United States Postal Service Office of Inspector General

7. Conclusion Postal oversight ensures the efficiency and integrity of postal programs, which may be accomplished with complementary postal watchdogs; however, it is best to avoid redundancies in oversight functions unless there is a compelling reason. Intended redundancies in oversight roles allow for checks and balances in the process. In countries with few oversight organizations, it is important to assure that there is adequate coverage of oversight functions. When designing comprehensive oversight programs, governments would want as many strengths contained in the oversight process as possible, exploiting the positive and mitigating the possible negative aspects of oversight. To be effective at facilitating continuous improvement via oversight, postal watchdogs need to be mindful of their role in the oversight process, demonstrate their value to the postal operator, and have mechanisms in place to improve the quality of their own programs. Traditional oversight of government-owned postal monopolies is valuable. Anticipating competition in postal markets, governments may have prematurely moved toward a private sector model. We recommend that postal organizations reconsider and adopt some of the traditional best practices of postal watchdogs. In this way, governments can improve the affordability and quality of postal services, a goal everyone, especially economists, can embrace.