03.06.2015 Views

Complete Book PDF (4.12MB) - World Bank eLibrary

Complete Book PDF (4.12MB) - World Bank eLibrary

Complete Book PDF (4.12MB) - World Bank eLibrary

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

256 Diagnosing Corruption in Ethiopia<br />

Table 6.5<br />

(continued)<br />

By contrast, there are cases in which the construction operations are characterized by a high<br />

degree of transparency, high professional standards, and effective controls where corrupt<br />

practices may occur but are the exception rather than the norm. The relative absence of<br />

corruption in such cases does not necessarily mean that the overall project is unaffected, as<br />

corrupt deals may have been completed at an earlier stage and effectively built into the<br />

unit rates.<br />

Indicators of such risks as perceived in Ethiopia<br />

Specific<br />

General<br />

• Contracts rarely completed on budget<br />

• Many contracts typically delayed significantly<br />

• Some contractors submit exaggerated claims<br />

• Often a problem with poor-quality construction<br />

• Some contractors knowingly underbid then<br />

recoup costs through variations<br />

• Weak enforcement of professional<br />

standards<br />

• Difficult for public to obtain<br />

information<br />

Examples reported by stakeholders as having recently occurred in Ethiopia a<br />

• Consultant overdesigns, contractor builds to standard, and savings are shared out.<br />

• Contractor fails to notify client of the identity and involvement of a subcontractor.<br />

• Client instructs contractor to include additional works without first consulting the consultant.<br />

• Member of consultant’s staff is engaged by the contractor as subcontractor.<br />

• Contractor fails to notify client of the involvement of a subcontractor, thus avoiding checks.<br />

• Member of consultant’s soils laboratory staff is paid by contractor to falsify test results.<br />

• Contractor’s and consultant’s staffs exaggerate quantities to take advantage of high unit<br />

rates entered for ghost items at the tendering stage.<br />

• Contractor submits exaggerated claim for variations.<br />

• Contractor conceals construction defects or improperly influences client or consultant to<br />

accept substandard materials<br />

• Consultant or contractor submits falsified documentation.<br />

• Plant hire company receives exaggerated payments as result of falsified utilization records.<br />

Underlying factors affecting this risk in Ethiopia<br />

Despite the wide range of specific examples provided by stakeholders, such instances<br />

were in most cases reported as being the exception rather than the norm and considered<br />

to be rare in those high-spending agencies (such as ERA) where relatively strong controls<br />

are in place. This is in keeping with the perception that, at earlier stages, it is rare for contractors<br />

or consultants to agree to a specific percentage payment to a client official. In<br />

stakeholder consultations, the relatively blatant forms of corruption described here were<br />

generally considered to be more corrupt than those at earlier stages, thus tended to be<br />

frowned upon and resisted.<br />

Corrective measures recommended by stakeholders in Ethiopia<br />

• Build capacity to manage and supervise construction using all available tools.<br />

• Increase transparency so that projects are more accountable to the public.<br />

Source: Author’s compilation.<br />

a. Though accepted by other stakeholders as being plausible, these examples are neither backed by hard<br />

evidence nor necessarily widespread in the sector.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!