The Impact of Corruption on Infrastructure Project Performance in Pakistan

Corruption remains a major concern in infrastructure procurement because it can affect public resources and project delivery. This study examines the barriers that affect the effective implementation of anti-corruption mechanisms (ACMS) in infrastructure procurement in Pakistan. Using qualitative evidence from 34 semi-structured interviews conducted as part of a doctoral research study on corruption in infrastructure procurement in Pakistan, the study explores the views of professionals involved in infrastructure procurement and project delivery. The participants included project managers, procurement professionals, consultants, contract managers and quality-assurance personnel with relevant infrastructure experience. The findings show that the effectiveness of ACMS is affected by several connected barriers. These barriers are mainly related to regulatory weaknesses, institutional limitations, procedural problems, political influence and behavioral factors. The study found that unclear or inconsistent rules, weak monitoring, limited institutional independence, weaknesses in complaint and reporting systems, political interference, fear of retaliation and limited knowledge can reduce the practical effectiveness of existing mechanisms. The findings also show that these barriers do not work separately. They can reinforce one another and create an implementation gap between the formal existence of anti-corruption mechanisms and their actual use in infrastructure procurement. For example, a reporting mechanism may exist formally, but its effectiveness can remain limited when employees do not trust the system, fear negative consequences or believe that complaints will not lead to appropriate action. The study contributes to understanding corruption in infrastructure procurement by bringing together barriers that limit ACMS implementation in Pakistan. It also highlights the importance of looking beyond formal rules and considering whether organizations have the independence, resources and capacity needed to apply them effectively. The findings have practical implications for procurement organizations, project managers and regulatory bodies. They suggest that improving anti-corruption performance requires clearer procedures, stronger monitoring, more independent institutions, better reporting arrangements, appropriate use of technology and greater protection for people who report wrongdoing.

corruption; infrastructure procurement; project performance; Pakistan; public infrastructure

1. Alsamarraie, M. M., & Mohd Ghazali, F. E. (2025). A novel framework for sustainable contracting process in organisational public procurement. International Journal of Construction Management. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2025.2565458 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Ambituuni, A. (2025). 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. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-02-2025-0273 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bowen, P. A., Akintoye, A., Pearl, R., & Edwards, P. J. (2007). Perceptions of bribery and corruption in the construction industry. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 14(3), 228–247. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Chikuni, A., Kumambala, P. G., Chasukwa, M., & Chinsinga, B. (2026). Are steering committees the governance fix in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) infrastructure projects? Scientific African, 31, e03152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2025.e03152 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Cui, Z., Wang, D., Casady, C. B., Yin, H., & Dong, A. (2024). Assessing the institutional- and project-level determinants of corruption in infrastructure projects: Evidence from World Bank-funded projects. ASCE OPEN: Multidisciplinary Journal of Civil Engineering, 2(1). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. https://doi.org/10.1061/AOMJAH.AOENG-0009 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Fazekas, M., & Tóth, B. (2018). The extent and cost of corruption in transport infrastructure: New evidence from Europe. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 113, 35–54. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.03.021 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Khadim, N., Jaffar, S. T. A., Ajwad, A., & Ilyas, U. (2021). Effects of corruption on public infrastructure projects in developing countries: The case of Pakistan. Jordan Journal of Civil Engineering, 15(4), 507–518. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Khan, A., Waris, M., Ismail, I., Sajid, M. R., Ali, Z., Ullah, M., & Hussain, A. (2019). Investigating the practices of project governance in public sector infrastructure program in Pakistan. Advances in Civil Engineering, 2019, 7436592. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/7436592 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Le, Y., Shan, M., Chan, A. P. C., & Hu, Y. (2014). Investigating the causal relationships between causes of and vulnerabilities to corruption in the Chinese public construction sector. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 140(9), 05014007. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000886 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Locatelli, G., Mariani, G., Sainati, T., & Greco, M. (2017). Corruption in public projects and megaprojects: There is an elephant in the room! International Journal of Project Management, 35(3), 252–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.09.010 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Owusu, E. K., Chan, A. P. C., & Shan, M. (2019). Causal factors of corruption in construction project management: An overview. Science and Engineering Ethics, 25(1), 1–31. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-0002-4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Santos, E. S. D., Santos, M. M. D., Castro, M., & Carvalho, J. T. (2025). Detection of fraud in public procurement using data-driven methods: A systematic mapping study. EPJ Data Science, 14, 52. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjds/s13688-025-00569-3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Shah, K., Ganiyu, S. A., & Zhu, X. (2022b). Qualitative analysis on causative indicators of corruption in infrastructure procurement (IP) of developing countries. GARI International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 8(2), 68–84. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Signor, R., Love, P. E. D., & Müller, R. S. (2026). Order statistics and the forensic detection of collusion in public infrastructure projects. Journal of the Operational Research Society. https://doi.org/10.1080/01605682.2026.2615821 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Siino, M., Iezzi, S., & Gara, M. (2026). Corruption risk indicators in public procurement: Definition and evaluation with organized crime data. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 105, 102429. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2026.102429 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• A Decadal Overview of Welfare Schemes in Telangana (2014–2024)
• Ubuntu and the Missed Development Goals in the Global South: Rethinking MDGs and SDGs through an African Philosophical Lens
• Exploring the Factors of Obesity: Insights from Johor State Civil Servants
• Navigating the Nexus: Challenges Faced by Part-Time Postgraduate Government Employees in Malaysia
• The Lived Experiences of Skilled Filipino Women Immigrants in Denmark