1. Chapter 9 of the “technology economics” public interest project evaluates social organizations as being in two broad categories, namely, profit-making enterprises and non-profit organizations. Non-profit organizations are non-profit, primarily for profit, including educational research, cultural and artistic, health care, religion, charitable welfare and social public services such as public transport, water and electricity, railways, post and telecommunications. Projects built by non-profit organizations are generally referred to as projects of public interest, which require special study because of the differences in the operational purpose of public interest projects and competing projects built by profitable enterprises. This chapter requires (1) familiarity with the concept of public interest project evaluation and its distinction from financial evaluation; (2) mastery of benefit cost analysis; (3) understanding of impact cost analysis; and (4) understanding of utility cost analysis. Focus of this chapter (1) on cost-benefit analysis of stand-alone programmes (2) on benefit-benefits of peer-to-peer programmes
The basic principles and steps of analysis (3) impact cost analysis are assigned to this chapter: (1) impact cost analysis (2) utility cost analysis. 1 the evaluation of a public good project outlines the first concept of a public good project evaluation, aimed at continuously improving the investment climate, optimizing the industrial structure and achieving sustained macroeconomic growth, using analytical methods such as cost-effectiveness from a taxpayer's perspective, to examine whether the benefits of a public good project to the public at large outweigh the cost of project inputs and to provide a basis for favourable decision-making on the selection of a public good project. Ii. Distinction between evaluation of public goods projects and financial evaluation. Projects of a different nature for government and not-for-profit organizations are designed to protect the lives and property of the state and its people, provide satisfactory and accessible services to the public and to enterprises, which are sometimes provided free of charge and sometimes paid only at quasi-cost or cost, and provide a major source of economic resources for government and non-profit organizations to build and sustain public goods
3 is the fiscal revenue, i. E. The tax paid by the taxpayer. In such cases, it is not possible to use profit-maximizing indicators to evaluate the feasibility and reasonableness of the proposed project. 2. When the financial evaluation indicators are calculated in different ways, cash inflows and outflows are targeted at an investment entity. In the calculation of the public interest project evaluation indicator b/c, the benefits are primarily the benefits enjoyed by the public at large, and the costs are mainly the investment in the project. 3 the use of monetized, single profitability indicators is sufficient when the number of evaluation indicators differs for the financial evaluation of competitive projects. However, public goods projects have almost all had many intangible effects, such as income distribution, balanced regional development, employment, education, health, ecological balance, social stability, national security, etc. Because of the absence of corresponding markets and prices, intangible effects are often difficult to value in monetary terms, and alternative ways must be found to evaluate the intangible effects of projects
4. 4. The relationships between the various profitability indicators are coordinated when financial evaluations of competitive projects are carried out to varying degrees of ease between evaluation indicators, although there are also inconsistencies among various stakeholders, but coordination is easier and often does not affect the larger picture. However, different citizens tend to focus on multiple indicators of public interest projects, which can lead to a marked conflict between indicators and a greater difficulty of coordination, thus increasing the complexity of project selection. The social benefits of the new project are: b = u p-u f + i. The measurement of the main cost of the investment includes the following:
Five, two parts: (1) investment costs. C p indicates that the residual value of the facility currently in use is expressed at the equivalent annual investment cost of the proposed public good project, while the investment cost of the new project is c = cf-c0. P(2) operating cost. Mf indicates future annual operating costs for a public good project, m p indicates annual operating costs for a facility currently in use, while operating costs for a new project are m = mf - m0. Pii. Indicator 1. Cost-benefit analysis: net benefits b - c 1 = b - c - m evaluation criteria: b - c0, indicating that society gains more than loses and the project is acceptable; conversely, unacceptable. B/c=c m(2) b/c
6. Social gains outweigh losses and projects are acceptable; vice versa. [examples]: a new inter-district highway is to be built in a city with a 10 per cent discount rate and a 30-year calculation period, as shown in table 10-1, using the regular method of calculation and the modified method of calculation, respectively, and indicating which method is more reasonable. Table 10-1 programme basic data table unit: new line new lineb new linec public use cost u164001353015990 capital master cost 082008200
