By Justine Wharton
This think piece was authored by Justine, building on the thoughts she shared during a session at the IMF-World Bank Annual Meetings in Bangkok this week (photo below, far left).
What if a major infrastructure project attracted several bidders, but those companies were ultimately all controlled by the same owner? Is that genuine competition – and what does it mean for value for money?
This is exactly what we found in Colombia, where the government, working with us at CoST – the Infrastructure Transparency Initiative, examined a multibillion-dollar infrastructure project. It appeared to have multiple bidders and, with that, meaningful competition. Yet when we examined beneficial ownership information, we found they were ultimately linked to the same overseas company.
The findings raised important questions about competition, particularly in a sector where infrastructure can be critical to national security, and demonstrated how beneficial ownership information can reveal risks that conventional procurement data may miss.
The IMF’s Article IV consultations increasingly recognise the economic significance of beneficial ownership transparency. And with governments spending billions on infrastructure annually, the stakes are high, add on top that the IMF estimates that up to 30% of infrastructure spending can be lost to corruption, inefficiency and mismanagement.
Beneficial ownership information in infrastructure is not just about tackling corruption, by shedding light on who controls companies and help identify connections between bidders, it can also spot market concentration, help investigate patterns of risk and open up competition. In doing this, I want to see businesses not only being information providers but information consumers too; using this information to inform commercial decisions.
Importantly, these benefits extend along the whole infrastructure project cycle. In Thailand, CoST has been working with the government to explore how linking ownership and infrastructure project data could reveal patterns in safety and performance; distinguishing isolated incidents from wider trends.
However, realising the wider potential of beneficial ownership information in infrastructure requires more than passing legislation or establishing ownership registers.
From collecting information to putting it to work
We have been working across Latin America, with support from the US Department of State, to show how much practical work sits between collecting beneficial ownership information and actually using it. Three lessons, amongst many, stand out.
1. Having BO information doesn’t mean the people who need it can access or use it
In Panama, despite a strong legal framework for collecting beneficial ownership information, the public procurement authority (DGCP) cannot access the government’s central register. Instead, it collects its own declarations for larger procurement procedures – a creative workaround seen elsewhere, but one that creates fragmentation challenges.
In Ecuador, some beneficial ownership information is publicly accessible, but mainly through individual searches and downloadable PDFs, making it difficult to analyse patterns across hundreds of infrastructure contracts – which is where the biggest value lies.
These two examples show, from different angles, that it is not enough to collect or publish beneficial ownership information. We need to consider who needs access, for what purpose, and how they can analyse it at scale – without creating new barriers.
2. Connecting institutions is just as important as connecting datasets
So, remember those workarounds I mentioned? They can create their own challenges. In Panama, two different government beneficial ownership systems use different regulatory thresholds for declaring ownership information.
Even where technical connections are possible, differences in definitions, identifiers and reporting requirements make data difficult to compare. Company, tax and procurement systems also operate under different rules. Connecting them requires institutional cooperation – not just technology.
These examples show that interoperability is not simply a technical question. A priority for governments is to develop a shared understanding of how institutions will share, interpret and use beneficial ownership information.
3. Start with the questions you want to answer, not the technology you want to build
A.I undoubtedly offers exciting possibilities for accelerating the beneficial ownership agenda. But before we get carried away, our work in Latin America has shown the value of consulting governments, businesses and civil society to understand who needs ownership information and why, before developing technological solutions.
Each country will have its own unique market needs, stakeholder demands and policy priorities. Some countries have shown more interest in identifying whether companies bidding for the same contract are politically connected, whereas others are keen to focus on whether ownership patterns reveal risks of market concentration.
Only once we know the questions we want to answer, should we examine what information already exists, what gaps need addressing and how we can make that information useful.
Simply put: start with users and real-world questions, then work backwards to the data and technology needed.
Turning transparency commitments into economic value
Beneficial ownership transparency should not be viewed simply as a compliance exercise or an anti-corruption measure. Used effectively, it can support better infrastructure investment decisions, fairer competition and greater confidence in infrastructure markets – benefitting governments, businesses and ultimately citizens.
Over the last ten years, much progress has been made on beneficial ownership commitments, with many countries now collecting beneficial ownership data in some form. The focus for the next ten should be on moving beyond collecting information towards actually using it to make infrastructure markets work better – and with AI, hopefully even just a little bit quicker!
Justine Wharton
Justine is Head of Advocacy and Communications at CoST, where she turns local evidence and impact from CoST’s members into global influence on policy and practice around integrity in infrastructure. Based in Asia, Justine works closely with our Asia members to tell their stories and raise their profile internationally.