By Petter Matthews, Executive Director 

This piece was also published in New Civil Engineer.

Governments are losing vast amounts of money on infrastructure every year. IMF estimates suggest that, on average, one third of countries’ infrastructure spending is wasted. With infrastructure accounting for around 20% of global public spending, this means trillions that should be building hospitals, schools, and roads are instead lost to inefficiency, mismanagement, and corruption. 

Yet, much of this loss – or the efforts to tackle it – goes unmeasured. That is a real problem. Because politicians, donors, businesses and the public struggle to get behind something they can’t see.  

Transparency is often presented as a governance principle. But in practice, it is much more: it is a powerful tool for improving financial performance.  

In a world of constrained budgets, reducing overseas development aid and competing priorities, that distinction matters. If transparency cannot demonstrate its value in financial terms, it will always struggle to compete for attention, funding, and political support. 

We decided to change that. 

At CoST – the Infrastructure Transparency Initiative – with support from the Government Transparency Institute – we developed a methodology that does something simple but long overdue: it puts a price tag on the impact of transparency, accountability, and participation in infrastructure. 

Across multiple countries, CoST members have already demonstrated that these approaches deliver tangible financial incentives. In Thailand, the Ministry of Finance reported savings of more than £70 million in a single year, driven in part by the deterrent effect of increased transparency in the infrastructure sector. In Uganda, the number of bids per tender increased more than sevenfold from 1.6 to 12.5 in just one year, following the implementation of the CoST approach. 

These are not isolated outcomes. We have repeatedly seen from our members that when transparency and accountability in infrastructure improves, markets function better, risks are reduced and public funds are used more effectively. 

But until now, there has been no consistent way to measure this impact across different contexts. Across the globe, governments and businesses have limited their ability to fully understand what is at stake, to make a compelling business case to investors and donors, and to equip national and international decision-makers with the evidence needed to drive reform. 

This is the gap our new methodology addresses. 

When the CoST approach is applied – through data publication, independent review, and active use of that data by local stakeholders – these are not simply governance improvements. They reshape incentives and deter poor behaviour. They influence who bids, how contracts are priced, how risks are managed, and how projects are delivered.  

Our methodology and accompanying guidance note provide a practical framework that any government can apply to measure the financial benefits of investing in transparency, accountability and participation in infrastructure investment. Using publicly available data, our methodology assesses factors such as competition, corruption risks, administrative efficiency, prices and quality. It then considers how transparency, accountability and participation interventions influence these factors. This is reflected in stronger competition, more consistent pricing, improved contract performance and better value for money. 

In short, transparency delivers measurable and bankable financial benefits, and our new methodology helps countries to prove it. 

That has important implications. Because once transparency, accountability and public participation in infrastructure investment can be quantified in financial terms, it stops being seen as an optional add-on. It becomes part of the routine procedures for maximising public investment. 

For governments, this means clear evidence for decision-making. For donors, it provides a stronger case for return on investment. For civil society and the private sector, it strengthens evidence for engagement. 

The question is no longer whether transparency is important. The question is now whether governments can afford not to demonstrate its financial value. 

This methodology provides a practical blueprint to do exactly that.