By John Hawkins
Infrastructure is the backbone of development, yet it remains one of the sectors most vulnerable to corruption. The stakes are enormous. Trillions of public dollars are invested globally each year, and the combination of high financial value, political decision-making, multiple delivery stages across multiple entities, and technical complexity creates a fertile environment for mismanagement and corruption.
However, there is hope. CoST member countries are demonstrating that when governments open up data and engage citizens, industry and media in using it – corruption risks can be dramatically reduced whilst the quality of infrastructure can improve.
At the core of this shift – and the CoST approach – is a simple proposition:
- publish the right data,
- validate it, and
- use it meaningfully to hold decision makers to account.
To do this we need to publish standardised, open data at each stage of the infrastructure project cycle, from project identification right through to handing over the built asset. This needs to be locally owned through a multi-stakeholder coalition, whereby governments engage with business and civil society partners to agree what data is needed to understand and address the integrity and performance risks of the sector. What is right for a metropolitan assembly in Ghana, will not be the same as what is right for Thailand with a population of over 70 million. Our 18 member governments deliver this data through using an international data standard we created with Open Contracting Partnership, called OC4IDS. Ecuador used it to publish data on 30,000 investments this year.
This amount of locally owned data is gold dust.
Thus, CoST works to support our member partners to use and analyse their data, including data analytics and tentative steps with AI. Critically we also have a methodology whereby civil engineers, architects and quantity surveyors can carry out a third-party independent review to dive into the publicly available data; turning technical data into key messages that we can all understand. Human expertise still matters and has helped identify issues that closed the roads fund in Honduras that had been corrupted by cartels, rectified poorly built roads and bridges in Ukraine (prior to the invasion), and ensured there was finance to complete the construction of a cancer hospital in Malawi that opened this July.
It is not just government that needs to use this data.
We encourage civic and business to enter into a constructive dialogue based on the evidence the data has generated. This helps to build trust and allow a space to be found ensuring firms are operating on a level playing field, whilst citizens receive the intended service. In Uganda, this has contributed to reforms that gave confidence to local firms to bid for contracts.
3 things the CoST approach teaches us:
Firstly, transparency can be a deterrent in itself and lead to macro-level cost savings. Our partners in the Comptroller General’s Department in the Ministry of Finance, Royal Thai Government, have published data based on our standard for thousands of investments. They wanted to understand if due to implementing the CoST approach there was any deterrent effect with firms submitting lower bids. Their methodology showed there was; indicating a saving of around 8-9% of contract value – which in 2024 alone they said saved them $70m.
Secondly, governments are incorporating data analytics as a core part of their open data platforms. The analytics are presented in a series of dashboards, typically around procurement, contract award, investors, delays, cost increases and in one case alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). However, we really need to consider how different stakeholder groups will meaningfully use this data to make those critical decisions.
For example, our partners in Nusa Tenggara Barat, Indonesia can see from the data analytics which parts of the province are not receiving sufficient funds to deliver their infrastructure needs. Whilst in Malawi, a new set of red flags triangulates the publicly available data with reports from community groups. For example, a citizen reporting an abandoned construction site can be triangulated with data field on contract cancellation.
Thirdly, the independent review process consistently identifies that project preparation is a critical risk area. With the World Bank, we recently analysed data from nearly 500 projects from 12 countries that had been part of the independent review process to better understand delays in infrastructure procurement. It consistently showed that whilst globally we may see the symptoms of delays appear in construction they are principally driven by incomplete designs, inadequate site information, poor feasibility studies etc.
This reflects a survey we carried out to understand the data civil society and the private sector are looking for to better understand the sustainability of infrastructure investment. To our surprise, the demand was for data around how projects are selected and appraised. Business wants to have sight of a future investment pipeline. Civil society wants to understand the potential services and wider benefits from the investment.
CoST has responded to develop new international data standard (OC4IDS) data points that will help us all to understand the integrity risks during project selection and appraisal and reduce the risk of what is termed ‘white elephant’ projects that are not needed and are drain on the taxpayer long after they are built.
4 issues that are magnifying corruption risks:
Firstly, the increasing complexity of financing infrastructure. I was in Zambia recently where I heard how energy investments were government to government, blended, climate finance, multi-lateral and so it goes on. Critically, investors want to be able to track that investment through public investment, procurement and contractual systems. The OC4IDS contains a unique project identifier that potentially helps to connect different platforms, datasets through the stages of an infrastructure investment.
Secondly, we also have a methodology for publishing an Infrastructure Transparency Index that has been applied in countries voluntarily. What has been fascinating is not necessarily the macro-level country score but comparing the scores of different agencies responsible for roads, energy, rails, housing etc. initially at a local level but then realising that there does seem to be sectoral patterns globally. Wherever we look, the power generation and transmission sector seems to score poorly compared to say a roads agency. We are keen to understand why this is the case, starting with energy but also infrastructure associated with critical minerals.
Thirdly, wherever I travel contractors always complain about not being paid on time with the contract terms seemingly irrelevant.
But can we be surprised if a contractor pays a bribe to have a payment certificate signed if it is a case of staying in business or going bust given the tight margins in the sector?
Prompt payment is an issue I am keen CoST works with the private sector and governments to help address.
Fourthly and finally, I would like to finish with a reflection on the recent corruption scandal in Philippines where the Senate identified that funding intended for flood defence systems had been syphoned off hundreds of systems that were paid for but never built. As an archipelago of islands that sees annually around 20 typhoons a year on top of its severe monsoon season, the consequences are severe.
This kind of corruption literally costs lives.
It is always terrible when funding is syphoned off, but this demonstrates how mitigating the risks of climate change with lifesaving infrastructure is threatened by corruption. CoST has developed a set of climate finance indicators which we are keen to see used by governments to allow us to determine if they do help to identify and mitigate climate integrity risks.
In summary, when data is turned into insight, it is worth its weight in gold – both for CoST’s and our member partners’ mission to deliver better public services, and deliver with integrity.
If you would like to join CoST and our members mission to build with integrity, and build better, find out more at the CoST website.
John Hawkins
John Hawkins is Programme Director at CoST where he is responsible for strategic development and overseeing member programmes. He is a specialist in UK and international procurement policy and governance in the infrastructure sector with extensive experience in the interaction between infrastructure procurement and social development.