One of the underlying problems of why funds are misallocated is that governments, and, sometimes even the private sector, have sought to develop, ‘big’, ‘iconic,’ ‘landmark’ or ‘signature’ projects. These projects are characterised by their large physical size (buildings), extent (e.g. events like Olympic or Commonwealth games), costs, and alleged ‘iconic,’ prestige and symbolic value. Such projects are often linked to the use of technology in their construction, appearance or operations, that too often becomes an end in itself (Scott 1992). The issue, concluded Flyvbjerg (2003: 6) is that ‘more and more megaprojects are built despite the poor performance record of many projects’. There is a long record of these project management failures (see Hall 1968 for some earlier examples).

The most notable example of an ‘iconic’ project is the $400 million Guggenheim Art Gallery in Bilbao in northern Spain. Its aim was to help revive a depressed area by being an ‘attraction’ in its own right because of its size and stunning building design rather than because of the quality of the art gallery it was built ostensibly to house. Form dominated function. Although its wider regional economic benefits have been less than expected (tourists fly in and fly out rather than stay), many have sought to emulate the ‘Bilbao’ effect with each new construction more expensive than the one before, but often having only limited success. In Australia the Geelong City Council tried vainly to attract the Guggenheim to duplicate the Bilbao project, while in 2000 the Queensland Government established a taskforce to examine the possibility of developing a ‘Landmark Building’ in Brisbane. One architect described this obsession with ‘big’ projects by governments as ‘monumental madness’ (Hall 2001).

Enthusiasm for ‘big’ iconic projects also pervades the event attraction industry with nations, states and regions often competing for major events like the Olympic or Commonwealth games, and Formula One car racing to surf life saving carnivals. However, the stated economic benefits of events have often been contested.

At a regional level this is most explicitly seen in tourism based projects that ostensibly act as destination attractions to boost economic growth (e.g. South Australian Wine Centre, Queensland’s Stockman’s Hall of Fame), have been built.

The problem with many of these ‘big’ or ‘iconic’ projects is that they are frequently undertaken more for reasons of prestige (personal, governmental, organisational) than for reasons of function. Broad, ill defined ‘public’ benefits are usually stressed in relation to these projects rather than any quantifiable economic positives. Recent comments by the organisers of the 2006 Melbourne Commonwealth Games in the light of its less than expected economic impacts (Australian Broadcasting Corporation 2006b) highlights this sort of justification. The emphasis was on the ‘profile’ the Commonwealth Games gave to Victoria and, Australia, than its tangible economic benefits. Similar justifications have been offered for numerous projects across Australia ranging from Queensland’s Suncorp Football Stadium (a world class sporting facility), and the Adelaide-Alice Springs train-link (a symbolic linking across Australia, see Brockman 2005). Even scientific projects like the synchrotron project that Victoria snatched (thankfully) from Queensland in 2000 (Baker 2003) have stressed the broader scientific capacities of such a facility than its direct economic benefits.