Sohail, M and Cavill, S (2008) Accountability to prevent corruption in construction projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 134(9), pp. 729-738. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The American Society of Civil Engineers claims that corruption accounts for an estimated $340 billion of worldwide construction costs each year. Corruption (including bribery, embezzlement, kickbacks, and fraud) in construction projects undermines the delivery of infrastructure services. Further, corruption poses significant risks to construction and engineering companies themselves. What progress has been made, therefore, in reducing the risk of corruption to construction projects? It is the purpose of this paper to argue that with improved accountability, attention to ethics and cultural considerations, and reduced corruption, it is possible to construct, operate, and maintain adequate quality and quantity of infrastructure on a more sustainable basis and thereby improve construction practice. This paper will demonstrate how accountability initiatives in construction projects in developed and developing countries can be of benefit internationally to the public and private sectors as well as nongovernment organizations and researchers in their efforts to reduce corruption in infrastructure services.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | engineering practice; ethics |
| Index terms: | construction project, corruption, civil engineer, accountability, developing country, fraud, society, ethics, construction cost, private sector |
| Subjects: | development economics, production management, liability law, communities and social development, professional ethics, industry analysis, profession, financial and cost management, ethical practice |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, International Construction, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Cost Management, Business Strategy, Project Management, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here