EAP - The Pacific Infrastructure Challenge - World Bank (2006).pdf

Box 7.2: Coordination has Costs
Effective coordination does contribute to good infrastructure performance, but this
has costs. Coordination involves making trade-offs between multiple objectives,
and balancing the strategies and priorities of multiple stakeholders. This takes
time, effort, and involves compromise. In Pacific countries coordination costs are
not insignificant. It is expensive and time consuming to achieve consensus
between dispersed and disparate tribal groups. Competing or contradictory donor
conditions make it more difficult to plan for the ‘big picture’.
The following techniques can help to reduce coordination costs:
Rules, programs and schedules can reduce planning time and help to ensure
that all stakeholders understand how their role fits in with the overall strategy
Delegate certain tasks or decisions to temporary sub-committees or task forces
made up of people from multiple departments or interest groups
Outsource complex or specialist tasks and analysis to experts
Create ‘liaison roles’ – people who are charged with bridging the gaps between
departments, Ministries or projects
Make use of the internet and computer systems to share information.
Source: Castalia
7.1.3 Lack of Good Governance and Accountability
Figure 6.1 illustrates the concept of accountability in infrastructure provision. The
arrows indicate the direction of accountability:
Infrastructure service providers are accountable to governments and/or
consumers
In a competitive environment, consumers can hold the service provider
accountable for poor service by choosing another competing provider
Where there is a monopoly provider, consumers have no way to hold it
directly accountable by withdrawing their custom. If the monopoly is
privately owned there should be a regulatory mechanism where the
provider is required to account publicly for poor service. If the monopoly
is owned by the government, accountability is invariably weakest as it
depends on the willingness of the official or political representatives to
deal with the problems of poor service in a transparent manner
Governments often seek to control the service provider to deliver services
consumers want through owning the assets and overseeing service
provision, specifying service standards or tariff structures in a delegated
management contract, or through regulating privately operated providers.
These are weak forms of accountability unless there is a considerable arms
length relationship with the service provider and the true costs of
providing service with or without subsidy are transparent.
39