The alternatives formulated by infrastructure planners generally attempt, explicitly or implicitly, to achieve various objectives. For the planner, it would be ideal if
the choice of one policy over another - or the choice between two investments -
could be assessed using a single, well-established objective or goal. Unfortunately,
there are always several, possible and often conflicting, goals or objectives that are
present. At the time decisions are made, the importance or priority of each goal is
rarely well established either. Most often, there are technological, economic, social,
and political objectives which are qualitatively integrated into a plan which is then
submitted for a public policy decision. When there are trade-offs between conflicting
and/or complementary objectives, the planners who participate in the plan making
should try to explain them clearly and explicitly. Of course, the planners are likely to
be absent when political decisions are taken. This entails that the alternatives chosen
and/or implemented may not always satisfy the original objectives.
To start with, several assumptions are made in this discussion.
(1) Public policy usually tries to satisfy more than one objective, rather than just an
economic one. The type and scale of public investments in infrastructure development and management are usually based on a range of economic, social, and
political factors, only some of which can be quantified. Often many important
objectives defy quantification. The planning and decision-making processes
must then take them into account together with the quantifiable objectives -
which is not easy.
(2) Even when the objectives are quantifiable, the explanatory factors or criteria
detailing them may not be easily comparable. Thus, environmental quality has
not yet been assigned a monetary value in a way that is easily comparable to a
consumption monetary value or the revenue from a region and its distribution.
Such assignments require the analyst to define the decision maker’s welfare or
utility function. The assumptions that the analyst or planner must make to derive
such a function are unlikely to be those of the decision makers who are
ultimately responsible for the establishment of policy. Hence analysts or planners must fall back to what they can do, namely, defining the alternatives
available to the decision maker and evaluating each alternative based on each
objective, thereby delineating the possible trade-offs between various objectives.
These trade-offs among various noncommensurable objectives can be made
clear to the decision makers only if each objective is expressed in terms that
are meaningful to them.
(3) The selection of a policy with the relative priorities of each objective, takes place
through a political process, as technical, economic or social criteria rarely have
more importance than the political one. The weights given by the decision maker
will depend partly on his perception of
(1) his policy choices or alternatives,
(2) the implementation mode of his alternatives, if selected, and
(3) the possible outcomes.
The policy makers or decision makers have the power to accept, reject, and implement plans. Most often, they are politicians rather than civil servants. The degree to
14.1 Introduction
383
the choice of one policy over another - or the choice between two investments -
could be assessed using a single, well-established objective or goal. Unfortunately,
there are always several, possible and often conflicting, goals or objectives that are
present. At the time decisions are made, the importance or priority of each goal is
rarely well established either. Most often, there are technological, economic, social,
and political objectives which are qualitatively integrated into a plan which is then
submitted for a public policy decision. When there are trade-offs between conflicting
and/or complementary objectives, the planners who participate in the plan making
should try to explain them clearly and explicitly. Of course, the planners are likely to
be absent when political decisions are taken. This entails that the alternatives chosen
and/or implemented may not always satisfy the original objectives.
To start with, several assumptions are made in this discussion.
(1) Public policy usually tries to satisfy more than one objective, rather than just an
economic one. The type and scale of public investments in infrastructure development and management are usually based on a range of economic, social, and
political factors, only some of which can be quantified. Often many important
objectives defy quantification. The planning and decision-making processes
must then take them into account together with the quantifiable objectives -
which is not easy.
(2) Even when the objectives are quantifiable, the explanatory factors or criteria
detailing them may not be easily comparable. Thus, environmental quality has
not yet been assigned a monetary value in a way that is easily comparable to a
consumption monetary value or the revenue from a region and its distribution.
Such assignments require the analyst to define the decision maker’s welfare or
utility function. The assumptions that the analyst or planner must make to derive
such a function are unlikely to be those of the decision makers who are
ultimately responsible for the establishment of policy. Hence analysts or planners must fall back to what they can do, namely, defining the alternatives
available to the decision maker and evaluating each alternative based on each
objective, thereby delineating the possible trade-offs between various objectives.
These trade-offs among various noncommensurable objectives can be made
clear to the decision makers only if each objective is expressed in terms that
are meaningful to them.
(3) The selection of a policy with the relative priorities of each objective, takes place
through a political process, as technical, economic or social criteria rarely have
more importance than the political one. The weights given by the decision maker
will depend partly on his perception of
(1) his policy choices or alternatives,
(2) the implementation mode of his alternatives, if selected, and
(3) the possible outcomes.
The policy makers or decision makers have the power to accept, reject, and implement plans. Most often, they are politicians rather than civil servants. The degree to
14.1 Introduction
383