Project selection and budgeting driven by political influence
Project selection, budget and pipeline decisions are shaped by patronage or political influence rather than transparent project selection criteria, public need, and value-for-money (VfM).
Red Flags & Indicators
- Lack of clear objectives and decision-making criteria to drive project selection and prioritisation.
- Selection criteria are bypassed, inconsistently applied, or changed without recorded justification or published criteria.
- Projects enter, shift, or drop from the budget and pipeline with limited appraisal documentation and justification.
- Political influence is decisive in advancing project selection and prioritisation and in bypassing approval processes, with political donations, campaign financing, and informal contributions linked to these decisions.
- Appraisal evidence is weak, missing, or not used in decision-making and approval processes.
- Lack of pre-feasibility/feasibility analyses to assess project viability prior to approval processes.
Stakeholder Guidance
Stakeholder Exposure
Exposure includes reputational risk; unfair competition pressures; and potential exclusion from future works.
Decision Point
Before early engagement and bid/no‑bid decision, assess whether project identification is based on documented criteria, and pause/exit if project selection depends on informal influence.
Mitigation Actions
• Adequate record keeping of all engagement with officials, sponsors and intermediaries (including date, attendees, topics, commitments).
• Adopt a zero-tolerance policy regarding facilitation payments and unmanaged gifts or hospitality.
• Whistleblower policy for reporting and handling unethical or illegal activities within the organisation.
• Request that authorities publish clear guidelines on project selection criteria and disclose project appraisal documentation if not publicly available.
• Use formal public administrative mechanisms to challenge unclear selection criteria.
Mitigation Resources
Screen sponsors, partners, agents, advisers, and other counterparties linked to project pipeline and budget decisions; verify beneficial ownership, PEP, sanctions, and related-party risks, and escalate concerns or refrain from proceeding where red flags remain unresolved.
Counterparty integrity screening and due diligence — https://toolbox.infrastructuretransparency.org/resource/counterparty-integrity-screening-and-due-diligence/Review publicly disclosed project pipeline and budget records before early engagement or bid/no-bid decisions; identify disclosure gaps, missing reasons for approval, or unexplained changes, and raise concerns about non-disclosure with an oversight body.
Transparency and data disclosure standards — https://toolbox.infrastructuretransparency.org/resource/transparency-and-data-disclosure-standards/Failure Cases
Good Practices
Stakeholder Exposure
Exposure includes financing politically driven projects with weak appraisal and limited analysis of environmental and social viability; higher fraud risk; and impaired returns.
Decision Point
Before committing resources, confirm that selection and budgeting followed transparent and robust appraisal processes with credible needs and value-for-money evidence.
Mitigation Actions
• Conduct governance, integrity, environmental and social due diligence on key counterparties
• Include disclosure covenants and verification/audit rights
• Use independent technical and integrity advisers for higher‑risk contexts and thematic areas such as land use, traditional local communities, cultural heritage, biodiversity and conservation
• Adoption of staged financing, milestone reporting and disclosure obligations
Mitigation Resources
Conduct integrity due diligence on sponsors, investees, and key counterparties linked to the investment case; screen for political exposure, related-party risks, and other integrity red flags, and use conditions, covenants, monitoring, and escalation rights to delay, condition, or decline commitment where concerns remain unresolved.
Investor integrity due diligence and monitoring — https://toolbox.infrastructuretransparency.org/resource/investor-integrity-due-diligence-and-monitoring/Review publicly disclosed project pipeline, appraisal, and budget records before commitment; identify disclosure gaps, missing reasons for approval, or unexplained changes, and raise concerns about non-disclosure with an oversight body.
Transparency and data disclosure standards — https://toolbox.infrastructuretransparency.org/resource/transparency-and-data-disclosure-standards/Evaluate the appraisal evidence, assumptions, costs, benefits, and scenarios underpinning project selection; benchmark alternatives and require revision or escalation where value-for-money, viability, or cost estimates appear unreliable.
Appraisal and cost-estimate assurance — https://toolbox.infrastructuretransparency.org/resource/appraisal-and-cost-estimate-assurance/Failure Cases
Good Practices
Stakeholder Exposure
Exposure includes misallocation of public resources; weak value-for-money decisions; reputational and audit risk; service gaps from low priority projects; and loss of public trust.
Decision Point
Before project and budget approval, approve and disclose the selection rationale and criteria.
Mitigation Actions
• Publish selection criteria, scoring, and pipeline changes with reasons
• Maintain and publish a decisions log with reasons for the priorities selected and a document version history
• Separate political decision making from technical appraisal bodies
• Adopt appraisal with mandatory feasibility analysis prior to project approval and justification in cases where feasibility requirements are exempted
• Adopt appraisal with independent review for high‑value projects
• Require conflict-of-interest and beneficial ownership checks for decision makers and advisers in approval processes
• Adopt multistakeholder working at strategic level decision-making of infrastructure policies and programs, with civil society participation
Mitigation Resources
Evaluate the assumptions, costs, benefits, and scenarios underlying proposed pipeline entries; benchmark and challenge cases where the appraisal does not provide a reliable basis for selection or budget allocation.
Appraisal and cost-estimate assurance — https://toolbox.infrastructuretransparency.org/resource/appraisal-and-cost-estimate-assurance/Publish and maintain public access to project pipeline records, including selection criteria, scoring, budget decisions, reasons for approval, and reasons for subsequent changes.
Transparency and data disclosure standards — https://toolbox.infrastructuretransparency.org/resource/transparency-and-data-disclosure-standards/Apply stage-gate reviews, readiness checks, and documented approval logs before approving pipeline entries; return proposals for further appraisal where readiness, strategic justification, or value-for-money is not evidenced.
Stage-gate governance and independent assurance — https://toolbox.infrastructuretransparency.org/resource/stage-gate-governance-and-independent-assurance/Failure Cases
Good Practices
Stakeholder Exposure
Exposure includes reduced service delivery and misdirected investment; limited access to decision making processes; and poor accountability when priorities are set behind closed doors.
Decision Point
During budget cycle allocation and/or pipeline publication, submit access to information to request appraisal documentation. Decide whether to challenge the evidence (lack of criteria for selection, incomplete or inconsistent appraisal, unreliable assumptions) or hold while building evidence.
Mitigation Actions
• Use access to information to request clarification regarding rationale and criteria of project selection
• Advocate for early, inclusive social consultation before key decisions are locked in
• Engage oversight bodies to report on suspicions of undue influence (use safe, confidential reporting and anonymisation where retaliation risk is material)
Mitigation Resources
Request access to non-public decision records, such as selection justifications, appraisal notes, records of budget changes, or reasons for approval, so unexplained additions, removals, or reprioritisation can be examined and raised through oversight channels.
Access-to-information and demand-side transparency — https://toolbox.infrastructuretransparency.org/resource/access-to-information-and-demand-side-transparency/Review publicly disclosed project pipeline records at an early stage; identify disclosure gaps, missing selection justifications, or unexplained budget changes, and raise concerns about non-disclosure with an oversight body.
Transparency and data disclosure standards — https://toolbox.infrastructuretransparency.org/resource/transparency-and-data-disclosure-standards/