The meat freezing industry in New Zealand is a licensed industry. Under the Meat Amendment Act 1976, anybody proposing the erection of new killing facilities is required to prove its viability from the nation’s view point. The main object of this thesis is to suggest an approach (cost-benefit analysis) by which such a national evaluation can be achieved in a convenient and comprehensive fashion. This study of the application of cost-benefit analysis to the meat freezing works is a first attempt of its kind and shows how the technique can assist decision makers in this field. The study consists of thirteen chapters and is divided into two parts. In Part One, which comprises six chapters, the general principles of cost-benefit analysis are discussed and the basic steps involved in evaluating projects with this technique are reviewed as: enumeration and valuation of costs and benefits, selection of the investment criterion and social rate of discount, problems of risk and uncertainty, and finally the question of equity. It is concluded that the technique is a useful instrument in the hands of a decision maker in spite of its numerous limitations. Part Two is concerned with a case study of a proposed freezing works in Hawkes Bay. In the first two chapters, the background information and a summary of the commercial feasibility study of the project are given. In Chapter 9 national objectives are reviewed and in the light of this the different sectors of the economy affected by the proposal are identified. An assessment of the kill available to the new works is made in Chapter 10, where data limitations were experienced and a lot of informed judgement has been used. In Chapter 11 costs and benefits are quantified and they also presented many difficulties, particularly those relating to the farm sector and the transport industry. Finally the project is evaluated at market prices as well as at shadow prices (Chapter 12), and a brief sensitivity analysis is carried out. The results of the analysis suggest that the project is highly beneficial to the nation and its social net returns are considerably higher than that of private net returns. The study however does not pretend to offer an unequivocal solution. The analysis is open to criticism and it is hoped that its limitations will stimulate others to take up research where this study leaves off.