Planning of National Transport Infrastructure
In the Islamic Countries
15
has then been replaced by maximizing accessibility as the overarching driver of transport policy
(Litman and Burwell, 2006).
2.3. Institutional and Organizational Factors
2.3.1. Introduction
Governance is a learning process that feeds on the lessons learned within a policy framework
(Dolowitz and Marsh, 2000) and that public sector reform is a major driver of policy in
developing countries and those in transition. Market liberalization, privatization and
decentralization each characterizes the reform process. Reform is therefore at different levels
in different countries, where transport planning is highly centralized in less developed countries
whilst in most developed countries it is devolved.
Another feature of the institutional response to transport planning is whether the plans may be
said to be horizontally or vertically driven, this being argued by Gloersen and Michelet (2014)
for the case of land use planning. Horizontal planning is driven thematically, such as “promoting
inclusivity through improving accessibility” and vertical planning is typically driven by
increasing mobility through “increasing the coverage and performance of the road network”. An
example of horizontal planning is to ‘reduce poverty’ and ‘increase inclusivity’. This is then
applied by all the modes of transport in various ways, all with the same objective of reducing the
poverty head count ratio and increasing access and choice of transport to households,
importantly both of these are measurable. Again, thematically driven planning is more likely to
be developed locally through integrated land use and planning entities while vertically driven
planning is driven by central government through its various ministries and departments. An
example of vertically driven planning is to improve the road network by x kmper year or expand
airport capacity. Typically, vertical planning is output driven such as km of roads of length of
runways, and not outcome driven such passenger and ton km or number of long haul aircraft
taking off and landing at airports.
At a more practical level, horizontally driven planning is less likely to lead to duplication and
overlap (Stead, 2008) as may be the case in transport, environment and health. It should be self-
evident that it is better for ministries to work together rather than compete – and yet inter-
ministerial cooperation is hardly the norm. Ministries of transport are not the only government
administration that plans transport. Lands and Housing also seriously consider transport in
spatial planning and Local Government clearly covers the delivery of local roads and public
transport. In freight transport and logistics a more horizontal approach is also needed for supply
chain management (Mason et al., 2007).
Extremely well-formed boundaries between different ministries are in evidence in most
developing and also developed countries. Single purpose ministries do not work so well in a
multi-purpose world of mixed policy objectives. The continued reinvention of ministry
portfolios evidences this realization. Examples may include trade and investment, water, energy
and natural resources, environment and tourism and, of course, transport post and
telecommunications. Transport has also been paired with works, energy, petroleum and
infrastructure in various countries. The effectiveness of restructuring of reformed government
agencies shows that there are also strong socio-cultural reasons that drive collaborative effort,
as well as thematic (Christensen and Lægreid, 2006). These may include having common