Cost Benefit Analysis

Cost Benefit Analysis

In a world of finite public and private resources, we need a standard for evaluating trade-offs, setting priorities, and finally making choices about how to allocate scarce resources among competing uses. Cost benefit analysis provides a way of doing this. What is cost benefit analysis? Cost benefit analysis (COBA) is a technique for assessing the monetary social costs and benefits of a capital investment project over a given time period. The principles of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) are simple: Appraisal of a project: It is an economic technique for project appraisal, widely used in business as well as government spending projects (for example should a business invest in a new information system) Incorporates externalities into the equation: It can, if required, include wider social/environmental impacts as well as ‘private’ economic costs and benefits so that externalities are incorporated into the decision process. In this way, COBA can be used to estimate the social welfare effects of an investment Time matters! COBA can take account of the economics of time – known as discounting. This is important when looking at environmental impacts of a project in the years ahead Uses of COBA COBA has traditionally been applied to big public sector projects such as new motorways, by-passes, dams, tunnels, bridges, flood relief schemes and new power stations. Our example later considers some of the social costs and benefits of the new Terminal 5 for Heathrow airport. The basic principles of COBA can be applied to many other projects or programmes. For example, -public health programmes (e.g. the mass immunization of children using new drugs), an investment in a new rail safety systems, or opening a new railway line. Another example might be to use COBA in assessing the costs and benefits of introducing congestion charges for motorists in London. Or the costs and benefits of the New Deal programme designed to reduce long-term unemployment. Cost benefit analysis was also used during the recent inquiry into genetically modified foods. Increasingly the principles of cost benefit analysis are being used to evaluate the returns from investment in environmental projects such as wind farms and the development of other sources of renewable energy, an area where the UK continues to lag behind. Because financial resources are scarce, COBA allows different projects to be ranked according to those that provide the highest expected net gains in social welfare - this is particularly important given the limitations of government spending. The Main Stages in the Cost Benefit Analysis Approach At the heart of any investment appraisal decision is this basic question – does a planned project lead to a net increase in social welfare? Stage 1(a) Calculation of social costs & social benefits. This would include calculation of: Tangible Benefits and Costs (i.e. direct costs and benefits) Intangible Benefits and Costs (i.e. indirect costs and benefits – externalities) This process is very important – it involves trying to identify all of the significant costs & benefits Stage 1(b) - Sensitivity analysis of events occurring – this relates to an important question - If you estimate that a possible benefit (or cost) is £x million, how likely is that outcome? If you are reasonably sure that a benefit or cost will ‘occur’ – what is the scale of uncertainty about the actual values of the costs and benefits? Stage 2: - Discounting the future value of benefits - costs and benefits accrue over time. Individuals normally prefer to enjoy the benefits now rather than later – so the value of future benefits has to be discounted Stage 3: - Comparing the costs and benefits to determine the net social rate of return Stage 4: - Comparing net rate of return from different projects – the government may have limited funds at its disposal and therefore faces a choice about which projects should be given the go-ahead Evaluation: Criticisms of COBA There are several objections to the use of CBA for environmental impact assessment: Problems in attaching valuations to costs and benefits: Some costs are easy to value such as the running costs (e.g. staff costs) + capital costs (new equipment). Other costs are more difficult – not least when a project has a significant impact on the environment. The value attached to the destruction of a habitat is to some “priceless” and to others “worthless”. Costs are also subject to change over time – I.e. the construction costs of a new bridge over a river or the introduction of electronic road pricing The CBA may not cover everyone affected (i.e. all third parties) – inevitably with major construction projects such as a new airport or a new road, there are a huge number of potential “stakeholders” who stand to be affected (positively or negatively) by the decision. COBA cannot hope to include all stakeholders – there is a risk that some groups might be left out of the decision process Future generations – are they included in the analysis? What of “non-human” stakeholders? Distributional consequences: Costs and benefits mean different things to different income groups - benefits to the poor are usually worth more (or are they?). Those receiving benefits and those burdened with the costs of a project may not be the same. Are the losers to be compensated? To many economists, the equity issue is as important as the efficiency argument. Social welfare is not the same as individual welfare - What we want individually may not be what we want collectively. Do we attach a different value to those who feel “passionately” about something (for example the building of new housing on greenfield sites) contrasted with those who are more ambivalent? Valuing the environment: How are we to place a value on public goods such as the environment where there is no market established for the valuation of “property rights” over environmental resources? How does one value “nuisance” and “aesthetic values”? Valuing human life: Some measurements of benefits require the valuation of human life – many people are intrinsically opposed to any attempt to do this. This objection can be partly overcome if we focus instead on the probability of a project “reducing the risk of death” – and there are insurance markets in existence which tell us something about how much people value their health and life when they take out insurance policies. Attitudes to risk – e.g. a cost benefit analysis of the effects of genetically modified foods Precautionary Principle: Assume toxicity until proven safe If in doubt, then regulate Free Market Principle: Assume it is safe until a hazard is identified If