Classifying benefits as public or private is also challenging because:
(1) public benefits do not produce revenue flows which can later be redistributed to
society,
(2) similarly, some private benefits might not produce any flow of revenue and,
(3) users might be reticent in adding them to their list of benefits,
(4) furthermore, what to consider as private or public might also be debatable.
Thus, user applicants have an incentive to recognise more benefits as public rather
than private in order to receive additional government funding and reduce their own
share of costs. Another problem associated with public benefits concerns their
extent. The accounting attitude adopted in the economic analysis will help clarify
the issue. If a nationwide position is adopted, the national benefits need to be
included, while if only a local position is being examined, national effects cannot
be included.
References
Azizi, M. M. (2000). The user-pays system in the provision of urban infrastructure: Effectiveness
and equity Criteria. Urban Studies, 37, 1345–1357.
Gargett, S. (2010). The introduction of a targeted user-pays approach to funding high-level
residential aged care in Australia. Health Economics, Poicy and Law, 5, 481–508.
Giglio, R. J., & Wrightington, R. (1972). Methods for apportioning costs among participants in
regional systems. Water Resources Research, 8, 1133–1144.
Kemper, K., Foster, S., Garduno, H., Mnanni, A., & Tuinhof, A. (2003). Economic instruments for
groundwater management (GW-Mate Briefing Note 7). Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Organization for the Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2002). Transportation
logistics, shared solutions to common problems (p. 52). Paris: OECD Publication.
Yamauchi, H. (2000). Characteristics and cost sharing of transport infrastructure. (Japan Bank for
International Cooperation, JBIC Review No 3). Tokyo: Japan
References
561
(1) public benefits do not produce revenue flows which can later be redistributed to
society,
(2) similarly, some private benefits might not produce any flow of revenue and,
(3) users might be reticent in adding them to their list of benefits,
(4) furthermore, what to consider as private or public might also be debatable.
Thus, user applicants have an incentive to recognise more benefits as public rather
than private in order to receive additional government funding and reduce their own
share of costs. Another problem associated with public benefits concerns their
extent. The accounting attitude adopted in the economic analysis will help clarify
the issue. If a nationwide position is adopted, the national benefits need to be
included, while if only a local position is being examined, national effects cannot
be included.
References
Azizi, M. M. (2000). The user-pays system in the provision of urban infrastructure: Effectiveness
and equity Criteria. Urban Studies, 37, 1345–1357.
Gargett, S. (2010). The introduction of a targeted user-pays approach to funding high-level
residential aged care in Australia. Health Economics, Poicy and Law, 5, 481–508.
Giglio, R. J., & Wrightington, R. (1972). Methods for apportioning costs among participants in
regional systems. Water Resources Research, 8, 1133–1144.
Kemper, K., Foster, S., Garduno, H., Mnanni, A., & Tuinhof, A. (2003). Economic instruments for
groundwater management (GW-Mate Briefing Note 7). Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Organization for the Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2002). Transportation
logistics, shared solutions to common problems (p. 52). Paris: OECD Publication.
Yamauchi, H. (2000). Characteristics and cost sharing of transport infrastructure. (Japan Bank for
International Cooperation, JBIC Review No 3). Tokyo: Japan
References
561