> Infrastructure that can't be maintained because its costs were never accounted for. I like that you used the phrase "accounted for". It implies in my mind th

> Infrastructure that can't be maintained because its costs were never accounted for. I like that you used the phrase "accounted for". It implies in my mind that the politicians doling out the cash did not monitor how that cash was used. In management-speak, it's the classic phrase "delegation without follow-up to abdictation" I initially thought about it in terms of accountability "the lower levels should have wrote down their expenses, their decisions, and sent it upward for review" but then I thought "why would most people do that if the people at top aren't mandating the record-keeping, let alone looking at it?" The higher levels didn't attach real strings to the funds and only kept abreast of developments by looking at the end results. Which were positive and attractive, but camouflaged very real deficiencies in the system that produced it. It's plain irresponsibility.