Methodological Guide to Social Cost-benefit Analysis
-
Upload
debasishpahi -
Category
Documents
-
view
233 -
download
0
Transcript of Methodological Guide to Social Cost-benefit Analysis
-
7/29/2019 Methodological Guide to Social Cost-benefit Analysis
1/52
METHODOLOGICAL GUIDE
TO SOCIAL COST-BENEFIT
ANALYSIS
DraftVersion 1
26 April 2011
The Methodological Guide to Social Cost-Benefit Analysis was drawn up in implementing by the Office of the Prime
Minister of the Republic of Lithuania (the OPM) the project Improvement of Performance -Based Management
(VORT). The Methodological guide was prepared by the public body Europos socialiniai, teisiniai ir ekonominiai
projektai under Service Agreement No MPT-043 of 25 May 2010 concluded with the Office of the Prime Minister of
the Republic of Lithuania.
-
7/29/2019 Methodological Guide to Social Cost-benefit Analysis
2/52
2
DOCUMENT APPROVAL
Office of the Prime Minister
Signature:
Name, surname, position:
Date:
-
7/29/2019 Methodological Guide to Social Cost-benefit Analysis
3/52
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYMS................................................................................................................................................................... 4
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................... 5
1.1. WHO ARE THE ADDRESSES OF THE METHODOLOGICALGUIDE TO SOCIAL COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS? ......................................... 5
1.2. WHAT IS A COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS, WHEN IS IT CARRIED OUT AND WHAT ARE ITS ADVANTAGES ? ............................................. 6
1.3. WHAT IS THE PLACE OF A COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS IN THE PROCESS OF DECISION IMPACT ASSESSMENT IN LITHUANIA? .................. 8
1.4. IS THE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS THE ONLY TECHNIQUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT AND COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE DECISIONS? ...... 10
2. APPLICATION OF THE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE FOR PROPOSED DECISION IMPACT ASSESSMENT ... 14
2.1. DESCRIPTION OF A PUBLIC POLICY PROBLEM AND JUSTIFICATION OF THE REQUIREMENT OF THE STATES ACTIONS ...................... 15
2.2. SETTING THE GOALS OF A PUBLIC INITIATIVE ................................................................................................................. 16
2.3. IDENTIFICATION OF REALISTIC ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEM .......................................................................... 16
2.4. ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES................................................................................................................................. 182.4.1. Setting the scope, assumptions and period of assessment ...................................................................... 18
2.4.2. Identification of costs, benefit and stakeholders that incur/receive them ............................................... 19
2.4.3. Estimation of costs and benefit in monetary terms .................................................................................. 212.4.3.1. What costs and benefit should be included in the analysis? ................................................................................. 222.4.3.2. Real and nominal value .......................................................................................................................................... 232.4.3.3. Estimation of costs and benefit in monetary terms in the case of non-existance of market prices ...................... 242.4.3.4. Assessment of an administrative burden............................................................................................................... 29
2.4.4. Estimating and discounting cash flows .............................................................. ....................................... 312.4.4.1. Estimation of cash flows ........................................................................................................................................ 312.4.4.2. Discounting ............................................................................................................................................................ 31
2.4.5. Methods for assessing and comparing alternative options ...................................................................... 332.4.5.1. Net present value .................................................................................................................................................. 332.4.5.2. Internal rate of return ............................................................................................................................................ 362.4.5.3. Payback period....................................................................................................................................................... 382.4.5.4. Benefit-cost ratio ................................................................................................................................................... 40
2.4.6. Assessment of risk and uncertainties ................................................................. ....................................... 402.4.6.1. Sensitivity analysis ................................................................................................................................................. 412.4.6.2. Scenario analysis .................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ..................... ................... 42
2.5. SELECTING THE OPTIMUM ALTERNATIVE AND COMMENTS ON ITS IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................ 43
3. INSTEAD OF CONCLUSIONS: USEFUL TIPS AND MOST FREQUENT MISTAKES ....................................................... 44
ANNEX 1 RECOMMENDED FORMAT OF COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS PRESENTATION ................................................. 46
ANNEX 2 EXAMPLES OF COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS .................................................................................................. 48
ANNEX 3 DISCOUNT FACTOR ................................................................................................................................. 49
ANNEX 4 GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................................................... 50
ANNEX 5 RECOMMENDED BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................. 52
-
7/29/2019 Methodological Guide to Social Cost-benefit Analysis
4/52
4
ACRONYMS
B/C Benefit/costs
CFt Cash flow over period t
EU The European Union
FV Future value
II Initial investment
IRR Internal rate of return
NPV Net present value
PV Present value
PDIA Proposed decision impact assessment
RoL The Republic of Lithuania
-
7/29/2019 Methodological Guide to Social Cost-benefit Analysis
5/52
5
1.INTRODUCTION1.1. Who are the addresses of the Methodological Guide to Social Cost-
Benefit Analysis?
The legislation governing proposed decision impact assessment in Lithuania recommends
employing the technique of either a cost-benefit analysis or a cost-effectiveness analysis in
carrying out an expanded impact assessment. This document is a methodological guide that
presents the main principles of social 1 cost-benefit analysis. The Methodological Guide is
addressed to everyone wishing understand the application of the technique of cost-benefit
analysis in order to evaluate the impact, costs and benefit of public initiatives. The
Methodological Guide to Cost-Benefit Analysis is relevant to the employees of state institutionsdrafting legal acts and other decisions and wishing to more extensively assess the impact of
public initiatives.
The Methodological Guide was developed as a primer on economic analysis of public
interventions providing persons without economic education or experience in applying the
technique of cost-benefit analysis with the basic knowledge. Those wishing to gain
understanding of more complicated points off cost-benefit analysis application are recommended
to study a more extensive literature (several recommended sources of bibliography are indicated
in Annex 5 to this Guide).
The Methodological Guide consists of several sections.
The introductory chapterpresents a brief overview of the purpose and advantage of applying
the technique of cost-benefit analysis, its place in the process of decision impact assessmentand possible variations of this technique.
The Guides second chapter step by steps introduces the key principles of cost-benefit
analysis for assessing the impact of public interventions.
Thefinal section presents the most frequent mistakes and useful tips on how to avoid them.
Annexes provide additional relevant information: examples of cost-benefit analysis
application, references to bibliography, definitions of the main terms, etc.
1Cost-benefit analysis which is applied to estimate the requirement of public interventions is sometimes referred to as
asocial cost-benefit analysis
as it evaluates the benefit and costs of a decision for the public. Where a private entitycarries out a cost-benefit analysis for a certain project he takes into account only the benefit and costs for himself.
Purpose of the Methodological Guide
This Methodological Guide is aprimeron the economic analysis of public interventions designed for
everyone wishing to get familiarised with the application of the cost-benefit analysis technique in
order to evaluate the impact, costs and benefit of public interventions.
-
7/29/2019 Methodological Guide to Social Cost-benefit Analysis
6/52
6
In developing the Methodological Guide to Cost-Benefit Analysis account was taken of the
academic literature in this field and the cost-benefit analysis methodologies of the institutions of
other countries (e.g. Great Britain, New Zealand, the EU, etc.)
1.2. What is a cost-benefit analysis, when is it carried out and what are itsadvantages?
States have limited resources which they use for addressing public problems. In addition to
public expense for buying goods and services or for social assistance, the State also has a great
impact on businesses and population when adopting various rules governing their activities
(regulation) or setting taxes. The adoption of legislation itself does not cost much but the
regulations laid down in legislation often make a great impact on the whole economy.
In planning a public initiative it is always relevant to analyse whether or not a state interventionis necessary, which problems should be addressed first using the available limited resources,
what methods of intervention implementation should be selected, and what is the envisaged
impact of a public initiative (regulation, tax, assistance or public expenses) on society and its
separate groups.
The cost-benefit analysis is a widely applied technique of economic analysis which allows the
determination and evaluation of economic costs and benefits, both direct and indirect, of a certain
public initiative. These costs and benefits are expressed in terms of money. This technique is
suitable for evaluating the net benefit of an intervention and comparing different alternatives of
the intervention with each other. The cost-benefit analysis is carried out when the envisaged
consequences of an intervention for the implementing organisation cover much more thanfinancial consequences alone. The aim of the cost-benefit analysis is determine whether or not an
intervention is necessary and whether or not it will contribute to public welfare. Another
advantage of the cost-benefit analysis lies in the fact that it provides a uniform methodological
basis for the assessment of the impact of a decision in various aspects.
