Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T22:45:07.358Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Principles and Objectives of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

A. Stratton
A. Stratton*
Affiliation:
College of Aeronautics, Cranfield
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The terms “cost-effectiveness” and to a lesser degree “cost-benefit” analysis have become familiar words in the technical and national press, the former usually in relation to defence projects—the latter in relation to social projects, such as transport, power generation and building. Indeed, at the time of the last General Election the political correspondent of a national newspaper wrote, “Mr. Heath and Mr. Callaghan, Chancellor of the Exchequer, vied with each other in stressing the importance of cost-effectiveness, which used to be known as getting value for money”.

The apparently simple concept of “value for money” raises three important issues:

(i) how is “value” of defence and social projects quantified?

(ii) what is the “money” involved, i.e. what are all the relevant costs? and

(iii) what are the information and decision processes that are used in attempting to obtain “value for money“?

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 72 , Issue 685 , January 1968 , pp. 43 - 53
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 1968 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Hitch, C. J. and Mckean, R. N. The Economics of Defence in the Nuclear Age. Oxford University Press, 1960.Google Scholar
2. Quade, E. S. (edit). Analysis for Military Decisions. North-Holland, 1964.Google Scholar
3. he cit, p 249.Google Scholar
4. Blackwell, B. D. and Reed, A. V. N. Development Management and Cost Control. Journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society, Vol 69, pp 813–819, 1965.Google Scholar
5. Statement of the Defence Estimates 1966. Part II Defence Estimates. Cmnd 2902 HMSO, 1966-67.Google Scholar
6. Foster, C. D. and Beesley, M. E. Estimating the Social Benefit of Constructing an Underground Railway in London. J Roy Stat Soc Series A, Vol 126, pp 46–78, 1963.Google Scholar
7. Beesley, M. E. and Foster, C. D. The Victoria Line, Social Benefit and Finances. Loc cit, Vol 128, pp 67–88, 1965.Google Scholar
8. Charlesworth, G. The Economic Assessment of Returns from Road Works. Proc Inst Civ Engineers, Vol 14, pp 229–254, 1959.Google Scholar
9. Coburn, T. M., Beesley, M. E. and Reynolds, D. J. The London-Birmingham Motorway Traffic and Economics, 1966. Road Research Laboratory Technical Paper No 46, HMSO.Google Scholar
10. Reynolds, D. J. The Cost of Road Accidents. J Roy Stat Soc Series A, pp 393–408, 1956. 11. Higher Education Report of the Robbins Committee, Chapter VI—The Future Demand of Higher Education and the Plans Needed to Meet it. Cmnd 2154, HMSO.Google Scholar
12. Reynolds, D. J. Economics, Town Planning and Traffic. Institute of Economic Affairs, London, 1966.Google Scholar
13. Galbraith, J. K. The New Industrial State. The Listener, Vol LXXVI, No 1965, 1966.Google Scholar
14. Blackman, R. (edit.). Janes Fighting Ships. Sampson, Low, Marston and Co, 1965/66.Google Scholar