Given your earlier comment, I was assuming that this statement was intended as a criticism of such policies.
While the word "inentive" is obviously missing a "c" and it should have read "incentive," I did mean to use the word bound. It is used in the sense of a limit. It might have been clearer if I used the more common plural "bounds" instead. So, let me rephrase that.
Competition ensures that businesses will eventually pay a price for not properly fulfilling the demands of customers. For example, while it might be the case that engineers and designers working for car manufacturers such as Ford make decisions about how to modulate safety, comfort, space, style and more when building new cars, the truth is that they aren't the real boss here. Consummers are the boss. Try as they might, you cannot sell cars, trucks and SUVs to people by force; it has to fit the demands of consummers. As long as those consummers have some kind of outside option, this becomes a very serious problem for Ford: well, you can also buy from General Motors, Honda, Toyota, Kia, etc. So, the fact that they are after profits ends up playing in your favor. They have every motivation on Earth to provide people with something that comes as close as possible as matching all of their demands, possibly even demands they didn't even know they had, and to do it at the best price possible.
Now, none of the above is true of governments. Bureaucratic organizations do not benefit from providing you with exceptional service, nor do they benefit from making sure they are as cheap as possible to run for tax payers. In many cases, the incentives are actually quite perverse. Imagine that you task a governmental agency with deterring discrimination and encouraging the participation of a plurality of individuals in the labor market. That would be the job of the EEOC in the United States. What should the EEOC be doing? Ideally, we would like the EEOC to do such a good job as to put itself out of business... But, in reality, the political and social influence of managers and the jobs of hundreds of people hinge on the agency neither being disbanded, nor reduced. So, what you should expect from the EEOC is that it will always exaggerates the need for its services... If discrimination isn't happening on a grand scale, we'll expand the definition of discrimination; and if even this isn't enough, we will bully people into settling out of courts to use their settlements as evidence of rampant discrimination.
The mangement and the employees of the EEOC can profit from doing everything you wouldn't want them to do and, obviously, they can profit from exaggerating the amount of funds they need. Virtually none of what they do or of what they say can be trusted because there is a clear conflict of interest at play here -- and that's generally the incentives faced by bureaucratic organizations.