The main features of the cost-benefit analysis are the following:
cost-benefit analysis should be used for the evaluation and comparison of all (i.e. not only
one) realistic alternative solutions/measures to the problem at issue;
the consequences of a public initiative economic benefits and costs are assessed
regardless of which public group or institution derives or incurrs tehm;
it aims to estimate in monetary value all most important constituents of the initiatives costs
and benefit (not only those having clear market value);
cost-benefit assessment is based on the principles of (a) individuals willingness of pay for
goods or services and (b) willingness to accept a compensation for negatives consequences.
(For more information on these principles see chapter 2.4.3 of the Guide);
assessment takes into account the impact of the time factor on the value of cost and benefitflows.
Cost-benefit analysis a technique of economic analysis allowing the evaluation and determination
of economic costs and benefit, both ditrect and indirect, of the particular public initiative.
-
7/29/2019 Methodological Guide to Social Cost-benefit Analysis
7/52
-
7/29/2019 Methodological Guide to Social Cost-benefit Analysis
8/52
8
Can be applied for the assessment of public
initiatives of different nature
alternatives
The carrying out of the cost-benefit analysis itself results in costs and therefore its benefit should
be above the costs. (Furthermore, the cost-benefit analysis may be carried out at different levelsof detail. In adopting a decision on the requirement to carry out the cost-benefit analysis of a
particular public initiative and the level of its detail it is very important to observe the principle
ofproportionality, i.e. the level of detail of the analysis should depend on the importance, the
envisaged impact extent and riskiness of a decision and data availability. In Lithuania it isrecommended to apply the cost-benefit analysis for assessing the impact of the most importantdecisionsand only if the required data or resources to collect them are available.
A full cost-benefit analysis is be carried out when most key elements of costs and benefit
can be evaluated in terms of quantity and money and if a certain freedom of choice when
formulating the goals and target results of an initiative (e.g. their modelling depending on
alternatives costs is possible) exists.
Where only part of the relevant costs and benefit are quantifiable a partial cost-benefit
analysis is carried out (i.e. only part of important cost and benefit elements is evaluated).
The outcome of analysis should be discussed taking into account the qualitative evaluation of
other costs and benefit.
1.3. What is the place of a cost-benefit analysis in the process of decisionimpact assessment in Lithuania?
Lithuania, like most other countries, has set the requirement to assess the impact of proposed
public policy decisions. The assessment of legal acts and other decisions is regulated by several
different documents, which are indicated in Table 1.
Table 1 The legal acts and methodologies3 regulating impact assessment in Lithuania
Impact assessment methodology/ regulating legal act Assessment object
Resolution No 276 of the Government of the Republic of Lithuaniaof 26 February 2003 on the approval and implementation of theMethodology for proposed decision impact assessment (hereinafter
referred to as the Methodology for PDIA)
Proposed decisions(strategic decisions,programmes, agreements,
negotiation positions)Resolution No 1244 of the Government of the Republic of Lithuaniaof 30 September 2009 on the approval of the Legislative Rules ofGovernment of the Republic of Lithuania (hereinafter referred to theGovernment's Legislative Rules)
Draft legislation
Guidelines on budget programme assessment Programs
Methodology forex-postassessment of decision impact Decisions
Order No 4-152 of the Minister for the Economy of the Republic ofLithuania of 2 May 2006 on the approval of the Methodology for thedetermination and evaluation of an administrative burden on business
Legislation laying downinformation obligations hichare binding on businessentities
3In accordance with the regulatory framework effective during preparation of this Guide.
-
7/29/2019 Methodological Guide to Social Cost-benefit Analysis
9/52
9
Methodology for the determination and evaluation of anadministrative burden on the citizens of the Republic of Lithuaniaand other persons
Legislation laying downinformation obligationswhioch are binding on thecitizens of the Republic of
Lithuania and other persons
Proposed decision impact assessment may be of different level of detail, i.e. either a basic
assessment or an expanded assessment may be carried out. The cases when an expanded impact
assessment may be recommended are presented in Table 2.
Table 2 When should an expanded impact assessment be carried out? Recommended criteria and cases
1. Political, social sensitivity and importance of the question (political decision);2. When new regulation of the area of public relationships is established or essentially changed;3. When a legal regulation concept is being drafted;4. When a Government resolution is aimed at providing a project with the status of a project of
national significance;5. When during inter-institutional coordination of a proposed decision one or more institutions
identifies the need and proposes to carry out an expanded impact assessment and when a decision
drafting institution or the Government adopts a decision to carry out such assessment;6. The minimum margin of the decision impact on the national budget is set;7. When, according to preliminary estimation, the administrative burden resulting from a decision
will exceed the fixed number of hours;8. When preparing the Republic of Lithuania positions on EU legislation of major relevance to
Lithuania.
! As an expanded assessment is carried out for the most important, significant decisions, it isthe technique of cost-benefit analysis or its variations that is recommended to be carried
out during the expanded assessment (for more information see chapter 1.4).
Assessment of the impact of proposed decisions and draft legislation in Lithuania
The Methodology for PDIA defines a proposed decision impact assessment as a technique for
improving the formation of the public policy and decision-making by state institutions and bodies.
The material collected for impact assessment provides information to the decision making state
institutions and bodies about possible alternative decisions and consequences of their
implementation, thus creating conditions for choosing the most suitable solution to the problem.
As prescribed in the Governments Legislative Rules, an institution or working group drafting alegal act must carry out an assessment of the impact of the envisaged legal regulation. Whencarrying out an assessment of the impact of the envisaged legal regulation, information is collectedand analysed and on the basis thereof the possible positive and/or negative impact of the legalregulation provided for in the proposed legal act is evaluated in different aspects.
Source:Methodology for PDIA and Governments Legislative Rules
-
7/29/2019 Methodological Guide to Social Cost-benefit Analysis
10/52
10
1.4. Is the cost-benefit analysis the only technique for the assessment andcomparison of alternative decisions?
Cost-benefit analysis is the main and widely applied technique for quantitative assessment of the
impact of alternatives. Several other applicable techniques of analysis are variations or partial
analyses of the cost-benefit analysis.
Cost-effectiveness analysis. A cost-effectiveness analysis is a variation of the technique of
cost-benefit analysis. It is applied when planning to implement an initiative with a clear fixed
goal (e.g. aimed at a certain established quantitative indicatorto reduce infant mortality to a
certain level, to create the established number of jobs, etc.) and when evaluation of the
benefit of an intervention in monetary units is difficult. The cost-effectiveness analysis
evaluates and compares only the costs (but not benefit) of alternative decisions assuming that
all alternatives will lead to the achievement of the same goal. This technique is often applied
to find the way of achieving the target results at the lowest costs. It cam also be applied forthe purpose of identifying the alternative which will enable the achievement of better results
at the same costs.
The more clearly the goal and target results of an intervention are defined the easier is the
carrying out of a cost-effectiveness analysis. The technique of cost-effectiveness analysis is
not suitable when a particular initiative purses several different, complex, global goals.
Figure 2 Advantages and weaknesses of cost-effectiveness analysis application
Example 1: the case of cost-effectiveness analysis applicationFor example, in order to reduce the number of traffic accidents in a certain area, the cost-
effectiveness analysis could be employed to compare the costs for one saved life of the followingalternatives: (i) information campaign regarding road safety, (ii) improvement of roadinfrastructure, (iii) imposition of more stringent penalties, etc.
-
7/29/2019 Methodological Guide to Social Cost-benefit Analysis
11/52
11
Advantage of cost-effectiveness analysis
technique application
Weaknesses of cost-effectiveness analysis
technique application
It is an alternative to cost-benefit analysis when
evaluation of benefit in terms of money is
difficult but results are quantifiable
It does not answer the question whether the
public will enjoy net benefit after an initiative
has been implemented (i.e. will benefit be greater
than costs)
Comparison of the alternatives allowing the
achievement of the same or very similar results ispossible
Is not suitable when an initiative pursues several
different goals
Cost utility analysis.A cost utility analysis is another variation of the cost-benefit analysis.
