Search results

Government agencies have endeavored, with limited success, to improve the methodological consistency of regulatory benefit–cost analysis (BCA). This paper recommends that an independent cohort of economists, policy analysts and legal scholars take on that task. Independently established “best practices” would have four positive effects: (1) they would render BCAs more regular in form and format and, thus, more readily assessable and replicable by social scientists; (2) improved consistency might marginally reduce political opposition to BCA as a policy tool; (3) politically-motivated, inter-agency methodological disputes might be avoided; and (4) an independent set of “best practices” would provide a sound, independent basis for judicial review of agency BCAs.

The Bureau of Economics in the Federal Trade Commission has a three-part role in the Agency and the strength of its functions changed over time depending on the preferences and ideology of the FTC’s leaders, developments in the field of economics, and the tenor of the times. The over-riding current role is to provide well considered, unbiased economic advice regarding antitrust and consumer protection law enforcement cases to the legal staff and the Commission. The second role, which long ago was primary, is to provide reports on investigations of various industries to the public and public officials. This role was more recently called research or “policy R&D”. A third role is to advocate for competition and markets both domestically and internationally. As a practical matter, the provision of economic advice to the FTC and to the legal staff has required that the economists wear “two hats,” helping the legal staff investigate cases and provide evidence to support law enforcement cases while also providing advice to the legal bureaus and to the Commission on which cases to pursue (thus providing “a second set of eyes” to evaluate cases). There is sometimes a tension in those functions because building a case is not the same as evaluating a case. Economists and the Bureau of Economics have provided such services to the FTC for over 100 years proving that a sub-organization can survive while playing roles that sometimes conflict. Such a life is not, however, always easy or fun.

The purpose of this paper is to describe how cost benefit analysis can be used as a tool for financial‐based decision making in digital library project management.

Using theory and example, the author discusses the use of cost benefit analysis in cases where the financial value of costs versus benefits must be considered.

Cost benefit analysis is useful as a tool for making project decisions based on financial considerations. However, given the inherent subjectivity of valuation of intangibles, the outcome of a cost benefit analysis is not absolute.

This paper fills a gap in the digital library project management literature by applying a tool that has been traditionally used in large‐scale, governmental project plans to the world of library project management. In doing so, project managers in libraries will be better prepared to make decisions based on financial considerations.

The value and profitability of information services can be quantified by using modern management techniques to generate numerical data. In this approach, programme budgeting derived from management by objectives exercises is used as a basis for preparing cost‐activity and cost‐function analyses, whilst alternative costs for maintenance of the programme are derived by applying some basic critical examination, activity sampling and work study principles. By difference, cost‐related benefits are obtained for specific activities and functions. The procedure does not indicate the true value of units of information per se, but ranking of the benefits immediately highlights economic and uneconomic operations. Model analyses are described in detail, supported by a number of factual results. The dynamic nature of the system and its use as a management device are illustrated by a practical application in a real‐life change situation.

A boom in e-commerce in Korea has sparked off high daily-volume demand for small-sized home delivery services, which poses a great challenge to distribution networks, especially in urban areas where traffic congestion, accessibility, and pollution are serious problems. In addition, security issues for people who live in small townhouses and detached houses without security systems and guards have received increasing attention from the government and society. Thus, the introduction of a new alternative for home delivery services, unmanned parcel lockers, is urgent for residents living in these areas. This paper examines and compares potential socio-economic impacts in terms of costs and benefits when such lockers are installed at selected locations in residential areas. The results show that this policy is worthy of adoption, with several undeniable benefits to local communities. In addition, sensitivity analyses estimate the economic performance of this project at different social discount rates, and they check the sensitivity of economic performance based on variations in the variables. The value of travel time savings was identified as a critical and dominating factor directly affecting economic performance.

The Kaldor–Hicks (KH) criterion has long been the standard for benefit–cost analyses, but it has also been widely criticized as ignoring equity and, arguably, moral sentiments in general. We suggest the use of an aggregate measure (KHM) instead of KH, where M stands for moral sentiments. KHM simply adds to the traditional KH criterion the requirement that all goods for which there is a willingness to pay or accept count as economic goods. This addition, however, runs up against objections to counting moral sentiments in general and non-paternalistic altruism in particular. We show these concerns are unwarranted and suggest that the KHM criterion is superior to KH because it provides better information.

Many good sustainability entrepreneurial ideas and projects fail to reach their objectives due to problems with feasibility. This chapter investigates the effectiveness of methods used to evaluate the feasibility of entrepreneurial ventures in the context of sustainable urban development. Traditional methods and tools based on cost–benefit analysis could provide some guidance for entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs when evaluating sustainability strategies. Yet, such methods rely on restrictive assumptions, which cast doubt on their suitability for real-world sustainability applications. Traditional methods are far from really enabling entrepreneurs to make informed optimal decisions. New integrated methods are necessary for drawing conclusions vis-a-vis the practicality of entrepreneurial ideas by quantifying and analyzing the benefits and costs of all options in a given scenario. This chapter evaluates the effectiveness of current feasibility study methods and their suitability for sustainable urban planning and development. It surmises that caution is advised concerning their reflection of real-life applications, given the complexity and dynamicity of solving sustainability-related problems. It is shown that such methods can arguably be a useful tool when evaluating the viability of investing in innovation and sustainability if they are enriched with advanced modelling techniques, such as system dynamics and optimization methods. For this purpose, an entrepreneurial venture for promoting sustainable mobility via information and communication technology (ICT) is used as a case study. The proposed integrated ‘Sustainability Entrepreneurship’ approach for evaluating feasibility can prove to be very useful for entrepreneurs when assessing the efficacy of complex sustainable-related ventures.