As early as the 1940s, U.S. President Harry Truman complained that economic advisers tended to give uncertain advice of‘on the one hand’ and of‘on the other hand’. Truman did not face the complexities and uncertainties of modern economics, ask his advisor to find him a of‘one handed economist.
In Britain in 2022, one-handed economists are everywhere…at a price, of course.
Approximately 500,000 planning applications are submitted each year alone in england. Projects large and small are presented before local government officials and committees and are evaluated on their merits to protect the public interest.The largest and most controversial schemes to ask for development consent often feature in more than 18,000 applications appeal every year. In theory, outcomes are objectively determined from evidence, programmes, laws and policies. Of course, the reality is very different.
In some cases, the rules are clear and the decisions are simple. In other areas, there is room for maneuver.Often, program proponents hire consultants, ostensibly to conduct of‘independent assessments, but in practice they are there to justify development. Economic benefits, usually job creation, were proposed and these were cited as justification for accepting any damage caused by the proposed plan, such as damage to the environment. But there is a vacuum in formal evaluation criteria and guidelines — especially in economic terms – This would have a serious negative impact on the UK community.
The planning system gives consultants a lot of flexibility to interpret of‘Economic Impact Assessment” as they see fit. Consultants can pick and choose which impacts to quantify (positive or negative) and which ones can be mentioned in passing or not at all. the boundaries of their clients, and the baselines for measuring the impact of a proposed program can be adjusted to suit the program’s circumstances.
in NEF we recorded There are many such pitfalls when assessing the climate impact of airport expansion applications, but I came across another painful example through my recent involvement in the planning case for the Luton Airport expansion.In Luton, the airport presented a witness – a of‘A senior executive from a major UK consultancy – presenting their economic assessment. I testified as a community group opposing the airport expansion.
During cross-examination, the barrister representing the community around the airport asked, of“Did you identify a single negative impact of the proposal in your assessment? “
Economic witnesses at the airport responded, of“Do not. “
The idea that expanding the airport will not negatively impact the economy is patently nonsense. During cross-examination, financial witnesses at the airport were questioned by local community barristers on three counts. First, there is a failure to analyze the economic cost of additional greenhouse gas emissions that must be captured from the atmosphere using expensive, unproven emission removal technologies. Second, the impact of additional noise and air pollution on business and NHS costs is ignored. Third, the loss of domestic tourism and the high street is eliminated as consumers choose to fly abroad.
“The idea that expanding an airport will have no negative economic consequences is patently nonsense. “
The analytical standards put forward by economic consultancies to support planning applications are often second-rate. In many cases MPs, council officers and planning inspectors are able to spot problems with economic assessments and demand better ones.But through flamboyant display, confident expression, and knowledgeable of‘The game for many private sector consultants has not always been easy.
Local authority officials work in environments of extreme resource and capacity scarcity and are often tasked with reviewing applications on subjects outside their area of expertise. Where resources permit, local authorities can contract for external support, but neither the authority nor its advisers are immune to the same problems of bias and evaluation criteria that affect private sector promoters.
Usually, real scrutiny is only provided by the local community. Activists are perceptive and can often spot flaws in assessments, but challenging power takes a lot of time, energy and money. In many cases, local communities simply do not have the resources.
All in all, the planning system represents a ship full of holes. Luton itself is a good example. Back in 2012, the airport had an expansion application approved.The application acts as of‘Central’ estimates the airport will add 5,100 jobs after reaching a capacity of 18 million passengers per year. When that capacity is reached, the real figure is 2,650 jobs, half of what was promised.
Research shows that failures like this are common.a recent paper Flyvbjerg and Best An Oxford University study showed that, from a dataset of 2,062 projects, assessments consistently overestimated benefits and underestimated costs.With such failure-spreading interventions, such as airport expansions, which lead to abnormal damage When it comes to our global climate, we urgently need change.delete of‘One-handed economics from public decision-making would not be straightforward, but Flyvbjerg and Bester’s proposal is that economic forecasters should be subject to independent audits and should have Some Putting the blame on their forecasts that proved wildly inaccurate seems like a good start.
Image: iStock/Neon JellyFish