This technique compares relative effectiveness of alternative interventions in pursuance of
two or more defined results/goals.
Multi-criteria analysis. This technique enables the evaluation of the attractiveness of
different alternatives by comparing them according to the selected criteria. These criteria may
have a different level of importance in which case relative weights are attached to them. The
multi-criteria analysis is based on the expert opinion of specialists carrying out an assessment
(when establishing criteria, attaching weights to them, assessing alternatives according to
each criterion, presenting their general evaluation) and it is, therefore, more subjective than
other mentioned techniques of alternatives analysis4. Nevertheless, where the possibilities of
evaluating the key costs and/or benefit in terms of money are missing, the technique of multi-
criteria analysis provides enhanced structural detail and transparency to decision assessment.
4Objective indicators (e.g. price) can also be included.
The aforementioned cost-effectiveness analysis as well as the cost utility analysis allow the evaluationofrelative effectiveness of alternatives in pursuance of the defined goal or several goals (in the case ofcost utility analysis). The measuring unit is most often non-monetary one.
-
7/29/2019 Methodological Guide to Social Cost-benefit Analysis
12/52
12
The multi-criteria analysis, like other aforementioned techniques, does not answer the
question whether or not the benefit of intervention implementation will exceed costs. In other
words, the possibility that the optimum alternative is a do-nothing alternative (status quo)
always exists.
Figure 3 Advantages and weaknesses of applying the multi-criteria analysis technique
Advantages of applying the multi-criteria
analysis technique
Weaknesses of applying the multi-criteria
analysis technique
An alternative to the cost-benefit analysis when
it is difficult to evaluate costs and/or benefit in
terms of money.
Does not answer the questions whether or not the
public will experience net benefit after an
initiative has been implemented (i.e. whether
benefit will exceed costs)
Provides enhanced structural detail and
transparency to decision assessment
Is based on the expert opinion of specialists
carrying out an assessment (when establishingcriteria, attaching weights to them, assessing
Example 2: multi-criteria analysis
Criteria [criterion weight] Non-weighed evaluations in scores
Project isimplementedby theinstitutionitself
Project isimplementedby Supplier No1
Project isimplementedby Supplier No2
Net present value [60 %] 20 100 65
Elasticity [20 %] 80 50 78
Reliability [20 %] 82 90 96Total weighed score 44.4 88 73.8
In the example presented in the Table, the alternative when a project is implemented by Supplier No 1 in all probability would be considered the most attractive
one.
-
7/29/2019 Methodological Guide to Social Cost-benefit Analysis
13/52
13
alternatives against each criterion, presenting
their general evaluation) and it is, therefore, more
subjective
-
7/29/2019 Methodological Guide to Social Cost-benefit Analysis
14/52
14
2.APPLICATION OF THE COST-BENEFITANALYSIS TECHNIQUE FOR PROPOSEDDECISION IMPACT ASSESSMENT
An assessment of the envisaged impactof any initiative shall be carried out in several steps:
1. Description a public life problem;2. Determination of the pursued goals, results and the target situation;3. Identification of realistic alternative solutions to the problem;4. Evaluation of alternatives and their comparison with each other;5. Upon determining the optimum alternative, discussion of its further implementation.
Figure 4 Steps of decision impact assessment
1 ingsnis
Vieosios politikos
problemos
nustatymas
2 ingsnis
Vieosios iniciatyvos
tiksl nustatymas
3 ingsnis
Reali problemos
sprendimo
alternatyv
identifikavimas
4 ingsnis
Alternatyv analiz
5 ingsnis
Pasirinktos
alternatyvos
gyvendinimo
vertinimas
Kokia yra vieosios
politikos
problema? Koks
jos mastas,aktualumas?
Ar valstyb turi j
sprsti? Kas
atsitiks, jeigu
valstyb nesiims
veiksm?
Koki rezultat
norima pasiekti
gyvendinant
iniciatyv?Kaip inosime, ar
valstybs veiksmai
buvo skmingi?
Kokie yra galimi
problemos
sprendimo bdai?
Kurie i j laikytinirealiais ir
svarstytinais?
traukite status
quo kaip vien i
alternatyv.
Ianalizuoti
problemos
sprendimo
alternatyvas:vertinti kiekvienos
alternatyvos
gyvendinimo
snaudas, naud.
Rekomenduotina,
kai manoma,iam
vertinimui naudoti
snaud-naudos
analiz.
Kaip pasirinkta
alternatyva bus
gyvendinama?
(atsakomyb,veiksm planas ir
pan.)
Pagal kokius
rodiklius bus
vertinama
gyvendinimo
skm?
Step 1
Identification of a
public policy
problem
Step 2
Determination of
the public
initiative goals
Step 3
Identification of
realistic
alternativesolutions to the
problem
Step 4
Analysis of
alternatives
Step 5
Evaluation of
implementation of
the selectedalternative
What isthe
problem
of public
policy?
What is its
extent and
relevance?
Whatresults are
pursued
through
initiative
implement
ation?
What arepossible
solutions
to the
problem?
To analysealternative
solutions
to the
problem:
to evaluate
the costs
and
benefit ofimplement
How willthe
selected
alternative
be
implement
ed?
(responsib
ility,action
-
7/29/2019 Methodological Guide to Social Cost-benefit Analysis
15/52
15
ation of
each
alternative
.The
recommendation is
to use the
cost-
benefit
analysis
for this
evaluation
, where
possible
plan, etc.)
Should the
State
address it?
What willhappen if
no actions
are taken
by the
State?
How will
we know
whether
the Statesactions
proved to
be
successful
?
Include
status quo
as an
alternative
What
indicators
will be
used toassess the
success of
implement
ation?
The technique of cost-benefit analysis is in particular useful when making the fourth stepof impact assessmentas it allows the determination, evaluation and comparison of the costs and
benefit of different alternatives and the identification of the optimum solution to the problem.
Other chapters of this Methodological Guide more extensively describe the application of the
cost-benefit analysis technique for the assessment of public initiative alternatives. However, prio
to that, attention is also paid to the previous steps of impact assessment they present brief
recommendations on how the problem at issue and the pursued goals should be described and
alternative solutions to the problem be identified. These analytical steps are of great importance
as if any of these steps is implemented incorrectly the subsequent analysis of the costs and
benefits of a decision may be of little use.
2.1. Description of a public policy problem and justification of therequirement ofthe States actions
The definition of a public policy problem and the description of the reasons behind it is an
important first step to the formulation of the goal of States intervention and possible alternative
solutions to the problem. In order to properly describe the problem at issue it is recommended to
discuss several points.
?
What is the problem?
What is the problem? What is its extent and relevance?
How was the situation changing within a certain period of time? How is it likely tochangewhat are forecasts, tendencies?
What public groups, economic sectors are affected most?
What reasons lie behind the problem situation?
Do the available policy instruments help to resolve (or aggravate) the problem?
Does the problem arise from (not from) the interventions under
implementation/implemented, applicable regulation?
How would the problem develop if no action is taken by the State?5
5Prepared in accordance with the 2009 European Commissions Impact Assessment Guidelines. January 2009.
SEC(2009) 92 //http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/commission_guidelines/commission_guidelines_en.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/commission_guidelines/commission_guidelines_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/commission_guidelines/commission_guidelines_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/commission_guidelines/commission_guidelines_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/commission_guidelines/commission_guidelines_en.htm -
7/29/2019 Methodological Guide to Social Cost-benefit Analysis
16/52
16
The description of a situation should provide information about the nature, extent and reasons of
the problem. An overview of the reasons and factors predetermining the problem is in particular
relevant if the aim is to deal with the problem but not to treat its symptoms.
In describing the problem it is important to justify the necessity of State s actions to address it.
Generally, a public intervention is based on the defects of market/regulation or social
(redistribution) arguments. In considering the appropriateness of States intervention/regulation it
is important to consider whether or not the States actions will result in additional distortions of
the markets or the costs greater than benefit.
2.2. Setting the goals of a public initiativeIf, taking into account a problem analysis, the States intervention seems to be necessary, the goal
of an intervention has to be formulated. The goal of a public intervention should be clearly linked
with a solution to the identified problem and elimination of the underlying reasons. Failure to
formulate a clear goal of an intervention poses a risk of ineffective use of resources in addressing
the problem. Furthermore, in this case it is impossible to effectively monitor the course of
intervention implementation and evaluate whether the States actions produced the desired results.
