The funding of public road projects is based on the classification of roads into National, Prefectural (i.e., Regional, following the integration of Prefectures/Nομαρχίες into Regions/Περιφέρειες in 2010), and Municipal. Projects on the first category are undertaken by the technical services of the Ministry of Infrastructure, on the second by the corresponding services of the Regions, and on the third by the corresponding services of the Municipalities. Annual funding from the Public Investment Program is allocated to Regions and Municipalities according to established criteria, such as population, number of buildings, length of the road network and, in addition, for emergency events. These allocations are made as a lump-sum, which are subsequently distributed by the corresponding collective bodies of local government. These bodies determine the specific technical projects to be funded, prepare the necessary technical and economic studies, tender the projects and supervise their implementation. The question that arises is: by what criteria are these allocations made, or, in the event that there are no legislated criteria, what informal system of weighing factors —similar to those used by central government in making allocations— is applied in determining final project selections and funding amounts? Unfortunately, no transparent system of coefficients leading to fair and stable funding criteria for each area (Περιφερειακή Ενότητα, Δήμος ή Δημοτική Κοινότητα) has ever been established.

There is no dispute that members of municipal and regional governing bodies have been elected by the public and therefore possess democratic legitimacy. However, this mandate is general in nature and does not define the framework within which each elected official should vote on individual funding decisions. The population density of individual areas within each Region and Municipality is a decisive factor in electing their representatives to collective bodies, resulting in urban areas being overrepresented at the expense of rural and sparsely populated regions. This imbalance inevitably influences decisions regarding which projects are included in technical programs and therefore receive funding through the Public Investment Program.

Another case of clear injustice is the conversion of earmarked credits for specific projects into unallocated ones and their ultimate redirection.These procedures work as follows: If representatives of certain areas convince the central administration that the general allocation rules determine the funding of a specific project in their region, a specialized decision is issued and forwarded to the relevant local government authority for implementation (project’s inclusion in the annual technical program, followed by the preparation of studies, tendering and construction). If the project fails to proceed for any reason, the allocated funds should normally be carried forward and recorded as income in the following year’s budget and technical program. In many cases, however, the designated funding is effectively… “forgotten”, reappearing as unspecified revenue and ultimately being used for other projects. A characteristic example in Mani is the upgrading of the Milea–Panagia Giatrissa road. Since this road has been classified as a Provincial Road since 1955, the competent ministry was obligated to finance its reconstruction. More than €3 million was allocated to the project beginning in 2013, yet thirteen years later it still has not been completed. Any well-intentioned person wonders: what happened to this funding?

Addressing the injustices created by the unequal distribution of Public Investment Program resources, which disproportionately disadvantages rural areas with small populations, depends largely on the efforts of local elected representatives and local cultural associations. Achieving a fairer balance requires determination, coordinated action, and sustained advocacy. It also requires documenting cases of unequal treatment, bringing them to public attention through today’s diverse media landscape, as well as coordinated representations to Members of Parliament and government ministers.

In particular, in our region, Mani, with its intense tourist development, the gap between private and public investment is becoming increasingly evident. If local representatives limit their activities to routine administrative matters, the region’s long-term development will inevitably suffer, leading to reduced economic opportunities and employment. It is time for everyone who cares about our region to recognize and address this danger.

THE EDITORIAL BOARD