scholarly journals Cost benefit analysis and ex-post evaluation for railway upgrade projects

2013 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tamás Mátrai
Keyword(s):  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Post Evaluation ◽  
Ex Post

Multi-Attribute Evaluation of E-Government Projects

2012 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 82-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tina Jukic ◽  
Jože Bencina ◽  
Mirko Vintar
Keyword(s):  
Public Administration ◽  
Return On Investment ◽  
Net Present Value ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Present Value ◽  
Post Evaluation ◽  
Ex Post ◽  
Comparative Review

This paper presents comparative review of existent (inter-)national approaches to e-government projects evaluation with the stress on intangible/hidden costs and public value dimension which are the two components usually missed out in traditional investments evaluation methods (e.g., net present value, cost/benefit analysis, return on investment). Based on the literature review and weaknesses identified through comparative review, the authors developed models for ex-ante and ex-post evaluation of e-government projects for Slovenian public administration. The models were developed together with representatives of Ministry of Public Administration.

Better Regulation – An Ongoing Journey

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 378-379 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Chase ◽  
Adam Schlosser
Keyword(s):  
Good Governance ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Regulatory Process ◽  
Post Evaluation ◽  
Ex Post ◽  
Better Regulation ◽  
Regulatory Measures ◽  
Guidance Needs ◽  
Key Aspects

The Commission's new Better Regulation package represents a step forward in the European Union’s decade–long journey to bringing coherence and rationality to its legislative and regulatory process. But as the Communication on the package itself suggests, the journey is far from over.The Communication consistently emphasizes the key aspects of good regulation: quality over quantity; taking time to get proposals right; evidence–based decision making; open and continuous consultation to gather evidence from all stakeholders; rigorous impact assessments and cost–benefit analysis; applying these tools to regulatory measures as well as legislation; and implementing a robust ex–post evaluation program. It is important as well that the Secretariat General published unified and detailed guidance for Commission officials on how each step of the regulatory process should work, with a “tool–box” to elaborate further on these steps.All of this is good. Yet in some areas, the Commission misses opportunities to go farther down the good governance road, and in others the guidance needs to be made much more explicit.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document