?
What is the goal of a public intervention?
What is aimed by decision implementation? What would be considered to be a successful
result of decision implementation?
Are the pursued goals clearly relating to the problem and underlying reasons?
Are the goals formulated so as to reflect a positive change? (e.g. decreased crime rate,
cleaner environment, higher energy safety)
Do the pursued goals and objectives comply with the strategic and/or other policy goalsand objectives?
Is the success of the set goal or objective measurable?6
Formulation of the goal of a policy intervention creates a basis for the discussion of possible
alternative options of a decision.
2.3. Identification of realistic alternative solutions to the problemA subsequent step following the setting of the goals of an intervention is to identify the
alternatives allowing the achievement of these goals. A set of possible alternative options will be
different in each particular case. Sometimes it can include only two alternatives the State
should not deal (status quo) and deal with the problem. Nevertheless, in the majority of cases
more than two alternatives may and should be considered: for instance, alternatives regarding
regulation, alternative forms of regulation or different methods and measures of decision
implementation. Alternatives may be relating to the content or form of a decision. In the case of a
more relevant decision, a larger number of alternatives should be evaluated.
6Prepared in accordance with the 2006 European Commmissions Impact Assessment Guidelines. January 2009.
SEC(2009) 92 //http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/commission_guidelines/commission_guidelines_en.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/commission_guidelines/commission_guidelines_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/commission_guidelines/commission_guidelines_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/commission_guidelines/commission_guidelines_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/commission_guidelines/commission_guidelines_en.htm -
7/29/2019 Methodological Guide to Social Cost-benefit Analysis
17/52
17
At the start of the analytical process the recommendation is to identify and discuss the largest
possible number of alternative solutions to the problem whose set should be subsequently
reduced taking into account their viability and reality. A clear justification for rejecting particular
alternatives and deciding not to apply them any longer should be provided. It is always necessary
to formulate thestatus quo alternative as it not only reveals the imminent consequences in case of
States failure to take actions but also provides a starting-point for the comparison of allalternatives (i.e.status quo alternative is considered to be the baseline scenario).
When discussing the possible alternative options for the problem it is appropriate to take into
account the following principles and advice7:
7Prepared in accordance with the 2009 European Commissions Impact Assessment Guidelines. January 2009.
SEC(2009) 92 //http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/commission_guidelines/commission_guidelines_en.htm
! In the stage of formulating alternative options for the problem it is important to hold the largestpossible number ofconsultations (both formal and informal) with stakeholder and society groups.
Example 3: alternatives
Alternavtives for regulation
Type Examples
Taxes Pollution tax
Subsidies Payments for the termination of the agricultural activity
Information campaigns Educational campaigns aimed at increasing traffic safety
Trade in pollution permits Trade in greenhouse gas operating permits
Alternative forms of regulation
Type ExamplesSetting of mandatory regulations Regulatory legislation
Self-regulationeconomic operators, by their
own initiative, set standards and requirements
for their activities
The Code of Ethics of Journalists and Publishers
Licences for dentists and dental hygienists, dental care
institutions issed by the the Chamber of Dentists
Co-regulationeconomic operators and state
institutions jointly control a certain area ofactivity
Protection of minors against the harmful information in the
media
Performance-based regulation Setting exhaust gas rates by giving car producers freedom in
choosing how to implement the standards (U.S.)
Implementation alternatives: a few exmpales
Different standards or procedures depending on the specificity of a regulated entity (e.g. large, small
enterprises)
Services are provided by a state institution, private sector, cooperation of the private and public sector
Improved implementation of the existing instruments or initiatives
Different time of implementation, different level of initiative implementation
Interim/permanent measures
Actions at regional, national or international level
Lease, acquisition, construction, repair
Source: The Guide to decision impact assessment of Ireland, Great Britain, and the authors information
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/commission_guidelines/commission_guidelines_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/commission_guidelines/commission_guidelines_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/commission_guidelines/commission_guidelines_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/commission_guidelines/commission_guidelines_en.htm -
7/29/2019 Methodological Guide to Social Cost-benefit Analysis
18/52
18
Alternatives should be realisticthe practice of considering only the do-nothing alternative,
the proposed alternative decision and a radical unrealistic alternative should be avoided.
The recommendation is to avoid preconceptioneven though one of the alternatives seems
to be too innovative its topicality may change (increase) upon change of certain
circumstances.Where a regulatory framework already exists in a certain area, the alternatives of ensuring
better implementation and the observance with the provisions should be considered.
Less can mean morewhere a regulatory framework already exists in a certain area but
does not allow the achievement of the desired results, the introduction of new additional
instruments can be not the best decison. The appropriateness of simplifying the applicable
instruments, increasing their consistency or maybe refusal thereof should be considered.
On the basis of the best practices, in each case it is recommended to discuss whether an
alternative to classical legal regulation would be a more appropriate instrument. For
instance, maybe an information educational campaign would be sufficient?
In selecting alternatives for an analysis it is relevant to take into account the alternatives that
would be supported by different stakeholder, public groups; however, this should not beoverestimated.
Alternatives should compete they should produce different options for the problem.
Costs and benefit should be equally assessed with regard to each alternative it is
important to avoid the practice of highlighting the benefit of one alternative but the costs of
the others. This is one of the most common deficiencies of impact assessment.
2.4. Assessment of alternativesAs it has already been mentioned, the application of cost-benefit (or cost-effectiveness) analysisfor quantitative evaluation and comparison of alternative decisions is useful. The cost-effectives
analysis includes several steps:
(1)indication of assessment assumptions;(2)identification of the public groups to be impacted by a decision;(3)indication of a positive impact and possible negative consequences to be experienced by
public groups due to the planned public intervention;
(4)calculation of the envisaged changes of costs and benefit;(5)estimation of the key costs and benefit in terms of money;(6)comparison of alternatives against the set criteria;(7)performance of a market analysis with the aim of achieving more reliable results ofassessment.Each of these steps is more extensively described in further sections of this chapter.
2.4.1. Setting the scope, assumptions and period of assessmentThere are several assumptions on the basis of which the cost-benefit analysis is carried out:
a decision may have an impact on various economic sectors as they are interrelated (general
equilibrium);
intangibles are included into analysis if they can be reliably evaluated;all related costs/investments are assessed;
-
7/29/2019 Methodological Guide to Social Cost-benefit Analysis
19/52
19
costs and benefit are evaluated from the perspective of the national economy (i.e. not the
perspective of the Government or an individual institution);
generally, the period covered by the cost-benefit analysis depends on the useful life of fixed
assets (e.g. if a new information system is introduced). However, it is impossible to establish
such period for part of public policy decisions (e.g. for health policy instruments etc.). Insuch a case the recommended period of analysis is 20 years. A longer period is relating to
great uncertainty; furthermore, in many cases cost and benefit flows lose their significance in
the distant future due to discounting.8
Table 3 Assumptions accepted during cost-benefit analysis
Assumption Possible variations
Scope of
analysis
National economy --
Assessment covers the impact on alleconomic sectors (general equilibriumapproach)
Assessment covers the impact on aparticular sector (partial equilibriumapproach)
Period ofanalysis
A maximum of 20 years Another assessment period can be set.E.g. a period longer than 20 years maybe relevant for the assessment of certaindecisions, when an important part ofcosts and/or benefit is likely to appear inthe long-term period (e.g. in the fields of
children education, nuclear energy, etc.).
Intangibles To be included if are realiablymeasurable
Not to include and to carry out aqualitative assessment if realiablemeasurement is impossible
Taxes Prices without taxes are used --
Social discountrate
Proposed interest rate on Eurobondsissued on behalf of the State
Another size of the discount rate is set
2.4.2. Identification of costs, benefit and stakeholders that incur/receive themAn assessment of alternative options for a public problem should be started from the
identification and overview of the consequences of each alternative. The matter of primary
importance is the identification of society groups to be impacted by the decision (directly,indirectly) and indication of the consequences (positive, negative) to be faced by these groups
and when.
8Exceptions are possiblethe impact (benefit or costs) of some decisions can be significant in the distant future too as
for instance, in the field of nuclear energy, in the cases of environmental impact, etc.
