Major construction projects should be handled by central government

Dear Editor,

I  believe  that having  local  government  engage in big construction projects ($10 million plus) is not Pareto Efficient.

Local government  should  leave  big  projects, such  as building  bridges and the like to the central government  because  it  takes  away  monies  that  could  be  deployed more  efficiently, and subject to  rigorous  oversight  by bipartisan  commissions. Besides, the central government enjoys better economies of scale for starters. For these reasons, local governments should be funded (70%) for the likes of safety and beautification of public spaces, including parks and buildings. Moreover, it is time citizens get a very robust and reliable garbage collection service. It should be noted the 70% funding should be determined by population size, for starters.

The remaining 30% of funding will have to come exclusively  from the  local  government  itself,  i.e. local leadership in partnership  with  businesses  and citizens will have  to engage in  business  activities to  generate  tax revenues, including creating incentives  to  encourage  new  businesses  to relocate to  the  Region . For  this reason, the development  of  local  talent  and  innovations  would  be crucial  to the  success  of  the  respective  Region. For some Regions, tourism would be a natural focus, for others Agro processing, and so on.

If the  Pareto Inefficiencies  continues,  it  is because politicians endorse slush funds in the guise of funding for so called  large  scale local government  projects with  the understanding  of buying  votes.

Let  local  governments  and  the  citizens  participate in improving  their  own  lives  with  pride  and  freedom  from party gerrymandering.

Yours faithfully,

Keith Bernard

Around the Web