4 ms·

The underlying factor really is that the people in charge of spending infrastructure money are not really incentivized to be careful or ask tough questions abou

The underlying factor really is that the people in charge of spending infrastructure money are not really incentivized to be careful or ask tough questions about how it is being spent. Furthermore, they are often bound by piles of regulations and restrictions on their freedom for contracting the work, so they also lack agency.

IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
Yeah, that's just the old and cynical "everyone-is-corrupt" talking-point. It fails rather obviously because (a) the article is comparing costs across countries, and other countries haven't found some magic system to increase accountability of politicians and beaurocrats that goes beyond not re-electing them. And, (b), there are plenty of incentives for decision-makers to keep costs down. Don't you think the governor or Mayor of New York would crow endlessly if they managed to build subway <x> or tunnel <y> for a fraction of the usual costs? Have you noticed how California's high-speed rail project and its cost overruns have been terrible for three governors in a row?
- liability 7y ago
  Whether anybody is practicing witchcraft or any other form of magic is beyond the point; it should be obvious to anybody who's not totally naive that some countries have more corruption than others.
- someguydave 7y ago
  >would crow endlessly Sure, so why doesn't this happen more often? The simplest explanation is that elected politician's influence is small compared to the collective bureaucracy's power to do what it was going to do anyway. And yes, everyone who is handed a pile of third-party cash to spend on other people does not usually have very good incentives to make the most efficient choices, and doubly so when their personal agency is further restricted by a mass of regulation.
peterwwillis 7y ago
> the people in charge of spending infrastructure money are not really incentivized to be careful The citizens are the only ones who would have such incentives. They're paying for it & they're using it. They aren't supposed to be piggy banks to jiggle to pay for things, they should also be involved in what gets paid for and how. Expecting a bureaucracy to be efficient is like expecting a monopoly to be fair, so the citizenry needs to be more engaged.

IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago

Yeah, that's just the old and cynical "everyone-is-corrupt" talking-point. It fails rather obviously because (a) the article is comparing costs across countries, and other countries haven't found some magic system to increase accountability of politicians and beaurocrats that goes beyond not re-electing them. And, (b), there are plenty of incentives for decision-makers to keep costs down. Don't you think the governor or Mayor of New York would crow endlessly if they managed to build subway <x> or tunnel <y> for a fraction of the usual costs? Have you noticed how California's high-speed rail project and its cost overruns have been terrible for three governors in a row?

liability 7y ago
Whether anybody is practicing witchcraft or any other form of magic is beyond the point; it should be obvious to anybody who's not totally naive that some countries have more corruption than others.
someguydave 7y ago
>would crow endlessly Sure, so why doesn't this happen more often? The simplest explanation is that elected politician's influence is small compared to the collective bureaucracy's power to do what it was going to do anyway. And yes, everyone who is handed a pile of third-party cash to spend on other people does not usually have very good incentives to make the most efficient choices, and doubly so when their personal agency is further restricted by a mass of regulation.

peterwwillis 7y ago

> the people in charge of spending infrastructure money are not really incentivized to be careful The citizens are the only ones who would have such incentives. They're paying for it & they're using it. They aren't supposed to be piggy banks to jiggle to pay for things, they should also be involved in what gets paid for and how. Expecting a bureaucracy to be efficient is like expecting a monopoly to be fair, so the citizenry needs to be more engaged.