! In analysing the costs and benefit of an alternative decision it is necessary to indicatewhich society groups, how and when will be impacted as benefit and costs often unevenly
distribute within society or over time. For example, a certain proposal may be useful for
consumers but may result in adjustment costs for enterprises. Costs and benefit may be
unevenly distributed among macro and micro enterprises, start-ups, etc. A decision to apply
certain measures aimed at protecting consumers against non-quality products may create a
situation when consumers have the chance to choose only more expensive goods/services,
while certain groups of suppliers gain a competitive advantage over other suppliers, etc.
-
7/29/2019 Methodological Guide to Social Cost-benefit Analysis
20/52
20
Positive consequences economic benefit the gain in the welfare of society and stakeholdergroups resulting from the decision at issue. Economic costs are related with the actual use of
resources in the economy and reflect the best possible alternative of the use of resources, i.e.opportunity costs. The opportunity costs mean the costs of the best opportunity (alternative) lost
to use the available resources. In each case it is important to find out what are the alternative
ways/opportunities of using resources (e.g. investment in the public transport system instead of
building new roads).
Tables 4 and 5 indicate the types of the most frequently occurring costs.
Table 4 Types of costs
Costs Type Example
Monetary Quantitativefixed
costs
Remain constant regardless of activity/production volumes
(e.g. office building lease costs are constant regardless of thenumber of people working in the building)
Quantitativevariable costs
Vary subject to activity/production volumes (e.g. electricitycosts may increase when the number of persons working in thebuilding increases)
Quantitativesemi-variable costs
Include fixed and variable components (e.g. buildingmaintenance costs part of which is planned, while another partchanges in proportion to activity/production)
Non-monetary
Quantitative A larger number of consumer complaints, road traffic accidents
Non-
monetary
Qualitative Decreased employee competence
Source: Adapted according to HM Treasure Guidance9
Table 5 Most frequent types of costs
Type of costs Sustained by state institutions
implementing a decision
Sustained by decisions target
groups/society groups
Budget expenses Financial direct expenses fromState and municipal budgets andother funds
Administrative expenses of state
institutions
Human resources required forintervention implementation
--
Implementationexpenses
Policy implementation, monitoring,supervision expenses
Expenses relating to the selection ofthe most acceptable manner of theobservance of requirements
Compliance expenses Uniform implementation expensessee above
Direct expenses sustained by regulatedor intervention-impacted entitiesseeking to comply with the establishedrequirements. These costs include anadministrative burden (for more
9
HM Treasury. The Green Book. Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government. Treasury Guidance. London. //http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk./media/3/F/green_book_260907.pdf
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk./media/3/F/green_book_260907.pdfhttp://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk./media/3/F/green_book_260907.pdfhttp://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk./media/3/F/green_book_260907.pdf -
7/29/2019 Methodological Guide to Social Cost-benefit Analysis
21/52
21
Type of costs Sustained by state institutions
implementing a decision
Sustained by decisions target
groups/society groups
information about its assessment seechapter 2.4.3.4.).
Adjustment expenses Costs sustained because of theredistribution of resources which isencouraged by behavioural changepredetermined by a policy instrument
(production/consumption).Source: The European Commissions Impact Assessment Guidelines10
In analysing alternative decisions is is necessary to describe, as far as possible, the expected
change in physical measures: for instance, how many new lives will be saved, how much ofpeoples time will be saved, how many accidents will be prevented or how the environmental
pollutionlevel will be reduced after the decision has been adopted. The cost-benefit analysis
requires a clear indication of how the initiative will affect consumption, health, security, leisure
duration, etc., i.e. the items on which human welfare depends.11 It is equally important to explainwhysuch (as described) impact is expectedcausal relationships should be explained.
As quantitative evaluation of all the consequences is often impossible, major focus should be
laid on the key elements of the benefit and costs.
2.4.3. Estimation of costs and benefit in monetary termsThe aim of economic benefit and cost estimation in monetary terms is to determine whether or
not the benefit of a certain initiative is worth the sustained costs and to compare which
alternative is more attractive.
The estimation of costs and benefit in monetary terms is the most difficult stage of the analysis.
The most common recommendation is to estimate in monetary terms only the most important
consequences of a decision. In adopting a decision on which costs and/or benefit require a more
extensive assessment, the recommendation is to use the criterion of significance and the principle
of proportionality. In other words, two questions should be asked:
Are/is these/this costs/benefit significant and relevant? Costs and benefit are considered tobe significant if they can lead to the conclusion on which alternmative should be considered
optimum. Inessential elements of costs and benefit should not be analysed.
Can these/this costs/benefit be reliably and effectively calculated? If the efforts andresources necessary for the calculation of certain costs/benefit are greater that the benefit of
results of this process, a quantitative assessment of such costs/benefit is inappropriate. In
this case the recommendation is to carry out a qualitative assessment of the potential impact.
Further this chapter reviews which costs and benefit should be assessed and how should they be
calculated in terms of money.
10
European Commission. Impact Assessment Guidelines. January 2009. SEC(2009) 92 //http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/commission_guidelines/commission_guidelines_en.htm11
Kuodis R. Lietuvai silytinas kat naudos analizs modelis. //http://www.ekonomika.org/
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/commission_guidelines/commission_guidelines_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/commission_guidelines/commission_guidelines_en.htmhttp://www.ekonomika.org/http://www.ekonomika.org/http://www.ekonomika.org/http://www.ekonomika.org/http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/commission_guidelines/commission_guidelines_en.htm -
7/29/2019 Methodological Guide to Social Cost-benefit Analysis
22/52
22
2.4.3.1.What costs and benefit should be included in the analysis?Table 6 presents information about the costs and benefit to be included and not to be included in
the analysis.
Table 6 Costs/benefits to be included/not to be included in the analysis
Costs/ benefit Comments on inclusion/non-inclusion in the analysis
Sunk costs Sunk costs mean the costs which were incurred prior to the assessment periodin question. For instance, such costs include instrument planning, feasibilitystudy development costs. These costs should notbe included in the analysis asthey result from previous decisions and decisions on another (alternative) useof these funds may no longer be accepted.
Capital and operatingexpenses
Cost-benefit analysis should include all cost flows relating to the decisionregardless of whether these are capital or current expenses, operating or one-off
expenses.Depreciation/amortisation
Depreciation/amortisation is an accounting term which in the most generalsense means annual impairment in the real value of tangible assets 12 .Depreciation deductions have no direct economic effect and therefore shouldnotbe included in the cost-benefit analysis. Furthermore, if both the costs ofassets acquisition and the depreciation deductions were included in the analysisthis would mean a duplicate calculation of these costs. Where assets need to be
upgraded during the assessed period, replacement investments should beincluded in that period in which they are made.
Financial transactions Cost-benefit analysis generally does not include the costs of financialtransactions, for instance interest. The reason is that the cost-benefit analysis isrelating to a certain increase/decrease in the supply of certain resources (the
result of decision) on the scale of the entire economnot but not to the re-distribution of funds within economic sectors. Additionally, these costs(interest) are indirectly included in the discount rate and therefore the inclusionof interest in the analysis would mean a duplicate calculation of financialexpense.
Contingencies Where intangible costs/benefit make part of the envisaged costs/benefit of a
decision, they should be included in the cost-benefit analysis. For instance, theassessment of a decision on fitting up new office premises should cover allconstruction contingencies (e.g. as regards increased work volume or work
delay). In the case of lower-scope decisions the value of contingent costs maybe estimated by calculating the impact of a contingent event by the probabilityof that event. Large-scale decisions should use quantitative techniques of risk
assessment (for more information on risk assessment see chapter 2.4.6).Taxes Cost-benefit analysis should use priceswithout taxes, i.e. excluding the value
added tax (VAT) and other indirect taxes. The correction of market prices asregards taxes is of particular relevance in the cases when the impact of taxation
may have the key influence on the decision-making. Where the system of taxesapplicable to alternative decisions substantially differs, such a correction isnecessary in order to avoid inadequate comparison13.
