The Cost-Benefit Fallacy: Why Cost-Benefit Analysis Is Broken and How to Fix It

Bent Flyvbjerg and Dirk W. Bester

Papers from arXiv.org

Abstract: Most cost-benefit analyses assume that the estimates of costs and benefits are more or less accurate and unbiased. But what if, in reality, estimates are highly inaccurate and biased? Then the assumption that cost-benefit analysis is a rational way to improve resource allocation would be a fallacy. Based on the largest dataset of its kind, we test the assumption that cost and benefit estimates of public investments are accurate and unbiased. We find this is not the case with overwhelming statistical significance. We document the extent of cost overruns, benefit shortfalls, and forecasting bias in public investments. We further assess whether such inaccuracies seriously distort effective resource allocation, which is found to be the case. We explain our findings in behavioral terms and explore their policy implications. Finally, we conclude that cost-benefit analysis of public investments stands in need of reform and we outline four steps to such reform.

Date: 2021-10
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-cwa, nep-ppm and nep-reg
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (7)

Published in Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, October, 2021, pp. 1-25

Downloads: (external link)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/2112.03171 Latest version (application/pdf)

Related works:
Journal Article: The Cost-Benefit Fallacy: Why Cost-Benefit Analysis Is Broken and How to Fix It (2021)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:arx:papers:2112.03171

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Papers from arXiv.org
Bibliographic data for series maintained by arXiv administrators ().