Complete Book PDF (4.12MB) - World Bank eLibrary

258 Diagnosing Corruption in Ethiopia
Table 6.6
(continued)
Underlying factors affecting this risk in Ethiopia
Stakeholders report that it is relatively rare in Ethiopia for corrupt deals to be arranged based
on bribes amounting to a significant percentage of fees, paid on settlement of invoices. In
cases where a successful consultant or contractor does pass on a proportion of the income
from a project, it is more likely to be in the form of a small “thank you” paid either to an individual
with whom there is a special connection or to an agreed-on third party.
By contrast, the need for small facilitation payments to avoid deliberate delays in the
administrative process (as opposed to more substantial bribes paid to secure preferential
treatment) is fairly common—as is (albeit still reportedly on a smaller scale than elsewhere)
the falsification of supporting documents on which a certificate is based.
Corrective measures recommended by stakeholders in Ethiopia
• Increase civil service pay.
• Increase transparency so that projects are more accountable to the public.
Source: Author’s compilation.
a. Though accepted by other stakeholders as being plausible, these examples are neither backed by hard evidence
nor necessarily widespread in the sector.
Assessment of Corruption Risk in Ethiopia’s
Construction Sector
Direct Warning Signs
Based on the responses received, the construction sector in Ethiopia
appears to show most of the classic warning signs of the risk of corruption,
as generally described in the previous subsection, “Warning Signs of
Corruption in Construction.” These signs include the following:
• Poor-quality construction. There was strong stakeholder agreement with
the questionnaire statement, “There is a problem with poor-quality
construction.” This is not to suggest that infrastructure is necessarily of
poor quality at handover (though that was reported as sometimes
occurring), but it does clarify that tight supervision and control is
required to ensure that quality is maintained. Such tight controls are
not always in place.
• Inflated costs. There was strong stakeholder disagreement with the statement,
“Contracts are normally completed on budget,” pointing to a
high cost from claims and variations. In addition, unit output costs used
for budgeting purposes were rising at a rate that could not readily be
explained by rises in the cost of construction materials. This issue was
identified as warranting additional, more detailed study.
• Delays in implementation. There was strong stakeholder disagreement
with the statement, “It is rare for construction contracts to experience