Deadweight loss Deadweight loss means net costs which are incurred by the public due to
12Where the assessment period coincides with the economic life period the residul value will equal zero. It should be
noted that regular maintenance of assests is not the same as depreciation/depreciation; maintenance is the real use of
economic resources and its costs have to be included in the cost-benefit analysis.13HM Treasury. The Green Book. Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government. Treasury Guidance. London. //
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk./media/3/F/green_book_260907.pdf
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk./media/3/F/green_book_260907.pdfhttp://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk./media/3/F/green_book_260907.pdfhttp://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk./media/3/F/green_book_260907.pdf -
7/29/2019 Methodological Guide to Social Cost-benefit Analysis
23/52
23
Costs/ benefit Comments on inclusion/non-inclusion in the analysis
deviations from the equilibrium of economys competitiveness. This generally
happens due to additional taxes or regulation. For example, increased taxes oncertain goods or services create a situation when part of consumers buy less of
these goods or services than they would if the taxes were not raised. In otherwords, the deadweight loss (sometimes referred to as a surplus burden) meansthe loss in welfare due to behavioural changes caused by taxes. Theinclusion/non-inclusion of deadweight losses in the cost-benefit analysis shouldbe evaluated on a base-by-case basis. As a general rule, these costs should be
included in the analysis if they are sufficiently significant compared to the totalcosts and benefit of a decision and could impact the decision on the optimumalternative.
Behavioural effects Public interventions, particularly regulation, often have an effect on economicoperators behavioural changes. However, in many cases behavioural changescaused by a public intervention are difficult to interpret and quantify.Therefore, the inclusion of these changes in the cost-benefit analysis should be
considered on an individual case basis taking into account their importancewhen compared to the total costs/benefit of a decision and the impact on thedecisions as regards the optimum alternative.
Externalities A decision may also have an impact, either negative or positive, on persons
who are not directly relating to it. This is especially relevant in the case ofdecisions relating to the environment and health. The inclusion of externalitiesin the cost-benefit analysis should be considered on an individual case basis. As
a general rule, externalities should be included in the analysis if they arequantifiable and of sufficient significance to make an impact on the decision as
regards the optimum alternative. All assumptions relating to the assessment ofexternalities should be properly explained and justified. Non-quantifiableexternal effects must indicated and explained.
Transfer payments Transfer payments mean single-direction payments in exchange for which nogoods or services are provided. Such costs include social security benefits, old-
age and disability pensions, student grants, sickness benefits, etc.14
Thesepayments should notbe included in the cost-benefit analysis as they have animpact on the re-distribution of public welfare only, but do not themselvesimpact the costs/benefit on the entire economic scale.
2.4.3.2.Real and nominal valueThe costs and benefit of a decision should be evaluated at the real but not nominal value (i.e. the
cost of acquisition of a good or service). The influence of inflation should be respectivelyeliminated from the analysis. An exception is applied only where the price of a good or service is
expected to decrease/increase compared to the price of all the other products and services. In this
case a relative change should be evaluated and integrated into analysis. Below are presented
several examples of relative price changes:
high-tech products whose price is likely to drop (e.g. the most recent computer technologies);
high-tech products whose price is likely to grow (e.g. technologies in the area of health,
defence equipment);
limited natural resources (e.g. oil);
14Subsidies paid to exporters, farmers, producers. etc. shall not be considered to be transfer payments.
-
7/29/2019 Methodological Guide to Social Cost-benefit Analysis
24/52
24
wages and the price of other costs which are likely to increase more rapidly than the total rate
of inflation.
In summary, in carrying out the analysis, the price of goods or services should be considered as
constant within the entire period of decision implementation (i.e. regardless of the effect ofinflation), except for the cases when it is possible to reasonably foresee that the price will change
when compared to the price all the other goods/services.
2.4.3.3.Estimation of costs and benefit in monetary terms in the case of non-existance of market pricesThe costs and benefit of a decision should be calculated on the basis of real market prices.
However, in practice, situations are frequent when the market prices cannot be used for public
intervention assessment:
At the presence of market imperfectionsor due to States regulation the price of a good orservice does not always reflect its real value.For example, where a certain good is subsidised,
its price may be lower than the real value of resources necessary to produce it. In this case the
price of a good/service would be equal to the sum of the price of the good and the unit of
good/service in the amount of the subsidy. In the cases of taxation differences between
different alternatives at issue, when applying subsidies or in the cases of monopolistic pricing,
market prices should be corrected.
Where a good is not sold in the marketthe market price does not exist. For instance, there isno market price for clean air, saved lives, nature preservation, etc. The economic value of
such goods can be estimated using indirect value determination approachesfor instance, by
revealing relative preferences of individuals with respect to them, making a comparison withother similar goods with the market value. It is assumed that consumers can estimate the
significance of non-market goods for their welfare. For instance, a consumer wishing to live
in a cleaner environment may be willing to pay a certain amount of money for that. The
largest amount of money he would agree to pay expresses his willingness to pay and shows
how an individual estimates the improvement of environmental quality compared to other
goods and services he would acquire for the same amount. On the other hand, knowing about
the deterioration of environmental quality an individual can agree to a monetary
compensation of a certain amount, which, in his opinion, offsets the damage caused to his
welfare. The smallest amount an individual would agree to accept for negative consequences
is his willingness to accept a compensation. It shows how an individual estimates the
deterioration of quality in the context of other goods that can be acquired for money.
Willingness to pay for non-market goods or accept a compensation for negative consequences
differs between individuals. Therefore, in order to identify what impact on the welfare of the
whole society (in the opinion of society members themselves) was made by the change (e.g.
improvement or deterioration of environmental quality) it is necessary to aggregate the
willingness to pay for non-market goods or accept compensation for incurred damage of all
the individuals affected by the change. The aggregated willingness to pay or accept a
compensation reflects the estimation of the change in welfare in terms of money.
-
7/29/2019 Methodological Guide to Social Cost-benefit Analysis
25/52
25
Several methods used for the estimation of the price of non-market services/goods are
presented in Table 7. These methods can be divided in two groups: revealed preferencemethods and stated preference methods. Both groups of methods allow the identification ofindividuals willingness to pay for a non-market good/servicein one case this is done directly
(stated preference testing), in anotherindirectly (revealed preference testing).
Table 7 Estimation of costs and benefit in monetary terms in the case of a non-market price: methods
Revealed preference
testing
These are indirect methods for estimating the value of non-market goods.
These approaches imply that similar situations in which individuals madedecisions on making of a certain payment for the foreseen benefit areanalysed (e.g. farmers who contributed to flood-protection work in order tominimise flood risks to their farms). This allows a conclusion on how manyindividuals would agree to pay for the expected benefit of the decision to beadopted.
The two most frequent methods of revealed preference are the following:
Hedonic pricing. In applying this method, various characteristics ofmarket-traded goods/services are analysed in order to indirectlyestimate the value of non-market goods/services. For instance, the
value of a lake pier could be estimated by comparing the price of ahouse on a lake shore with the price of a similar house located
Example 4: willingness to pay and accept a compensation
The gain or loss of society relating to the changes of environmental quality can be evaluated intwo aspects:
Willingness to pay for the improved environmental cleanness (What amount of money wewould agree to pay for living in a cleaner environment?)
Willingness to accept a compensation for the refusal of improved environmental cleanness(what monetary compensation we would agree to accept for our refusal to live in a cleanerenvironment?)
Willingness to pay for the avoidance of deterioration of environmental quality (what amountof money we would agree to pay for the avoidance of deteriorarion of environhmentalquality?)
Willingnss to accept a compensation for the deterioration of environmental quality (whatmonetary compensation would we agree to accept for the deteriorated environmentalquality?).
The first and the fourth measures of economic value describe the in individuals (s) monetary budget, which, in theaspect of benefit (welfare) level, offsets (compensates) the change of environmental quality. The second and the thirdcases reflect the change in revenue which, in the aspect of benefit, corresponds to the change in environmentalquality. In other words, the first and the fourth cases concern either a decrease or increase in welfare in monetary
terms in exchange for improvement or deteriorartion of environmental quality. Thus, the estimation starting-point is
the original level of welfare (before the changes) of an individual. The second and the third cases concern an increaseor decrease of individuals budget instead of gain or loss in environmental quality. In this case the estimationstarting pointa new level of individuals welfare (after the changes).
-
7/29/2019 Methodological Guide to Social Cost-benefit Analysis
26/52
26
elsewhere.
