Skip to main content
Log in

Ranking of regional road investment in Norway

Does socioeconomic analysis matter?

  • Articles
  • Published:
Transportation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper explores the priorities for road investments in Norway, with particular emphasis on the use of benefit-cost calculus. The author tests whether the observed rankings of the Ranking Road Agencies are explained and/or influenced positively by the benefit-cost ratio. Second, based on a questionnaire survey, the tradeoff made by Regional Road Authorities between an economic welfare maximizing strategy and the observed strategy in analysed. Benefit-cost ratio is found to be a significant explanatory variable in only four out of fifteen regions. In only one region does benefit cost ratio explain more than 30 percent of the observed variation. The trade-off analysis demonstrates that ranking by benefit-cost ratio if adopted gives formidable return as compared to the observed rankings. The reasons given by the Regional Road Agencies for not ranking investment projects according to benefit cost ratio is that several important impacts are not valued monetarily and therefore are not included in the benefit-cost-ratio. The results of the questionnaire survey give reasons to doubt the Regional Road Agencies understanding of the welfare maximizing principles of benefit cost calculus. Concluding remarks on the observed behaviour of the Regional Road Agencies are also offered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ben-Akiva M & Lerman SR (1987) Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand. Cambridge. Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapman G Randall & Staelin R (1982) Exploiting rank ordered choice set data with stochastic utility model. Journal of Marketing Research XIX: 208–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Domencich T & Macfadden D (1975) Urban Travel Demand: A Behavioural Analysis. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce R Duncan & Suppes P (1965) Preferences, utility and subjectivity probability. In: Luce RD, Bush RR & Galanter E (ed) Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, Volume 3 (pp 249–410). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In: Zarembka P (eds) Frontier in Econometrics (pp 105–142). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadden D (1975) The revealed preference of a government bureaucracy: Theory. The Bell Journal of Economics 6(2): 401–716.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadden D (1976) The revealed preference of a government bureaucracy: Empirical evidence. The Bell Journal of Economics 7(2): 55–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nilson, J-E (1991) Investment decisions in a public bureaucracy: A case study of the Swedish road planning practices. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy XXV(2).

  • Thomas GL (1988) Revealed bureaucratic preferences: Priorities of the consumer product safety commission. RAND Journal of Economics 19(1).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Odeck, J. Ranking of regional road investment in Norway. Transportation 23, 123–140 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00170032

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00170032

Key words

Navigation