Ambituuni, A. (2026) Infrastructure transparency initiative and anticorruption in public infrastructure projects: A principal-agent perspective to the antecedents that enable (or hinder) the effectiveness of transparency. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 33(7), pp. 5934-5957. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose – Many transparency initiatives, such as the Open Contracting Partnership, the Open Government Partnership and Infrastructure Transparency Initiative (also known as the Construction Sector Transparency Initiative and widely called CoST) have been used to fight corruption in public infrastructure projects (PIPs). However, questions remain about what antecedents enable (or hinder) the effectiveness of transparency in combating corruption within PIPs, as well as the typology of agency relationships that emerge in response to these antecedents. Design/methodology/approach – Expanding the principal–agent theory, this paper adopts a qualitative approach to investigate the CoST transparency initiative. Interview data (n = 25) was collected and thematically analysed to examine how the CoST norm is enacted and to analyse the antecedents that enable (or hinder) the effectiveness of transparency in combating corruption. Findings – The paper identifies the political, process and implementation antecedents that ensure that CoST features are enacted. This includes developing local capabilities, public engagement and site visits to establish assurance capabilities. It also includes nurturing dynamic political relationships, understanding local drivers and their shifting dynamics, adjusting accordingly and accepting to work with vested or corrupt interests to develop a multi-stakeholder approach to enacting transparency in PIPs. The theoretical contribution is discussed in relation to the identified typologies of agency relationships that emerge in light of these antecedents and when transparency is used to fight corruption in PIPs. Originality/value – The paper contributes to the infrastructure and construction project management literature by theoretically expanding the discussion on the enactment of transparency for anticorruption outcomes in PIPs, and the implications of the agency relationships that emerge. The managerial contribution of the paper calls for project professionals to recognise and navigate the vulnerabilities identified within the typologies of the agency relationships when enacting transparency to fight corruption.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | (anti)corruption; accountability; infrastructure transparency initiative; principal–agent theory; public infrastructure projects; transparency |
| Index terms: | public engagement, implementation, dynamics, agency, construction sector, accountability, construction project management, qualitative approach, methodology, interview, partnership, transparency, corruption, effectiveness, public infrastructure, vulnerability, agent |
| Subjects: | project management theory and practice, professional ethics, participation process, liability law, environmental hazards, systems engineering, professional development, practitioner, infrastructure and transport systems, research methods, contractual arrangements, industry analysis, sociology, partnership management, performance management, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Project Management, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Quality Management, Information Management, Procurement, Stakeholder Management, Engineering Principles, Legal Issues, Sustainability |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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