Travel cost analysis method. In applying this method individualswillingness to pay is estimated on the basis of the travel costsnecessary to reach a particular place. For instance, the value of a park
could be calculated as an amount of costs incurred by personstravelling to that park (including travel time). Nevertheless, such amethod of calculation can show only the minimum value of the park asit ignores the price the consumer would be willing to pay (consumersurplus).15
Stated preference testing The stated preference methodologies were developed taking into account the
weaknesses of revealed preference tests. In this case, in order to forecastconsumers behaviour with respect to non-market goods consumer surveysare carried out. The surveys evaluate individuals (i) willingness to pay fora
certain non-market good and/or (ii) willingness to accept a compensation fornegative consequences of initiative implementation.
Figure 5 presents the scheme of the process of intangibles estimation in terms of quantity.
15Consumer surplusthe value consumers receive over and above what they actually have to pay.
-
7/29/2019 Methodological Guide to Social Cost-benefit Analysis
27/52
27
Figure 5 Intangibles estimation scheme
Source: Adapted according to the Impact Appraisal Guidance of Great Britain16
16HM Treasury. The Green Book. Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government. Treasury Guidance. London. //
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk./media/3/F/green_book_260907.pdf
Is the impact measureable
and quantifiable?
ANDDoes a market price exist?
Revealed preference methods applied:
Hedonic pricingTravel cost analysis
NO
Is estimation of costs and benefit
in monetary terms possible?
Stated preference methods applied:
Willingness to pay
Willingness to accept compensation
NO
Is estimation of costs and benefit
in terms of money possible?
To perform qualitative
assessment of intangibles
NO
To calculate benefit
and/or costs
YES
YES
YES
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk./media/3/F/green_book_260907.pdfhttp://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk./media/3/F/green_book_260907.pdfhttp://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk./media/3/F/green_book_260907.pdf -
7/29/2019 Methodological Guide to Social Cost-benefit Analysis
28/52
28
Table 8 discusses certain cases of intangibles which are most frequently used during the public
intervention analysis.
Table 8 Estimation of costs and benefit in monetary terms in the cases of non-market price: examples
Value oftime
In ideal conditions, an individuals salary is a monetary unit of the stimation of histime. In simple economic models an individual chooses between leisure and workingdurations: whether to refuse a leisure hour and increase consumption (i.e. to receivemore consumption goods) by the quantity equal to his hourly pay or to reduce work(increase leisure time) by an hour and reduce consumption (i.e. to receive lessconsumption goods) by the quantity equal to his hourly pay. Therefore, in order toestimate the economy of time due to, for instance, improved transport system, thesalaries of persons using this transport system may be used.
For example, if a quicker underground or automation of the traffic lights systemreduced the time necessary to go to/from work by 30 minutes, and the salary is LTL10/hour, the value of time savings is LTL 5 per day. Upon calculating and summing upthe values of time saved by each person the total value of time saved over a time unit is
obtained.
Value of life
In order to evaluate decisions having an impact on the probability of death (e.g. in thearea of transport, public order and healthcare) two main methods can be applied.
Constructive methodit estimates what a person would have earned if he stayed
alive (until his/her standard age of death). This is done by extrapolating his/heremployment history, comparing it with the revenue history of other personsholding a similar position. The weakness of this method is that it does notdistinguish between a living duration and the related being alive. This is the reasonwhy, according to this method, upon retirement a persons life has a zero value as
there is no loss of revenue.
Revealed preference method (previously discussed in Table 7). This method
estimates the value of life by analysing how much additional revenue a personneeds in order the increase of probability of his death is compensated. This revenueis reflected by the market wage for more risky jobs. For instance, some professionshave a much higher probability of death than others. Persons in riskier jobsgenerally require compensations for additional risk. By selecting a riskieroccupation they show their agreement to a higher probability of death if this meanshigher revenue.
Value ofnatural
resources
One of the methods used to assess the environmental impact of a public initiative is a
contingent valuation method. This is a survey-based method intended for estimatingthe value of non-market goods. The aim of a survey or an interview is to find outrespondents willingness to pay for a public asset, how much an individual is willing topay for positive quantitative and qualitative changes of natural resources. During thesurvey a resident can be asked how he/she evaluates particular actions of the statepolicy aimed at the preservation or improvement of natural resources, or whether or nothe/she would be willing to additionally pay, in the form of taxes, for positivechanges. An individual can also be asked what amount would be sufficient to him torefuse a certain public asset.
Source: R.Kuodis. Lietuvai silytinaskat naudos analizs modelis.
-
7/29/2019 Methodological Guide to Social Cost-benefit Analysis
29/52
29
It is important to note that the aforementioned methods for estimating the value of public assets
without a market price require a lot of resources and therefore should be applied taking into
account the extent of the initiative impact, accessibility of information necessary for analysis and
the available resources. Furthermore, if the aforementioned methods do not lead to the estimation
of costs and benefit in terms of money with sufficient accuracy, such estimation may be
misleading rather than useful. In this case the recommendation is to carry out either a sensitivity
analysis for the main (critical) variables (for more information see chapter 2.4.6) or a qualitative
cost-benefit analysis.
2.4.3.4.Assessment of an administrative burdenAn administrative burden is an element of costs and therefore, where this relevant 17, should be
evaluated in terms of quantity during the assessment of the costs and benefits of a decision. The
administrative burden means the costs incurred by business operators, residents, state and
municipal institutions in performance of the statutory obligations18 to provide information to state
and municipal institutions and their authorised persons about their activities and products as well
as other statutory information19.
To estimate the administrative burden resulting from regulation in terms of quantity a special
methodology is designed the so-called standard cost model. It has received a wide applicationat EU level and within EU Member States. The model can be used for the assessment of a
particular legal act, a provision or a group of legal acts.
The administrative burden assessment consists of several main steps. In brief it can be stated the
first steps include identifying which legal norms lay down information obligations, what is their
nature and what actions are to be taken by business operators, citizens, state institutions or other
17i.e. where a decision provides for the establishment or change of the information obligation.
18Information obligations is a wide term it covers such actions as a duty to declare, register, apply for a licence, an
obligation to deliver reports, provide information to third parties (e.g. to indicate information on product labels),
certification of products or processes, inspections, etc.19 Order No 4-152 of the Minister for the Economy of the Republic of Lithuania of 2 May 2006 on the approval of the
Methodology for the determination and evaluation of an administrative burden on business.
Example 5: estimation of the price of saved life years
Robert E. Hall and Marc Lieberman48
presented systemised information on the costs for one saved
life in the U.S. by applying different instruments. In order to increase the number of saved lifeyears by one:
1. doctors advice to give up smoking to a smoking patient costs 150 US dollars;2. mammography for early breast cancer diagnosis (every 3 years, for women aged 50-64)
2 700 US dollars;3. heart transplantation157 821 US dollars;4. safety belts in school buses2 760 197 US dollars;5. anti-terrorist security measures at airportsaround 8 000 000 US dollars;6. ban on asbestos use in automatic transmissionsover 66 000 000 US dollars.Source: Robert E. Hall and Marc Lieberman (2005), Macroeconomics: Principles and Applications, South-
-
7/29/2019 Methodological Guide to Social Cost-benefit Analysis
30/52
30
entities in order to implement these requirements. Afterward, a quality assessment of the burden
is carried out.
Costs attributed to the administrative burden are the following:
time spent on implementation of the statutory information obligations;
other costs incurred during information obligation implementation.
In order to estimate the magnitude of administrative burden at enterprise, institutional or
personal level it is necessary to asses the hourly rate of work of a person carrying out the action
of information obligation implementation, the length of the working time spent for performing
information actions, related additional costs (e.g. transport, software acquisition costs, etc.) and
the frequency of carrying out the information obligation. Assessment of the total administrative
burden on astate, regional or sectoral scale takes into account the number of entities that must
implement the set information obligation.
In Lithuania special methodologies have been developed for the estimation of the administrative
burden which are to be followed during assessment, i.e.:
The administrative burden on business entities shall be assessed in accordance with the
Methodology for the determination and estimation of an administrative burden on business
approved by Order No 4-152 of the Minister for the Economy of the Republic of Lithuania of
2 May 2006.
The administrative burden on the population shall be assessed in accordance with theMethodology for the determination and evaluation of an administrative burden on the citizens
of the Republic of Lithuania and other persons approved by Resolution No 213 of the
Government of the Republic of Lithuania of 23 February 2011.
