Transparency and accountability in infrastructure stimulus spending: A comparison of Canadian, Australian and U.S. programs

Abstract

In response to the global financial crisis that began in late 2007, many countries took on significant levels of deficit financing in order to increase spending on public works and infrastructure. This rapid infusion of public funding has raised concerns about the accountability and transparency of stimulus measures, including how best to monitor and evaluate the allocation and impact of the funds and report back to citizens. While there is growing research on the macro‐economic impacts of stimulus spending, very little comparative work has been done on the approaches of different countries to the governance of infrastructure stimulus spending programs. This article focuses on the latter by identifying and explaining the different practices in Canada, Australia and the United States in order to highlight implications for future stimulus‐led investment.

Governance in the Age of Digital Media and Branding

“…The Conservative administration's master brand crystalized after the 2008–2009 global recession in a stimulus spending program that was publicized in a more coordinated fashion than in Australia or the United States (Stoney and Krawchenko ). The 2009 federal budget was branded as “Canada's Economic Action Plan.” For the rest of the Harper era, even after stimulus spending was replaced by austerity measures, all manner of government communications were bundled together under the Economic Action Plan (EAP) label.…”

Investigating the Impact of Governmental Governance on Megaproject Performance: Evidence From China

“…Regulatory oversight of megaprojects has been widely discussed by prior studies. Stoney and Krawchenko (2012) pointed out that adequate supervision for megaprojects by government is crucial. A.…”

“…The government must retain regulatory oversight as an essential function, looking for approaches to improve quality of megaprojects and establish clear regulatory policy objectives. Oversight mechanism would be much more effective if governments adopt powerful and legitimate mechanism (Stoney & Krawchenko, 2012). There are local authorities with regulatory powers and legal departments of legislative branches in charge of producing regulations and supervising implementation of megaprojects in China.…”

Infrastructure Planning: in a State of Panic?

“…But also, the short political cycles and political opportunism that has come to define Australian and Canadian political culture has also gone some way in embroiling infrastructure into a very political landscape manifesting as pork barrelling and ill-conceived prioritisation of projects purported to be lacking proper third party evaluation and assessment (Terrill, 2016;Iggulden, 2016;Alizadeh, 2015;Curry et al, 2015;Stoney et al, 2012).…”

“…For cities in countries such as Canada, Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom suffering from declining federal and state investment including social infrastructure (social and affordable housing) and public infrastructure (public transport), the injection offered access to public funding to support the construction of these two critical forms of urban infrastructure (Milligan and Pinnegar 2010;Stilwell and Primrose 2010;Dethier et al, 2012;Addie, 2013). Yet, the volume of infrastructure built or maintained and the speed at which it was delivered in this period was prefaced upon a direct economic logic purporting that infrastructure construction and maintenance creates jobs allowing cities, regions and nations to avoid recession, while other social and environmental goals, including the creation of more modern, greener and socially just infrastructure remained of secondary concern (Stilwell et al, 2010;Stoney et al, 2012). While this period of investment was exceptional and the swiftness of the delivery of social housing and transport was also exceptional, it was made possible by an urgency politics that not only created the conditions to support expediency but helped to further entrench the fracture between strategic policy and infrastructure planning.…”