New Ministry of Infrastructure in Peru: Solution or just more bureaucracy?

The recent announcement by the Executive Power regarding the creation of a new Ministry of Infrastructure has sparked a broad debate in Peruvian society. The proposal, which aims to centralize the management of infrastructure projects in a "mega-ministry," promises to improve the planning and execution of public works, an area that has historically been problematic in the country. However, despite the good intentions that seem to underlie this initiative, serious questions arise about its viability in a context of institutional weakness and a decentralization process that has left much to be desired. The main objective of this new ministry is undoubtedly ambitious: to improve the management of public infrastructure at the national level. In a state where public management is one of the main problems faced, the fact that there is an attempt to address these issues through a specialized entity could be seen as a step in the right direction. The proposed powers include comprehensive planning, improvement of public services, reduction of infrastructure gaps, and coordination among various levels of government. From a conceptual standpoint, these are measures that could contribute to better management and efficiency. Nevertheless, international experience suggests that the creation of ministries of this kind does not always guarantee success. In Peru, the history of state bureaucracy is filled with examples of ambitious initiatives that turned into rigid and ineffective structures. One of the most recurrent fears is that this new ministry will become an employment agency for relatives and acquaintances of politicians, rather than a specialized entity that truly drives infrastructure management. To prevent this from happening, it will be essential to establish clear meritocratic mechanisms in the personnel selection process. Moreover, the creation of the Ministry of Infrastructure will not magically solve the existing problems in project management. The reality is that the country faces enormous infrastructure gaps that require urgent attention. In the education sector, for example, less than 30% of public schools have the necessary basic services. In health, more than 90% of facilities lack adequate capacities. The lingering question is whether a new ministry will really be able to change this critical situation. The numbers speak for themselves. At the national level, resource execution in the main sectors has been discouraging. The national government has executed only 45% of its budget, and in municipalities, the figure is equally concerning. Inefficiency in management is evidenced by the existence of more than 24,000 projects that have not received any disbursement, reflecting a deep-seated problem in the planning and execution of public works. The situation is even more alarming when considering that nearly 42% of projects are budgeted but have no progress. This lack of progress translates into inefficiency and a loss of resources that could be used to close existing gaps in key sectors. The repetition of this cycle of allocating resources to new projects while others remain stalled speaks to a deficient planning process that has been the norm rather than the exception. Over the last ten years, of the approximately 150,000 projects that have been executed, only 10% have been completed. This figure is revealing and highlights the gravity of the problem. The creation of a new ministry could be an attempt to address these challenges, but it will not be sufficient unless deep reforms are implemented to transform the way projects are planned and executed. Ultimately, the proposal for a Ministry of Infrastructure could represent an opportunity to improve public management in the country. However, it is crucial that the necessary foundations are established for this new entity to function effectively. The fight against inefficiency, corruption, and lack of planning must go beyond a mere structural change; it requires serious commitment and the political will to do things differently. Finally, the future of the new Ministry of Infrastructure will depend on the government's ability to implement concrete measures that ensure its optimal functioning. Only then can it be guaranteed that this initiative does not become a new example of what could have been, but rather a real transformation of public infrastructure management in Peru. With a focus on accountability and transparency, it will be vital for civil society and political actors to work together to ensure that good intentions do not remain just on paper.