Errors in Project Approval and Mandatory Review

D. Prady, F. Schuett

Research output: Working paperDiscussion paperOther research output

Abstract

We compare two processes for society to review projects: one that is entirely based upon the initiative of interested parties, and one that first submits projects to a nonpartisan and mandatory review. In the first case, the default outcome is approval and projects are carried out without prior authorization. In the second case, the mandatory review results in either approval or rejection of submitted projects. In either case, private parties can contest the outcome and initiate a definitive review. Since the second review overrules the first one, the mandatory review may seem redundant. However, the mandatory review can improve the decision of private parties to initiate a definitive review. Thanks to private parties' improved decision making, mandatory review can lead to a reduction of both type I and type II errors.
Original languageEnglish
Place of PublicationTilburg
PublisherTILEC
Number of pages24
Volume2010-034
Publication statusPublished - 2010

Publication series

NameTILEC Discussion Paper
Volume2010-034

Fingerprint

authorization
decision making
Society

Keywords

  • project review
  • private initiative
  • type I and type II errors

Cite this

Prady, D., & Schuett, F. (2010). Errors in Project Approval and Mandatory Review. (TILEC Discussion Paper; Vol. 2010-034). Tilburg: TILEC.
Prady, D. ; Schuett, F. / Errors in Project Approval and Mandatory Review. Tilburg : TILEC, 2010. (TILEC Discussion Paper).
@techreport{c7d66822027f46019c27e648cad11fd9,
title = "Errors in Project Approval and Mandatory Review",
abstract = "We compare two processes for society to review projects: one that is entirely based upon the initiative of interested parties, and one that first submits projects to a nonpartisan and mandatory review. In the first case, the default outcome is approval and projects are carried out without prior authorization. In the second case, the mandatory review results in either approval or rejection of submitted projects. In either case, private parties can contest the outcome and initiate a definitive review. Since the second review overrules the first one, the mandatory review may seem redundant. However, the mandatory review can improve the decision of private parties to initiate a definitive review. Thanks to private parties' improved decision making, mandatory review can lead to a reduction of both type I and type II errors.",
keywords = "project review, private initiative, type I and type II errors",
author = "D. Prady and F. Schuett",
note = "Pagination: 24",
year = "2010",
language = "English",
volume = "2010-034",
series = "TILEC Discussion Paper",
publisher = "TILEC",
type = "WorkingPaper",
institution = "TILEC",

}

Prady, D & Schuett, F 2010 'Errors in Project Approval and Mandatory Review' TILEC Discussion Paper, vol. 2010-034, TILEC, Tilburg.

Errors in Project Approval and Mandatory Review. / Prady, D.; Schuett, F.

Tilburg : TILEC, 2010. (TILEC Discussion Paper; Vol. 2010-034).

Research output: Working paperDiscussion paperOther research output

TY - UNPB

T1 - Errors in Project Approval and Mandatory Review

AU - Prady, D.

AU - Schuett, F.

N1 - Pagination: 24

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - We compare two processes for society to review projects: one that is entirely based upon the initiative of interested parties, and one that first submits projects to a nonpartisan and mandatory review. In the first case, the default outcome is approval and projects are carried out without prior authorization. In the second case, the mandatory review results in either approval or rejection of submitted projects. In either case, private parties can contest the outcome and initiate a definitive review. Since the second review overrules the first one, the mandatory review may seem redundant. However, the mandatory review can improve the decision of private parties to initiate a definitive review. Thanks to private parties' improved decision making, mandatory review can lead to a reduction of both type I and type II errors.

AB - We compare two processes for society to review projects: one that is entirely based upon the initiative of interested parties, and one that first submits projects to a nonpartisan and mandatory review. In the first case, the default outcome is approval and projects are carried out without prior authorization. In the second case, the mandatory review results in either approval or rejection of submitted projects. In either case, private parties can contest the outcome and initiate a definitive review. Since the second review overrules the first one, the mandatory review may seem redundant. However, the mandatory review can improve the decision of private parties to initiate a definitive review. Thanks to private parties' improved decision making, mandatory review can lead to a reduction of both type I and type II errors.

KW - project review

KW - private initiative

KW - type I and type II errors

M3 - Discussion paper

VL - 2010-034

T3 - TILEC Discussion Paper

BT - Errors in Project Approval and Mandatory Review

PB - TILEC

CY - Tilburg

ER -

Prady D, Schuett F. Errors in Project Approval and Mandatory Review. Tilburg: TILEC. 2010. (TILEC Discussion Paper).