7 b/c compared to old line a is: e/c=up-uf (cf-cp) (mf-mp) 16400-13530 = 1. 14 (870-0) (2140-20500). B/c=up-uf (cf-cp) (mf-mp) 16400 - 15990 (870-0) (19680-20500) = 8. 2 new line c/c compared to old line a) is: 7(2) with new line b/c with revised method b/c = 1. 14 (u-uf) (m-m) (16400 - 13530) - (22140 - 20500) 1 cf -c 870-0b/c=(up-uf) - (mf -mp)
8 cf-cp new line c/ the increment compared to the old line a is: (16400 - 15990) - (19680 - 20500) = 1,41870 - 0i. From the above comparison, it can be seen that the revised b/c calculation method is more consistent and therefore more reasonable than the normal calculation method. Iii. Cost-benefit analysis of the stand-alone programme [examples]: to develop water resources for a river while reducing flooding, the government has considered a programme to build a dam system. If the discount rate is 6 per cent, the programme is evaluated on the basis of the underlying data in the table below. Projects are considered for unlimited lifetime. Basic data sheet unit for the dss: annual increase of 8. 5 for irrigation water in the year after the completion of the project 5740
B/c=b/c164. 5-2034. 4. 4=0. 42. 1 is calculated in both ways, and it is clear that the benefits of the dam-building programme are less than costs and should be rejected. [examples]: example 9-4 of p. 177 for educational material; cost-benefit analysis of the cross-crowding programme. Guidelines for net benefits approach: b c0 and max b c programmes are the best. 2. Effects: (1) absolute effect test; (2) first step
10. Programmes retained, in descending order of cost; (3) relative effects test: calculating the incremental cost ratio of the two programmes, i. E., ab/ac (general) = ab/ac (amended) = (b2 - b1) (c2 - c1) (m2 - m1) (b2 - b1) - (m2 - m1) (c2 - c1) if/b/c1 are retained; if b/c1 is retained, retaining the small cost option; until the last retained option is the best option. [examples]: example 9-5 v of p. 178 of the educational material; cost-benefit analysis of programmes with limited funds; cost-benefit analysis of programmes with limited funds. Cost-benefit analysis of related programmes in the two categories above is mainly based on the “cross-over programme portfolio approach”. [examples]: example 9-6 of teaching material p. 179 (this is a cost-benefit analysis of a programme that is both dependent and limited in funding, by
11 the cross-relationship programme portfolio approach” for analysis. 3 impact cost analysis can be used if the benefits of a public good project can be measured against a single indicator for intangible effects. I. Indicators for the calculation of impact cost analysis indicators: generally available as e/c, i. E. E/c = criteria for impact/cost determination: input cost is defined as a fixed cost method with the maximum effect; and the input cost is defined as a fixed effect method. Operational step (1) establishes the desired objectives. The impact cost analysis is to identify the best option to achieve this objective; (two daggers are stated as a requirement for monthly feeding and urbanization: (iii) a system: the zhengchang office case; and (iv) the establishment of metrics for programmes to meet the required requirements. Typical of these are: functionality, efficiency, reliability, safety, maintenance, availability, etc. (5, the manchuria program has achieved: the level of the measure indicator: (6) nazawa also defines the effect method, adds the value
12. M. The north school law scheme: [examples]: an influenza immunization programme will exempt 6 out of every 100,000 inoculations and one will react fatally during vaccination. The plan cost $4 per person for vaccination, but it would have saved $80,000 per 100,000 by not using an influenza ambulance. Does the pilot impact cost analysis determine whether to implement the plan? Solving: the net health-care effect is to avoid six deaths minus one, i. E. Five deaths. The cost is: 4x100,000 - 80000 = 320000 effects/cost = 5 deaths/320,000 = 1 death/64000. Example: 4 new types of hydraulic presses have been newly studied by a research institution, using reliability as the main indicator for evaluating effects, i. E., not released under certain conditions
13. Probability of accidents. The relevant data for the four water presses is shown in the table below, with a budget limit of 2. 4 million yuan, which option should be chosen? Tables of the new water pressurizer base data surface killing ((1-) 12400. 9922400. 9832000. 9842000. 97 were decomposition: the fixed-cost approach should phase out options 2 and 4; the fixed-effect approach could also phase out option 2. The last remaining options 1 and 3 were judged by e/c as iii. E/c programme 1 = 0. 99/240 = 0. 41 = 0. 98/c programme 3 = 0. 98/200 = 0. 49 per 10,000 yen: when evaluating a public-interest project, option 3:4 utility cost analysis (only a brief introduction) is to be selected, a number of indicators are often used to measure the impact of the project comprehensively, both quantitatively and qualitatively. The larger the better among quantitative indicators, the smaller the better. Various units of measurement are added to the quantitative indicators. Use-cost analysis could be used for such issues. I. Indicators for calculation of utility cost analysis indicators: generally available as u/c, i. E. U/c = utility/cost determination criteria: input costs are certain and the most effective is one fixed cost method; basic step 1. Systematic analysis of the project. X x
