Presentation made by Iain Begg, European Institute, London School of Economics and Political Science, at the Symposium on Governance of Infrastructure held at the OECD, Paris, on 29 February 2016

1. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM? MAPPING THE
GAPS IN INFRASTRUCTURE
GOVERNANCE TODAY
Iain BEGG
European Institute
London School of Economics and Political Science

2. MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE
• In planning
– Local level as source of physical objections
• The backyard of the NIMBY is just that
– National level as prime source of financing
• But infrastructure easiest to cut in austere times
– Supranational (in EU) as locus for major networks
• Yet competition for net direct benefits affects choices
• Reconciling competition and cooperation
– Especially around effects on leading service providers
– The significance of standards

3. INFRASTRUCTURE GOVERNANCE CYCLE
…then the tax-
payer and/or
investors
Has to include
the users, not
only planners
Followed by
affected
locals
And the
service
providers

5. YET HOW CAN WE BEST DO SO?
• Obvious institutional answers
• Infrastructure commissions or national regulators
• Strategic land-use planning bodies
• National ( even supranational) development strategies; etc.
– But not enough to change debates decisively
• Emphasise push factors: congestion or ‘creaking’
• Finding new rhetoric on the attractions: pull factors
– Visions no doubt, though around what has to be clearer
– Requires articulation of what is being offered
• Go beyond the technocratic focus of 12 challenges

6. MOLLIFYING VOTERS: THE NUB OF IT?
• Preference for current services
– Can deter longer-term thinking in favour of ‘jam today’
• Limited salience of providing for future generations
• Making a case for disruptive actions
– Manifestly calls for leadership
– Yet undeniable political costs to bear
• Mart Laar’s version of Juncker aphorism…
• Shift narrative: burden-sharing >> benefit-pooling

7. “Difficulty is the excuse history
never accepts”
Ed Murrow

8. IS THERE A PROBLEM? IF SO IN WHAT?
• Overstretched or ill-adapted provision
– Slow but steady deterioration, but short of tipping-point
• Political economy of funding difficulties
– Not accorded budgetary prioritisation
• Choice of discount rate or specification of opportunity cost
– Suspicion of alternative funding models
• Reluctance to countenance new investments
– Inability to generate supportive coalitions
– Environmental and other planning constraints