On de-bunking ‘fake news’ in a post truth era: Why does the Planning Fallacy explanation for cost overruns fall short?
Peter E.D. Love,
Lavagnon A. Ika and
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 2019, vol. 126, issue C, 397-408
The Planning Fallacy has been heralded as the best theoretical perspective to explain ‘how projects work’, particularly within the transportation area. However, we contend that the data and the resulting conclusions relied upon to support the Planning Fallacy have been based on methodological artifacts that do not stand up to close scrutiny. We suggest these flaws stem from ‘the compulsion to theorize', which predisposes to explain almost project behavior by the Planning Fallacy. We then unpack the method and data used to support the ‘Planning Fallacy’. Therefore, we ‘open a new door’ for the development of a more robust theoretical explanation for ‘how projects work’.
Keywords: Benefits; Cost overruns; Hiding Hand; Planning Fallacy; Projects (search for similar items in EconPapers)
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1) Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:transa:v:126:y:2019:i:c:p:397-408
Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://shop.elsevie ... _01_ooc_1&version=01
Access Statistics for this article
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice is currently edited by John (J.M.) Rose
More articles in Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().