application should be based primarily on covering key institutions and services, and based on desired accuracy and available resources. It might be appropriate to focus on the two to three largest subnational governments (to the extent that they are involved in infrastructure service delivery), and the three largest operators for highly decentralized services (as is common for water).

The institutional mapping should be done using templates 1 and 2. Both templates are collected at the national level.

# **Jurisdictional responsibilities in infrastructure service delivery (template 1)**

Template 1 lists all the entities that provide, fund, or regulate infrastructure services. These are organized by their main fund source (off-budget or on-budget), jurisdiction (national, subnational), and function vis-à-vis infrastructure service provision (formulation of policy, regulation, construction, maintenance, and operation). The list should include operators—SOEs, private-public operators, and governmental agencies—as well as subnational bodies with responsibility for delivering infrastructure services. A correctly filled template will make it easy to see the fragmentation and possible overlap and duplication of responsibilities across SOEs, central government (CG), local government (LG), and the agencies and departments within them.

The template should be filled with the names of the institutions responsible for a given infrastructure activity and should specify whether the institution is on- or off-budget (Box 1.1).

# **Box 1.1 On-budget versus off-budget entities**

On-budget entities are those whose spending patterns and allocations follow the regular budget processes of planning, programming, allocation, approval, monitoring, and auditing (when applicable). Generally, their financing comes predominantly from taxes or revenues recorded in the public budget. These agencies are under the authority of central, federal, and/or local governments. Examples of on-budget agencies are the national directorates or departments within line ministries.

Off-budget entities make their spending decisions following their own planning processes, even if fully or partially funded through a governmental budget transfer. Off-budget entities commonly have their own financing sources. Traditional funding sources for off-budget vehicles are user charges, tariffs, levies, special revenues of state corporations, donor grants, and so on. State-owned enterprises and operators with public-private capital are examples of entities within this category. So are the so-called special budgetary funds that get most of their resources from user levies and fees. Off-budget vehicles are critical for infrastructure services delivery but tend to be overlooked when spending is being tracked. But their spending patterns and operational (in)efficiencies might have fiscal implications (that is, contingent liabilities and quasi-fiscal costs), mainly due to the central government‘s role as their main (or even sole) stakeholder and lender of last resort.

_’_ _<u>Source: Auhtors elaboration</u>_ <u>.</u> In cases where policy responsibilities are shared or ambiguously allocated among institutions, all relevant institutions should be listed. A case in point is the road subsector, where responsibilities are frequently allocated across two or more ministries, subnational governments, and off-budget vehicles (for example, road funds and agencies). Similarly, responsibilities in the water sector are spread among many players, jurisdictions, and on- and off-budget vehicles. In both cases, spending on construction, maintenance, and/or the operation of assets is spread across many stakeholders and is difficult to track. Meanwhile, policy and regulatory oversight is frequently delegated to only one institution.

15