Abstract
Benefit-cost analysis has been applied to the evaluation of public investment projects whose outputs have market derived prices. When prices are attached to all inputs and outputs it is possible to systematically rank projects by net return and to derive some implications for budget size. However, a consistent and explicit basis for ranking projects with non-priced outputs has been lacking. A step by step procedure is developed for systematic choice when some or all outputs have no market value reference points. The method makes clear the information that can be provided by the analyst and that which must be provided by the political process. The procedure gives no easy answer to value conflicts among members of society, but it does allow citizens to determine if public officials are making project choices consistent with announced objectives and explicit value weights. Such procedures could facilitate public participation in project choice and monitoring the behavior of public officials.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
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