in doubt, do not regulate. Despite these problems, most economists argue that CBA is better than other ways of including the environment in project appraisal. Discounting the future Would you rather have £1000 of income today or £1000 of income in the future (say in 3 years?). The answer is probably now, because £1000 in three years time is unlikely to buy as many goods and services as it does now (because of inflation). And also because £1000 put into a savings account today will yield interest. Discounting is a widely used technique as part of cost benefit analysis. The technique of discounting reflects the following: The value of a cost or benefit now > the value of a cost or benefit in future years Discounting reflects this by reducing all future costs and benefits to express them as today’s values. The key question is: How do you choose an ‘interest rate’ for reducing future costs to give them a present value today? Setting a general discount rate for new projects has important implications for the environment: A low discount rate is often favoured by economists since they argue that investing a high proportion of current income is a good way of providing for the future A high discount rate may also be favoured since it discourages investment (and by implication environmental damage) in the present Most projects have lifetimes of 20-30 years – with many of the big costs arising early in a project e.g. from construction whereas the stream of benefits from a project occur over a much longer period of time. But for many huge construction projects, some of the costs only become apparent in the long run. Consider the building of a new nuclear power station. Environmentalists would argue that there is a long list of costs from waste management and decommissioning which stretch over 100 years into the future whereas no social benefits exist to offset these costs beyond year 30 or 40 (where the nuclear power station might reasonably be expected to be ready for closure). The value of decommissioning costs over 100 years away is almost negligible no matter what discount rate we use. This makes discounting difficult to justify. Revealed Preference – Valuing the Benefits from a Project According to some economists, the valuation of benefits and costs used in COBA should reflect thepreferences revealed by choices which have actually been made by individuals and businesses in different markets. Consider this example: 20 employees are given the chance of using a new car park close to work for £5 per day or parking further away from work for free – but involving an extra 10 minutes walk. Their decisions reveal how much they value time. If they all choose to spend the £5 per day on car parking, this reveals that time is more important to them than 50p per minute. If only half take up the car parking option, this reveals that average value of time to them was 50p per minute. Hard choices made in markets are the best guide to private benefit. Information contained in the demand curve tells us much about how much people are willing and able to pay for something. This is important in revealed preference theory. When consumers make purchases at market prices they reveal that the things they buy are at least as beneficial to them as the money they relinquish. Cost benefit analysis in practice – Heathrow Terminal 5 The debate over whether there should be a fifth terminal at Heathrow airport has fierce and long-lasting! The official planning enquiry reported after 5 years and having cost many millions of pounds. The rival arguments at the inquiry highlighted many examples of environmental impact (externalities) - noise, air quality, rivers etc. - but concluded that these were not enough to refuse planning permission and that the new terminal project should go ahead. The case for terminal 5 Economic growth: Demand for air travel in south-east England is forecast to double in the next 20 years, making expansion vital – many thousands of jobs and businesses depend on Heathrow airport expanding to provide sufficient supply capacity to meet this growing demand. An increase in the capacity of Heathrow will make best use of airport's existing infrastructure and land (nearly 3,000 acres). The economy and trade: The UK will lose airlines and foreign investment to European rivals if it does not meet demand. The benefits of a world-beating industry would be diminished – many sectors of our aviation industry have a comparative advantage and add huge sums to our balance of payments Jobs: The terminal 5 project will create or safeguard an estimated 16,500 jobs, as well as creating 6,000 construction jobs during the building phase – this will have multiplier effects on the local / regional and national economy Transport: The terminal will be the centre of a world-class transport interchange, with new Tube and rail links. Car traffic would rise only slightly – the social costs of increased traffic congestion have been exaggerated by the environmentalists Environment: The site earmarked for terminal 5 is currently a disused sludge works, and any displaced wildlife and plant life will be carefully relocated. The noise climate around Heathrow Airport has been improving for many years, even though the number of aircraft movements has increased considerably – partly due to the phasing out of older, nosier aircraft Noise and night flights: BAA promises no increase in overall noise levels or in night flying. The number of flights would rise only 8% Objections to Terminal 5 Growth: BAA forecasts are misleading and will lead to uncontrolled expansion, rather than targeting better solutions such as using existing space at other airports. The economy: Heathrow already has the biggest capacity in Europe, and ambitions to extend its lead are merely "commercial prestige" rather than having long term macroeconomic benefits Jobs: Only 6,000 jobs will be created - a tiny fraction of all the new jobs in the South East. Local studies say jobs will increase anyway even without a fifth terminal Transport: There will be a significant increase in road-widening and car parks to cater for the tens of thousands of extra car journeys to the airport every year Environment: Air pollution will increase significantly, and hundreds of acres of wildlife and Green Belt land will be lost forever. Plus the environmental costs of increased traffic congestion Noise and night flights: More flights will mean more noise under the flight paths, and the pressure for controversial night flights and a third runway will increase – the regulators will be captured by the airlines and airport authorities and will eventually be pressurized into giving way on allowing more night time flights