In the course of preparation of this Guide the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of
Lithuania was instructed to develop a special methodology for the estimation of an
administrative burden on state and municipal institutions.
A quantitative administrative burden estimation can be facilitated by special calculators. During
the preparation of this Methodological Guide the development of Lithuanias electronic database
of an administrative burden on business (calculator) was started. It is being developed on the
basis of the EU administrative burden calculatorStarter kit.
Formula for calculating the administrative burden
The annual administrative burden caused by a duty to provide data is calculated according to the
following general formula:
Administrative burden (AB) = P x Q
Where:
Pthe price of performing a standard information action (the hourly rate of work of the person carrying out
an information action multiplied by the working time (in hours) spent on the information action)
Q quantity (the number of entities carrying out an information action multiplied by the frequencyinformation action carried out within one ear
-
7/29/2019 Methodological Guide to Social Cost-benefit Analysis
31/52
31
2.4.4. Estimating and discounting cash flows2.4.4.1.Estimation of cash flows
Nearly every decision is relating to cash flows. The cash flows show how much money will be
received and spent during each period of decision implementation. This information serves as a
basis for a quantitative assessment.
Net cash flows are calculated by deducting cash ourflows from cash inflows.
Where cash inflows exceed cash outflows, a net cash flow is positive, where the received amount
of cash is below the spent one, a net cash flow is negative (see Example 6).
Net cash flows are calculated on a yearly basis for the entire period of implementation of the
decision in question. Where the implementation period of a decision is shorter than four years,
the forecasting ofmonthly cash flows is advisable.
2.4.4.2. DiscountingA traditional view is that in the more distant future costs or benefit are incurred or derived the
less relevant to us they are as most people would prefer receiving an asset of the same volume
and quality now but not after two or more years. Furthermore, according to the value for money
principle, a litas received after a year does not have the same value as a litas is worth today as a
Example 6: net cash flows
An institution plans to upgrade its fine accounting software for a total of LTL 10 million. After thesystem is upgraded, the current costs (IT staff, employee training) will increase by LTL 20 millioncompared to those before system upgrading. However, the new software should help to save costs
relating to the collection of fines as the controlling agencies will receive reliable information in atimely manner and the system will automatically send reminders to pay the fine, etc. Therefore, the
upgrading of the system is expected to result in savings of LTL 65 million per year. The upgradedsystem is planned to be used for three years and afterward to be upgraded again.
Net cash flow calculation
Year
0 1 2 3
Forecast cash inflows 0 65 65 65
Forecast cash outflows (-) 100 20 20 20
Forecast net cash flow -100 45 45 45
Net cash flow estimation formula
Net cash flow = Cash inflowsCash outflows
-
7/29/2019 Methodological Guide to Social Cost-benefit Analysis
32/52
32
litas received today can be invested and more than one litas received after a year. Respective
economic estimations reflect these preferences.
In many cases cash flows occur in different periods. Therefore, future inflows or future outflows
should be discounted.
A discount rate used for the assessment of a public decision is referred as a social discount rate.
In the assessment of long-term decisions the selection of a discount rate is essential: an initiative
which seems to be good applying a low discount rate may be bad at a higher discount rate.
Present value calculation
A discounted cash flow is obtained by multiplying the calculated net cash flows by the
discount factor:
Present value (PV) =ni
FVeFuturevalu
)1(
)(
or
nixFVeFuturevalu
)1(
1)(
where: idiscount rate;discount factor.
Before a study enabling the determination of the discount rate applicale to public decision-making iscarried out in Lithuania it advisable for this purpose to use the discount rate on eurobonds issued onbehalf of the State.
Discount factor
Discountingmeans adjusting the future value for the current period. The present value of
future cash is determined by using a discount factor, i.e. the number which makes the
future inflows and outflows equal to the current inflows and outflows:
n
i
fctorDiscountfa
)1(
1)(
Where: idiscount rate; nyear.
-
7/29/2019 Methodological Guide to Social Cost-benefit Analysis
33/52
33
For the convenience of calculation, discount factors for a 30-year period at a discount rate of 1 %
to 10 % are presented in Annex 3 to this Methodological Guide.
2.4.5. Methods for assessing and comparing alternative optionsThe net present value method is most frequently used for the assessment and comparison of
alternative options for a decision. Other assessment methods that can be employed for assessing
alternative options for decisions: an internal rate of return, payback period and benefit/cost ratio.
In order to enhance the reliability of decision-making (particularly when assessing complicated
decisions), the recommendation is to use several assessment techniques: e.g. one main andanother ancillary technique. The methods of alternative assessment and comparison are in more
detail presented in further sections of the Guide.
2.4.5.1.Net present valueNet present value is one of the most important performance indicators of a decision alternative.The net present value (hereinafter referred to as the NPV) indicator is the sum of discounted cash
flows over the period of decision implementation/application.
Example 7: cash flow discounting
Proceeding with the illustration presented in example 6 the present value of cash flows iscalculated:
Calculation of the present value of cash flows
Year
0 1 2 3
Forecast cash inflows 0 65 65 65
Forecast cash outflows (-) 100 20 20 20
Forecast net cash flow -100 45 45 45
Discount factor = 1/(1 + 10%)n 1.0000 0.9091 0.8264 0.7513Present value = Current value x Discountfactor -100 40.9 37.2 33.8
Net present value calculationThe NPV is calculated according to the formula:
n
nt
n
t
ti
CF
i
CF
i
CFxfCFNPV
)1(...
)1()1( 11
0
0
0
where: CFcash flows; fdiscount factor; idiscount rate; nthe last year of the period;
tthe number of years from the beginning of a decision.
-
7/29/2019 Methodological Guide to Social Cost-benefit Analysis
34/52
34
It should be noted that cash flows in the early years are usually negative and only become positive
after a certain period. As their value deceases with time, negative cash flows in the early years of
decisions existence are weighted more than the positive cash flows of the subsequent periods.
Therefore, accurate identification of the initial assumptions is needed when applying the NPV
method. The value of the discount factor (discount rate) and the choice of the time horizon arecrucial for the calculation of the NPV (see Figure 6).
Figure 6 Inter-dependence of net present value and discount rate
The NPV shows (measures) the benefit of an alternative (the improvement of societys wefare
resulting from the decision i.e. the added value created for society in terms of money),
calculated at the todays value of money. If the NPV is positive (>0), a decision is generating
the net benefit. The NPV allows a comparision of different afternatives of a decision and making
a decision on the most acceptable one.
In the case of projects of commercial nature the alternative with the highest NPV is generally
selected. However, in the case of public decisions when all incurred costs and derived benefits are
difficult to quantify. the NPV should be only one of the criteria for decision assessment,
alternative acceptance/rejection. In other words, a decision with the highest NPV indicator is
considered to be the most attractive if other conditions are equal. If alternatives differ in some
aspects, the NPV is not the only criterion to be followed in adopting a decision on the most
acceptable alternative. For instance, one of decisions (alternatives) may generate a noticeably
higher net intangible benefit. A negative (
-
7/29/2019 Methodological Guide to Social Cost-benefit Analysis
35/52
35
Example 8: net present value (NPV)
Proceeding with the illustration presented in example 6 the NPV is calculated:
Net present value calculation
Year 0 1 2 3
Forecast cash inflows 0 65 65 65
Forecast cash outflows (-) 100 20 20 20
Forecast net cash flow -100 45 45 45
Discount factor = 1/(1 + 10%)n
1.0000 0.9091 0.8264 0.7513
Present value = Current value x Discount
factor
-100 40.9 37.2 33.8
Total present value (i.e. the NPV) -100 -59.1 -21.9 11.9
-
7/29/2019 Methodological Guide to Social Cost-benefit Analysis
36/52
36
2.4.5.2.Internal rate of returnAnother important indicator of decision assessment, based on the time value of money principle,
is the internal rate of return (IRR). The internal rate of return (IRR) indicator is particularlyuseful if the determination of the proper discount rate is difficult. IRR is a discount rate at the
presence of which the present values of expected payments (outflows) are equal to the present
values of expected inflows, i.e. the NPV of all net cash flows generated by a decision is equal to a
zero. In other words, t