A Review of Institutional Arrangements for Road Asset Management: Lessons for the developing world
This paper presents an analysis of the structures adopted in selected countries for the management and financing of roads (China, Croatia, Brazil, Slovenia, New Zealand, the Slovak Republic and the United Kingdom). These countries have chosen approaches to manage their road networks that are specific to their needs and circumstances. Brazil considered that it was not necessary to have a separate Ministry of Transport and had established a Ministry of Infrastructure responsible for several sectors including transport, housing, energy and mines for a couple of years in the 1990s. However, this led to a loss of focus on each of the sectors and a separate Ministry of Transport was soon reinstated. Nevertheless, there are still a few countries (for example Croatia, Georgia) that have a Ministry of Infrastructure with responsibility for transport among its functions.
This paper reviews main factors affecting the efficiency of road agencies and describes the steps taken in creating a new institution, or transforming an existing one, and assesses the effort required to achieve such results. In all countries reviewed, the ministry responsible for the transport sector remains the authority responsible for the overall transport policy and for putting in place checks and balances for good governance and management of fiscal risk. The main aspects of institutional reforms that can contribute to increase the efficiency of road and transport agencies include: improved institutional structures, separation of the client and supplier functions, separation of client and supplier organizations, privatization of the supplier organizations, establishment of an executive agency or a commercialized (client) organization, user participation through oversight boards, improving management information systems, and seeking additional sources of financing.
