Pointless? Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 92, 195–205.Google Scholar
Banverket (2009). Götalandsbanan Resultat Sampers Samkalk, Report 23-03-2009.Google Scholar
Belton, Valerie & Stewart, Theo (2002). Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis. An Integrated Approach. US: Springer.Google Scholar
Birch Sörensen, Peter(2010). Swedish Tax Policy: Recent Trends and Future Challenges, Report to the Expert Group on Public Economics, ESO, Ministry of Finance, 2010:4.Google Scholar
Blanchard, Olivier & Fischer, Stanley (1989). Lectures on Macroeconomics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Blumenschein, Karen, Blomquist, Glenn C., Johannesson, Magnus, Horn, Nancy & Freeman, Patricia (2008). Eliciting Willingness to Pay without Bias: Evidence from a Field Experiment. Economic Journal, 118, 114–137.Google Scholar
Boardman, Anthony, Greenberg, David, Vining, Aidan & Weimer, David (2013). Cost-Benefit Analysis. Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
Bohm, Peter (1972). Estimating Demand for Public Goods: An Experiment. European Economic Review, 3(2), 111–130.Google Scholar
Bohm, Peter (1978). I samhällets intresse? Stockholm: SNS Förlag.Google Scholar
Bohm, Peter, Bruzelius, Nils, Hesselborn, Per-Ove, Johannesson, Margareta, Ruud, Terje & Thedéen, Torbjörn (1974). Transportpolitiken och samhällsekonomin. Stockholm: Liber förlag.Google Scholar
Bohm, Peter & Hjort, Lars(1972). Stekenjokk, Swedish Ministry of Industry DsI 1972:5.Google Scholar
Borg, Per(2009). Den långsiktiga finansieringen – välfärdspolitikens klimatfråga? Stockholm, Sweden, Swedish Ministry of Finance, The Expert Group on Public Finance, ESO Report 2009:1.Google Scholar
Börjesson, Maria & Eliasson, Jonas (2014). Experiences from the Swedish Value of Time study. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 59, 144–158.Google Scholar
Börjesson, Maria, Eliasson, Jonas & Lundberg, Mattias (2014). Is CBA Ranking of Transport Investments Robust? Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 48(2), 189–204.Google Scholar
Börjesson, Maria, Fosgerau, Mogens & Algers, Staffan (2012). On the Income Elasticity of the Value of Travel Time. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 46(2), 368–377.Google Scholar
Bruzelius, Nils (1979). The Value of Travel Time. Kent, UK: Croom Helm Ltd.Google Scholar
Bruzelius, Nils(1980). Samhällsekonomiska kostnads- intäktskalkyler: teori och tillämpning på investeringar i transportsektorn, Statens råd för byggnadsforskning R 97:1980.Google Scholar
Cummings, Ronald G., Harrison, Glenn W. & Rutstrom, Elisabet E. (1995). Homegrown Values and Hypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive Compatible? American Economic Review, 85(1), 260–266.Google Scholar
Dixit, Avinash K. & Pindyck, Robert S. (1994). Investment under Uncertainty. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Dorfman, Robert, Samuelson, Paul A. & Solow, Robert M. (1958). Linear Programming and Economic Analysis. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
DoT (2016). Benefit-Cost analysis (BCA) resource Guide. U.S. Department of Transport https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-policy/benefit-cost-analysis-guidance-2017.Google Scholar
Eckstein, Otto (1958). Water-Resources Development: The Economics of Project Evaluation. Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Eliasson, Jonas, Börjesson, Maria, Odeck, James & Welde, Morten (2015). Does Benefit–Cost Efficiency Influence Transport Investment Decisions? Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 49(3), 377–396.Google Scholar
Eliasson, Jonas & Fosgerau, Mogens (2013). Cost Overruns and Demand Shortfalls – Deception or Selection? Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 57, 105–113.Google Scholar
Eliasson, Jonas & Lundberg, Mattias (2012). Do Cost-Benefit Analyses Influence Transport Investment Decisions? Experiences from the Swedish Transport Investment Plan 2010–2021. Transport Reviews, 32(1), 29–48.Google Scholar
European Commission (2014). Guide to Cost-Benefit Analysis of Investment Projects: Economic appraisal tool for Cohesion Policy 2014–2020. Brussels, Belgium, European Commission, Directorate-General for Regional and Urban policy.Google Scholar
