| Sumario: | Cost analyses are essential for promoting transparency and enabling data-driven decision-making, ensuring that limited resources are allocated optimally. There are different types of cost analyses, including cost-minimization analysis (Hirst et al. 2016), cost-utility analysis (Dernovsek et al. (2007), cost-economy analysis (Srivastava et al. 2019) and budget-impact analysis (Silva et al. 2017), cost–benefit analysis (CBA), cost–effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost–efficiency analysis. This review focuses on CBA, CEA and cost–efficiency analyses because they are among the most common methods used for assessing costs of a project or program. By providing a detailed understanding of costs versus benefits, cost analyses help policymakers allocate funds efficiently to the most effective programs. By identifying key cost drivers and variations across interventions, they enable the design of programs that optimize resource.
Cost analyses are crucial for:
• resource allocation: cost analyses support informed decision-making for efficient resource distribution, ensuring the highest return on investment (ROI)
• project prioritization: by evaluating the costs and benefits of various projects, teams can prioritize those that deliver the most value
• operational optimization: cost analyses help identify opportunities for improvement, enabling teams to streamline operations, reduce costs and enhance efficiency.
CEA evaluates the cost per unit of effectiveness of a program or intervention. CEA compares the costs of a program or intervention to its effectiveness, measuring resources spent per unit of impact (e.g., causal effect). It provides a comparative metric to rank similar interventions based on their efficiency in achieving the same effect.
CBA compares the monetary costs and benefits of an intervention.
It is a direct comparison of the costs and benefits of a particular intervention where costs and benefits are measured in monetary terms. It can help to determine whether a program is worth the investment and allows for comparison across different interventions, such as those in education and agriculture. However, CBA relies on strong assumptions about the monetary value of various benefits, including long-term and lifetime impacts. Estimating these values can be particularly challenging for intangible or indirect benefits, which may not have clear market prices.
Cost–efficiency analyses compare the costs of a program, or set of activities, to the outputs achieved. Cost–efficiency analyses estimate the ratio of program costs to outputs, allowing comparison of cost-per-output for programs producing the same outcome. This analysis is useful for selecting delivery models, evaluating value-for-money and guiding resource allocation.
|
|---|