Abstract

Despite widespread criticisms, governments around the world have adopted Value for Money (VfM) analysis as a key metric in gauging the prospective value of infrastructure projects. This paper examines the institutional processes through which VfM is rendered defensible as a form of valuation. Drawing on a case study of Infrastructure Ontario in Canada, the paper demonstrates that this involves strategies for partitioning space and time, including boundary work, objectification, phasing and outsourcing. We argue that the institution of delays and distances ultimately fosters the displacement of subjectivity in the valuation process while entrenching distinctively financialized understandings of value. Moreover, we demonstrate that this is driven not so much by the organization's desire to control the future but by a defensive orientation that sets out to ward off potential critiques that may arise from project failures.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call