Flam, Harry, Börjesson, Maria, Mörth, Ulrika & Nilsson, Jan-Eric (2016). Vart är vi på väg? Systemfel i transportpolitiken. Stockholm: SNS Förlag.Google Scholar
Flyvbjerg, Bent, Bruzelius, Nils & Rothengatter, Werner (2003). Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Flyvbjerg, Bent, Skamris Holm, Mette K. & Buhl, Søren L. (2004). What Causes Cost Overrun in Transport Infrastructure Projects? Transport Reviews, 24(1), 3–18.Google Scholar
Gollier, Christian (2008). Discounting with Fat-Tailed Economic Growth. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 37, 171–186.Google Scholar
Gollier, Christian(2011). On the under-estimation of the precautionary effect in discounting. CESifo Working Paper No. 3536.Google Scholar
Govt. Bill (1978). Swedish Government Bill, Proposition 1978/79:99.Google Scholar
Govt. Directive (1993). Government Directive, 1993:92.Google Scholar
Govt. Report (1958). Vägplan för Sverige, Swedish Government Reports, SOU 1958:1.Google Scholar
Hagen, Kåre P., Berntsen, Stein, Bye, Brita, Hultkrantz, Lars, Nyborg, Karine, Pedersen, Karl Rolf, Sandsmark, Maria, Volden, Gro Holst & Åvitsland, Geir(2012). Cost-Benefit Analysis, Official Norwegian Reports NOU 2012:16 (English version).Google Scholar
Halse, Askill(2017). Group Representation and Special Interests in Electoral Politics. PhD, Oslo University.Google Scholar
Hammitt, James K. & Robinson, Lisa A. (2011). The Income Elasticity of the Value per Statistical Life: Transferring Estimates between High and Low Income Populations. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 2(1), Article 1.Google Scholar
Hansson, Lars & Nilsson, Jan-Eric (1991). A New Swedish Railroad Policy: Separation of Infrastructure and Traffic Production. Transportation Research, 25, 153–159.Google Scholar
Harrison, Glenn W. (2006). Experimental Evidence on Alternative Environmental Valuation Methods. Environmental and Resource Economics, 34, 125–162.Google Scholar
Harrison, Glenn W. (2007). Making Choice Studies Incentive Compatible. In Kanninen, B. J. (Ed.), Valuing Environmental Amenities Using Stated Choice Studies (pp. 67–110). Springer.Google Scholar
Harrison, Glenn W. & Rutstrom, Elisabet E. (2008). Experimental Evidence on the Existence of Hypothetical Bias in Value Elicitation Methods. In Plott, C. & Smith, V. (Eds.), Handbook in Experimental Economics Results (pp. 752–767). New York: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Harrison, Mark(2010). Valuing the future: the social discount rate in cost-benefit analysis. Visiting Research Paper April 2010. Australian Government. Productivity Commission.Google Scholar
HEATCO (2006). Deliverable 5 Proposal for Harmonised Guidelines. Developing Harmonised European Approaches for Transport Costing and Project Assessment Contract No. FP6-2002-SSP-1/502481.Google Scholar
Hensher, David A. (2010). Hypothetical Bias, Choice Experiments and Willingness to Pay. Transportation Research Part B, 44(6), 735–752.Google Scholar
Hensher, D. A. & Truong, Truong P. (1985). Valuation of Travel Time Savings – A Direct Experimental Approach. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 19(3), 237–261.Google Scholar
Hervik, Arild, Hagen, Kåre P., Nyborg, Karine, Scheel, Hans Henrik, Sletner, Inger-Johanne & Åvitsland, Geir(1997). Nytte-kostnadsanalyser Prinsipper for lønnsomhetsvurderinger i offentlig sektor, Norges offentlige utredninger NOU 1997:39.Google Scholar
Hultkrantz, Lars(2000). Beslutsunderlaget för Arlandabanan: en granskning av de samhällsekonomiska bedömningarna. Bilaga 1 till Nya vägar till vägar och järnvägar? Riksdagens revisorer, rapport 2000/01:5.Google Scholar
Hultkrantz, Lars(2016). Värdet av ett statistisk liv (VSL) (The Value of a Statistical Life), Report commissioned by the Swedish Transport Administration. Örebro University School of Business.Google Scholar
Hultkrantz, Lars, Krüger, Niclas A. & Mantalos, Panagiotis (2014). Risk Adjusted Social Rate of Discount for Transportation Investments. Research in Transportation Economics, 47, 70–81.Google Scholar
Hultkrantz, Lars, Chuan-Zhong, Li & Lindberg, Gunnar(1996). Some problems in the consumer preference approach to multimodal transport planning. Dalarna University College, CTS Working Paper, 1996:5.Google Scholar
Hultkrantz, Lars, Lindberg, Gunnar & Nilsson, Jan-Eric (1997). Vad 1998 års trafikpolitik bör innehålla. Ekonomisk Debatt, 25(6), 343–354.Google Scholar
