Strongly disagree. The political *must* be part of national projects if they are to succeed. We've seen plenty of technocratic projects see failure at the hands of the political. https://twitter.com/cyalm/status/1248707144762916865

I think there are two separate questions that people are putting forward: 1) whether projects should have political branding at all? and 2) whether subsequent govts have a right to change names once they are elected. I think it's useful to separate the two...

on 1: without political branding, politicians have limited opportunity to claim electoral credit for efforts that yield broad-based benefits. In the absence of these opportunities, you are perpetuating patronage politics not removing it.

Besides, political capital is basically free for development projects.. why not use this additional resource to make sure your programs are implemented effectively? (see some of my work on this here: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055416000502)

on 2: this is trickier. I have to think more on what the answer is. But the fact that subsequent govts feel compelled to change names suggests to me that 1) works really well. This creates incentives for subsequent govts to create their own programs, which is great for citizens.

In sum: sidelining politics only works on paper. Politics will operate off the books if you don't create space for it on the books. Why not use it in program design?