Complete Book PDF (4.12MB) - World Bank eLibrary

Construction Sector Corruption in Ethiopia 261
• All respondents considered it to be only “slightly” corrupt for a contractor
to fail to notify the client about the involvement of a subcontractor,
thus circumventing checks on capacity and competence.
• All respondents considered it to be either “somewhat” or “very” corrupt
for a contractor to arrange for the falsification of soil test results.
Though the numbers involved in this workshop were too small to
allow any firm conclusions to be drawn, they are consistent with a general
view expressed by domestic stakeholders that blatant corruption is unacceptable,
while less blatant forms may be regrettable but cannot realistically
be prevented. This in turn is consistent with the perception that
most serious corruption occurs at the shortlisting and bid evaluation
stages, and even then tends not to be at all blatant.
Within the context of minor operational-level corruption affecting
day-to-day operations, international participants with experience of
working in other developing countries generally expressed less concern
about levels of corruption than domestic respondents. This contrast
suggests that what a domestic respondent considers to be “high”
levels of such corruption may well be relatively low by international
standards. 7
No evidence was encountered of public officials declaring small gifts
understood to be given by grateful consultants and contractors. Clear
guidelines governing the disclosure of such gifts would serve to clarify
when the line is crossed between a gift and a bribe.
Cultural Paradoxes
In the course of the study, several cultural paradoxes became apparent
that help explain some of the perceptions of corruption in the sector:
• Lack of trust. This widely reported feature of attitudes within Ethiopia
could generate a false perception of corruption and could in theory
reduce the risk of conspiracy between corrupt parties. However, it
could equally generate a sense of being wronged or of being left out,
which can itself be used as a justification for corrupt behavior.
• Rigid hierarchical approach. This can ensure that due procedure is
followed, but equally can lead to flawed decisions when strict adherence
to the rules does not permit officials to use their judgment or
initiative. This can create both a motive for, and a perception of,
corruption.