Hultkrantz, Lars & Mortazavi, Reza (2001). Anomalies in the Value of Travel-Time Changes. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 35(2), 285–300.Google Scholar
Hultkrantz, Lars & Savsin, Selen(2017). Is Referencing a Remedy to Hypothetical Bias in Value of Time Elicitation? Evidence from Economic Experiments. Transportation (in press).Google Scholar
Hultkrantz, Lars & Svensson, Mikael (2012). The Value of a Statistical Life in Sweden: A review of the empirical literature. Health Policy, 108, 302–310.Google Scholar
Jansson, Kjell(1995). Översyn av samhällsekonomiska kalkylvärden för den nationella trafikplaneringen 1994–1998. Statens institut för kommunikationsanalys, SIKA SAMPLAN 1995:13.Google Scholar
Johansson, Per-Olov (1987). The Economic Theory and Measurement of Environmental Benefits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Johnston, R. J., Boyle, Kevin J., Adamowicz, Wiktor, Bennett, Jeff, Brouwer, Roy, Cameron, Trudy Ann, Michael Hanemann, W., Hanley, Nick, Ryan, Mandy, Scarpa, Riccardo, Tourangeau, Roger & Vossler, Christian A. (2017). Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 4(2), 319–405.Google Scholar
Jones-Lee, Michael W., Hammerton, M. & Phillips, P. R. (1985). The Value of Safety: Results of a National Sample Survey. The Economic Journal, 95(377), 49–72.Google Scholar
Jonsson, Ernst(1975). Olycksvärdering I trafikekonomiska kalkyler, Swedish Government Committe report SOU 1975:86, Appendix 2.Google Scholar
Jussila-Hammes, Johanna & Nilsson, Jan-Eric(2017). The Allocation of Transport Infrastructure in Swedish Municipalities: Welfare Maximization, Political Economy or Both? Mimeo, Dept. of Transport Economics, VTI.Google Scholar
Kopits, Elizabeth, McGartland, Al, Morgan, Cynthia, Pasurka, Carl, Shadbegian, Ron, Simon, Nathalie B., Simpson, David & Wolverton, Ann (2014). Retrospective Cost Analyses of EPA Regulations: A Case Study Approach. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 5(2), 173–193.Google Scholar
Kriström, Bengt & Bonta Bergman, Mona(2014). Samhällsekonomiska analyser av miljöprojekt – en vägledning, NATURVÅRDSVERKET RAPPORT 6628.Google Scholar
Krüger, Niclas A. (2012). To Kill a Real Option – Incomplete Contracts, Real Options and PPP. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 46(8), 1359–1371.Google Scholar
Loomis, John (2011). What’s to Know About Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Studies? Journal of Economic Surveys, 25(2), 363–370.Google Scholar
Lundholm, Michael (2008). Decentralizing Public Goods Production. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 10, 259–279.Google Scholar
Mäler, Karl-Göran (1974). Environmental Economics: A Theoretical Inquiry. Washington DC, USA: Resources for the Future Library Collection.Google Scholar
Mantalos, Panagiotis & Hultkrantz, Lars(2018). Estimating “Gamma” for Tail-hedge Discount Rates When Project Returns Are Co-integrated with GDP. Applied Economics (in press).Google Scholar
Mattsson, Bengt & Thompson, Sture(1975). Vägtrafikolyckor och sjukvårdskostnader, Swedish Government Committe SOU 1975:13.Google Scholar
Mehra, Rajnish & Prescott, Edward (1985). The Equity Premium: A Puzzle. Journal of Monetary Economics, 15(2), 145–161.Google Scholar
Morgan, Cynthia, Pasurka, Carl & Shadbegian, Ron (2014). Ex Ante and Ex Post Cost Estimates of the Cluster Rule and MACT II Rule. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 5(2), 195–224.Google Scholar
Morgan, Cynthia & Simon, Nathalie B. (2014). National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic: A Retrospective Assessment of Costs. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 5(2), 259–284.Google Scholar
Morgenstern, Richard. Retrospective Analysis of U.S. Federal Environmental Regulation. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis. Published electronically November 10, 2017. doi:10.1017/bca.2017.17.Google Scholar
Murphy, James, Allen, Geoffrey P., Stevens, Thomas H. & Weatherhead, Darryl (2005). A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 30(3), 313–325.Google Scholar
National Audit (1994). Infrastrukturinvesteringar – en kostnadsjämförelse mellan plan och utfall i 15 projekt inom Vägverket och Banverket, Riksrevisionsverket 1994:23.Google Scholar
