A presentation conducted by Yuan Deng, Associate, SGS Economics and Planning. Presented on Wednesday the 2nd of October 2013. Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) has played a critical role in public policy for more than 50 years. CBA goes beyond financial analysis which considers direct monetary costs and revenues. It enables policymakers to assess whether a policy initiative or project will provide a net community benefit, taking into account that the (limited) resources deployed in implementing the initiative or project have alternative productive uses. Correctly applied, CBA is a rigorous technique for evaluating projects competing for limited public sector resources. However, it does have its limitations and failings. To overcome the systemic failings, advanced CBA needs to be capable of tracking the long term and ‘second round’ benefits of major transport projects and better quantifying ‘intangibles’ that are fundamental to architectural and cultural building projects. There is a need for improved consistency across practitioners, through peer review and the publication of peer-endorsed methodologies for CBA.

1. ENDORSING PARTNERS
Cost Benefit Analysis
- Key Features and
Future Directions
The following are confirmed contributors to the business and policy dialogue in Sydney:
•
Rick Sawers (National Australia Bank)
•
Nick Greiner (Chairman (Infrastructure NSW)
Monday, 30th September 2013: Business & policy Dialogue
Tuesday 1 October to Thursday,
3rd
October: Academic and Policy Dialogue
Presented by: Yuan Deng, Associate, SGS Economics and Planning
www.isngi.org
www.isngi.org

2. Cost Benefit Analysis
- Key Features and Future
Directions
Yuan Deng
Associate, SGS Economics and Planning

3. Overview
•What is cost benefit analysis (CBA)?
•What are its key features?
•Failings of cost benefit analysis
•Where to from here with CBA
3

4. What is CBA?
• An investment in a project effectively generates two types of
benefits:
• Those captured ‘internally’ – by the investor as revenues
• Those that accrue to the wider public, often referred to as
‘positive externalities’
• Many of the positive externalities are not traded, but they
underpin the merits of and why we undertake public projects.
• There needs to be a means of evaluating them to make informed
decisions about investment in a given project.
4

5. As an economic evaluation method
• CBA is the most commonly accepted technique for evaluating
public policies and investments
• First applied by government to evaluate water projects in the
UK in 1936 (Ackerman 2008).
• Has been used by the World Bank (1996) for over 40 years
• The power of CBA rests in two main features:
• Costs and benefits are, as far as possible, expressed in monetary
terms
• Costs and benefits are measured from the perspectives of all
individuals in a community, rather than any particular party
5

6. Key features
• First is the need to identify a ‘without’ project scenario, and one or
multiple ‘with’ project scenarios.
• Secondly it is necessary to identify the range of economic, social
and environment costs and benefits that might be expected in
moving from the ‘without’ to ‘with’ project scenarios.
• Third is the quantification of costs and benefits
• Often monetary values are available for capital cost and operational
expenditure and revenue of the project
• Proxy values need to be derived for the non-traded costs and benefits
• Some of the established techniques include travel time method,
shadow pricing and stated preference method
6

7. Key features
• Costs and benefits are allocated over a suitable project evaluation
period, typically 25 years.
• Finally, performance measures are generated using discounted
cash flow techniques over the project life.
• Discounted to the present using a ‘discount rate’ - NSW
Treasury recommends using a 7% discount rate with sensitivity
tests of 4% & 10%
• Main performance measures in CBA include NPV, BCR and IRR
• Focuses on net community benefit – deemed worthy of investment
if the beneficiaries ‘compensate’ the losers and still remain in
positive territory.
7

8. Limitations of CBA
Those stemming from a poor application of technique include the
following:
• The difficulty of quantifying non-traded costs and benefits
• False accuracy
• Equity overlooked
• A robust CBA should not ‘overreach’ !!
8

9. Limitations of CBA
More systematic weakness particularly for major city shaping
investments:
• Limited to ‘first round’ impacts – indirect and feedback effects
are excluded
• Inappropriately discounting the future
• Applying a discount rate to increasingly valued future benefits –
perhaps lower discount rates should be applied to
intergenerational values.
9

10. Clearly the CBA technique conventionally applied would not be
able to incorporate the long term benefits such as what the
Harbour Bridge has delivered.
Taken by Rodney Haywood
10

11. Conclusion
• CBA has played a critical role in public policy for more than 50
years now
• Correctly applied, CBA is a rigorous technique for evaluating
projects competing for limited public sector resources.
• However, it’s critical to recognise its limitations
• E.g. the relatively narrow focus of CBA on first round effects limits
its capability of capturing the long term feedback effects of major
city shaping projects
11

12. CBA needs to evolve further
• Tracking long run effects, and linking this to land use outcomes
• Deepening the research and evidence base to better quantify
‘intangibles’
• Using much lower discount rates for items which will demonstrably
increase their value in future
• A need for improved consistency in application across practitioners
12