Interestingly, work in a scientific collaboration (I happen to be part of a few, such as the ATLAS experiment at the CERN LHC) is pretty decoupled from money -- people get salaries and infrastructures from their respective institutes. So, within the Collaboration, assuming only one member per institute (this is not really the case in reality but can be close in some collaborations) there is no money involved in the services exchanged between collaborators. What one gains by doing a good and efficient collaborative work is the good result, and the right to co-sign the scientific paper, and, by playing a key role, to be known as a primary author.
Everything is organised around a project with a common goal. Anyone is welcome to join as long as one has relevant competencies within the project topic. Leaders are elected for their ability and motivation as much as their expertise in the subject in which they will take decisions. They don't get extra money for taking that decision-making role but they get status within the collaboration and generally they like to do it and strive to do it well. It's a pretty chaotic system -- there is no obvious "authority" with rights to impose things, and in principle everyone can have a say in every decision. There are written rules for keeping some kind of consistency in the organisation, but they can always be discussed and changed along the basic principles of efficiency and scientific integrity. People from all cultures work together and organise themselves to achieve their objectives. That's how it works in scientific collaborations, and it works quite well!
In an RBE, I can imagine public endeavours to be divided into a multitude of projects (like, building a bridge, a hospital, a farm, a school system, a transportation system...), and for each project, a community of workers with corresponding interests and competencies would get together, organise themselves, elect their leaders among the experts, and go ahead if the project also benefits from general public consent.
Such a system would be self-regulated by the same principle we have in science: that of peer review. Human affairs would be considered as being a set of projects and subprojects, and the coordination of such projects can itself be a project whose experts are "coordinators" (rather than governors). If needed, project proposals and follow-ups would also be evaluated by different groups around the world doing a similar job and cross-checking each other's work as in scientific peer review (actually in a way similar to how funding agencies evaluate proposals).