Nerhagen, Lena & Forsstedt, Sara(2016). Regulating transport. The possible role of regulatory impact assessment in Swedish transport planning. Discussion Paper prepared for the Roundtable on Assessing regulatory changes in the transport sector (6–7 October 2016, Stockholm).Google Scholar
Nilsson, Jan-Eric (1991). Investment Decisions in a Public Bureaucracy – a Case Study of Swedish Road Planning Practices. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 25, 163–175.Google Scholar
Nilsson, Jan-Eric(2000). Citytunneln; beslutsprocess och beslutsunderlag, Utredningsuppdrag för Riksdagens revisorer.Google Scholar
NOAA (1993). Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation 58. Federal Register 46.Google Scholar
OECD (2018). OECD Economic Surveys: Norway 2018. OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
Parliament Audit (2000). Nya vägar till vägar och järnvägar? Swedish Parliament Audit, Riksdagens revisorer; Rapport 2000/01:5.Google Scholar
Ramjerdi, Farideh, Flügel, Sefan, Samstad, Hanne & Killi, Marit(2010). Den norske verdsettingsstudien: Tid, Transportökonomisk institutt, Oslo, TØI rapport 1053B/2010.Google Scholar
Ramsey, Frank (1928). A Mathematical Theory of Saving. Economic Journal, 38, 543–559.Google Scholar
Sager, Tore Øivin (2016). Why Don’t Cost-Benefit Results Count for More? The Case of Norwegian Road Investment Priorities. Urban, Planning and Transport Research, 4(1), 101–121.Google Scholar
SIKA (1999). Översyn av samhällsekonomiska metoder och kalkylvärden på transportområdet (Review of cost benefit calculation. Methods and valuations in the transport sector), SIKA Rapport 1999:6.Google Scholar
SIKA (2002). Översyn av samhällsekonomiska metoder och kalkylvärden på transportområdet (Review of cost benefit calculation. Methods and valuations in the transport sector), SIKA Rapport 2002:4.Google Scholar
SIKA (2008). Samhällsekonomiska principer och kalkylvärden för transportsektorn: ASEK 4, SIKA PM 2008:3.Google Scholar
Simpson, R. David (2014). Do Regulators Overestimate the Costs of Regulation? Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 5(2), 315–332.Google Scholar
Statens Vägverk (1981). Angelägenhetsbedömning av väg- och gatuobjekt. Statens vägverk, Planeringsavdelningen, P008, P009.Google Scholar
Statens vegvesen (2017). Håndbok V712 Konsekvensanalyser. Vegdirektoratet, Oslo, Norway.Google Scholar
Svensson, Mikael (2009). Precautionary Behavior and Willingness to Pay for a Mortality Risk Reduction: Searching for the Expected Relationship. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 39, 65–85.Google Scholar
Tarschys, Daniel(2002). Huru skall statsverket granskas? Riksdagen som arena för genomlysning och kontroll, Expertgruppen för Studier i Offentlig ekonomi (ESO), Ds 2002:58.Google Scholar
Trafikverket (2012). Bristanalys av transportsystemet fram till 2025 med tyngdpunkt på kapacitet och effektivitet, Trafikverket 2012:22.Google Scholar
Trafikverket (2015). Uppföljning av entreprenadkontrakt, Regeringsuppdrag.Google Scholar
Trafikverket (2016). Samhällsekonomisk kalkyl av höghastighetsjärnväg enligt Sverigeförhandlingen 2016-02-01, Trafikverket TRV 2014/54842.Google Scholar
U.K. HM Treasury (2013). Green Book Supplementary Guidance: Optimism Bias. Supplementary guidance to the Green Book on estimates for a project’s costs, benefits and duration in the absence of robust primary evidence. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/191507/Optimism_bias.pdf.Google Scholar
Viscusi, W. K. & Masterman, Clayton J. (2017). Income Elasticities and Global Values of a Statistical Life. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 8(2), 226–250.Google Scholar
Wallström, Jenny & Söderqvist, Tore(2016). Kartläggning av samhällsekonomiska analyser inom miljöområdet. Stockholm Rapport 2016:1, Enveco.Google Scholar
Weitzman, Martin L.(2012). Rare disasters, Tail-hedged investments, risk-adjusted discount rates. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 18496.Google Scholar
Weitzman, Martin L. (2013). Tail-Hedge Discounting and the Social Cost of Carbon. Journal of Economic Literature, 51(3), 873–882.Google Scholar
Wolverton, Ann (2014). Retrospective Evaluation of Costs Associated with Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemptions for Open Field Strawberries in California. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 5(2), 225–257.Google Scholar