Search

Udgivelsesdato: DEC

This article presents results from the first statistically significant study of cost escalation in transportation infrastructure projects. Based on a sample of 258 transportation infrastructure projects worth $90 billion (U.S.), it is found with overwhelming statistical significance that the cost estimates used to decide whether important infrastructure should be built are highly and systematically misleading. The result is continuous cost escalation of billions of dollars. The sample used in the study is the largest of its kind, allowing for the first time statistically valid conclusions regarding questions of cost underestimation and escalation for different project types, different geographical regions, and different historical periods. Four kinds of explanation of cost underestimation are examined: technical, economic, psychological, and political. Underestimation cannot be explained by error and is best explained by strategic misrepresentation, i.e., lying. The policy implications are clear: In debates and decision making on whether important transportation infrastructure should be built, those legislators, administrators, investors, media representatives, and members of the public who value honest numbers should not trust the cost estimates and cost-benefit analyses produced by project promoters and their analysts. Independent estimates and analyses are needed as are institutional checks and balances to curb deception.

In this paper we argue that the use of the communicative theory of Jürgen Habermas in planning theory is problematic because it hampers an understanding of how power shapes planning. We posit an alternative approach based on the power analytics of Michel Foucault which focuses on ?what is actually done?, as opposed to Habermas?s focus on ?what should be done?. We discuss how the Foucauldian stance problematises planning, asking difficult questions about the treatment of legitimacy, rationality, knowledge and spatiality. We conclude that Foucault offers a type of analytic planning theory which offers better prospects than does Habermas for those interested in understanding and bringing about democratic social change through planning.

This article presents results from the first statistically significant study of cost escalation in transportation infrastructure projects. Based on a sample of 258 transportation infrastructure projects worth $90 billion (U.S.), it is found with overwhelming statistical significance that the cost estimates used to decide whether important infrastructure should be built are highly and systematically misleading. The result is continuous cost escalation of billions of dollars. The sample used in the study is the largest of its kind, allowing for the first time statistically valid conclusions regarding questions of cost underestimation and escalation for different project types, different geographical regions, and different historical periods. Four kinds of explanation of cost underestimation are examined: technical, economic, psychological, and political. Underestimation cannot be explained by error and is best explained by strategic misrepresentation, i.e., lying. The policy implications are clear: In debates and decision making on whether important transportation infrastructure should be built, those legislators, administrators, investors, media representatives, and members of the public who value honest numbers should not trust the cost estimates and cost-benefit analyses produced by project promoters and their analysts. Independent estimates and analyses are needed as are institutional checks and balances to curb deception.

Taken together, the works of Jürgen Habermas and Michel Foucault highlight an essential tension in modernity. This is the tension between the normative and the real, between what should be done and what is actually done. Understanding this tension is crucial to understanding modern democracy, what it is and what it could be. It has been argued that an effective way of making democracy stronger is to strengthen civil society. This article contains a comparative analysis of the central ideas of Habermas and Foucault as they pertain to the question of democracy and civil society. More specifically, the discourse ethics of Habermas is contrasted with the power analytics and ethics of Foucault evaluating their usefulness for those interested in understanding, and bringing about, democratic social change

This article provides an answer to what has been called the biggest problem in theorizing and understanding planning, namely the ambivalence about power found among planning researchers, theorists, and students. The author narrates how he came to work with issues of power. He then gives an example of how the methodology he developed for power studies, called "phronetic planning research," may be employed in practice. Phronetic planning research follows the tradition of power studies running from Machiavelli and Nietzsche to Michel Foucault and Pierre Bourdieu. It focuses on four value-rational questions: (1) Where are we going with planning? (2) Who gains and who loses, and by which mechanisms of power? (3) Is this development desirable? (4) What should be done? These questions are exemplified for a specific instance of Scandinavian urban planning. The author finds that the questions, and their answers, make a difference to planning in practice. They make planning research matter.

Med udgangspunkt i evalueringen af Trafik- og Miljøpuljen (1992 -1995), som er gennemført i et samarbejde mellem PLS Consult og professor Bent Flyvbjerg, Aalborg Universitet, giver artiklen en vurdering af statslige puljer som virkemiddel til at stimulere trafik- og miljøinitiativer i de danske kommuner. Artiklen argumenterer, at langsigtede miljøeffekter forudsætter, at der på den ene side gennemføres en formidlingsindsats, hvor henholdsvis statens, amternes og kommunernes roller, ansvar og virkemidler i indsatsen for at reducere trafikskabte miljøproblemer klargøres. På den anden side vurderes det relevant at etablere en ny pulje, som igangsætter demonstrationsprojekter, der i højere grad fokuserer på miljøproblemer end trafiksikkerhed. Puljen bør understøttes af et fagligt sparringsforum i centraladministrativt regi. For at optimere mulighederne for at evaluere og vurdere puljens og demonstrationsprojekternes miljøeffekter bør der etableres et systematisk datagrundlag i et før/efterperspektiv, som dermed udgør et effektivt styringsgrundlag på centralt og lokalt niveau., Proceedings from the Annual Transport Conference at Aalborg University, Vol. 5 No. 1 (1998): Proceedings from the Annual Transport Conference at Aalborg University

In terms of risk, many appraisals of very large infrastructure investments assume, or pretend to assume, that infrastructure policies and projects exist in a predictable Newtonian world of cause and effect where things go according to plan. In reality, the world of policy and project preparation and implementation is a highly stochastic one where things happen only with a certain probability and rarely turn out as originally intended. The failure to reflect the probabilistic reality of investment preparation and implementation is a central reason for the poor track record that can be documented for many major projects. The article describes lessons and recommendations on how to improve accountability in decision making on very large infrastructure investments in Denmark. The conventional approach to infrastructure investments is replaced by an alternative focusing on accountability. Redrawing the borderlines of private and public involvement, four specific measures to increase accountability are suggested and detailed: (1) Transparency, (2) Performance specifications, (3) Explication of regulatory regimes, and (4) Involvement of risk capital. The decision on whether or not to build a multi-billion dollar fixed link across the Baltic Sea connecting Scandinavia and Germany is used as an illustrative case. However, the approach developed is likely to be relevant for other major projects in other countries as well.