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 -