Complete Book PDF (4.12MB) - World Bank eLibrary

Education Sector Corruption in Ethiopia 103
• At the federal level, there has been a major capital program to construct
13 new universities. Commissioned and funded by the MOE,
this ongoing program is jointly supervised by GTZ International Services,
which is the project management and implementation agency
with the primary task of capacity development. The objectives of the
University Capacity Building Program (UCBP) extend beyond the construction
of 13 universities, with a total capacity for more than 120,000
students. In addition, it is intended that the Ethiopian construction sector
be modernized, and its competitiveness in the national and international
markets improved. In 2009, following an independent review of
corruption risks, the UCBP introduced a comprehensive Project Anti-
Corruption System (PACS), an accountability mechanism described
within the “Other Study Findings” section below.
Collusion with contractor when planning the construction or maintenance
of facilities—risk: low. Survey responses from public officials suggest that
corruption in contracting is considered to be rare but roughly twice as
likely as corruption in service provision, with 12 percent of respondents
considering corruption in contracting to be “widespread.” Collusion
between contractors and procuring officials is therefore considered to
be a distinct possibility, albeit in relation to a relatively low level of
expenditure.
Within the UCBP, such collusion is unlikely to succeed because it
would also require collusion from the international managers involved.
Given that part of the mandate of these managers is specifically to
strengthen good governance, any such collusion would be unlikely.
Misappropriation of building funds by public officials and/or community
leaders—risk: medium. At the local level, secondary sources report a significant
loss of community contributions across the country, thus constituting
a high area of corruption risk.
The context here is a strong reported willingness on the part of communities
to mobilize for the construction of schools. This is associated
with a positive attitude toward education and a local awareness of the
costs and risks of sending children to schools farther away. Communities
are therefore often more than willing to contribute labor and sometimes
cash for the construction of schools. However the cash that communities
contribute does not fall on-budget and is not monitored and audited to
the same degree as public monies.