The paper describes and analyses the different approaches to assessment present in six European countries, namely Italy, France, United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden. Many comparative studies already exist, pointing out the differences in technicalities and standard values used in the normative frameworks. The purpose of this paper is, instead, to look at the role assigned to assessment procedures in the broader process of decision-making in transport infrastructures sector. Despite the generalised use of some form of Cost Benefit Analysis, in fact, the way it is used and, ultimately, the conception of how infrastructures are planned, are radically different across countries. The cases vary from a the use of CBA to assess single schemes out of a general public-driven strategy (like in UK), to centrally planned and assessed infrastructures in which CBA is used essentially to prioritise among a range of concurrent projects (like in Germany or Nordic countries). Also among planned approaches, substantial differences exist, ranging from centrally managed modelling and ranking, to more complex and cooperative approaches. After reviewing singularly the six countries and describing their approach, we set a simplified interpretation scheme. By means of this scheme, we propose a comparison of the six countries, finding out their strengths and weaknesses. Such analysis allows also to comment more rationally some of the commonly found pitfalls of evaluation, such as hidden agendas of decision makers, derived finance problems and relationship with agencies. The paper concludes with some policy indications, proposing three “theoretical” models of the process.

A comparative analysis of assessment approaches. Six cases from Europe

BERIA, PAOLO;
2011-01-01

Abstract

The paper describes and analyses the different approaches to assessment present in six European countries, namely Italy, France, United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden. Many comparative studies already exist, pointing out the differences in technicalities and standard values used in the normative frameworks. The purpose of this paper is, instead, to look at the role assigned to assessment procedures in the broader process of decision-making in transport infrastructures sector. Despite the generalised use of some form of Cost Benefit Analysis, in fact, the way it is used and, ultimately, the conception of how infrastructures are planned, are radically different across countries. The cases vary from a the use of CBA to assess single schemes out of a general public-driven strategy (like in UK), to centrally planned and assessed infrastructures in which CBA is used essentially to prioritise among a range of concurrent projects (like in Germany or Nordic countries). Also among planned approaches, substantial differences exist, ranging from centrally managed modelling and ranking, to more complex and cooperative approaches. After reviewing singularly the six countries and describing their approach, we set a simplified interpretation scheme. By means of this scheme, we propose a comparison of the six countries, finding out their strengths and weaknesses. Such analysis allows also to comment more rationally some of the commonly found pitfalls of evaluation, such as hidden agendas of decision makers, derived finance problems and relationship with agencies. The paper concludes with some policy indications, proposing three “theoretical” models of the process.
2011
Atti del convegno
assessment; evaluation; cost benefit analysis; Italy; France; United Kingdom; Germany; the Netherlands; Sweden
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11311/605310
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 10
social impact