The private sector and government both commit to transparency in the way infrastructure is planned and delivered – but are their actions actually working? David Zamora investigates.
“Transparency” in the way we do infrastructure is easy to agree with – but notoriously hard to deliver. Across global infrastructure markets, trillions of dollars are invested each year. Yet up to 30% of this investment is still lost to inefficiency, mismanagement and corruption. For investors, engineers, contractors and governments alike, this translates into real risks to cost overruns, delays, and weak project delivery.
The private sector and government both commit to transparency in the way infrastructure is planned and delivered. Commitments are made. Platforms are launched. Data is published. But too often, no one is answering the hard question of – is any of it actually working? The Infrastructure Transparency Index (ITI), developed by CoST – the Infrastructure Transparency Initiative, answers it. It also goes one step further in turning insight into driving action.
Transparency is not enough
Transparency alone does not improve infrastructure outcomes. The value of transparency lies in what it enables – better contracting, earlier identification and mitigation of risks and stronger oversight and accountability.
And this is what published infrastructure project data can deliver if it is complete, reliable and used. Used by the private sector to inform tender decisions, used by investors to assess and price risk, used by governments to inform commissioning decisions and used by the public to hold decision makers to account. Yet in many cases, infrastructure information remains fragmented, inconsistent, or inaccessible which limits its value and reduces clarity across the project lifecycle.
For the private sector, this lack of clarity increases uncertainty. Procurement processes are harder to navigate. Conflicts of interest are not identified in time. Changes to project scope, costs and timelines are not always visible. Risks can be identified too late.
The ITI approaches transparency differently. It assesses not just whether information exists, but whether the system around it functions in practice. It does this across four dimensions. The enabling environment, institutional capacity, the quality and completeness of data and whether citizens, private sector delivery partners and governments meaningfully use that information. This provides a more realistic picture of whether transparency is actually reducing risk and improving delivery.
Reducing risk and improving confidence
What distinguishes the ITI from many global indices is that it is designed to be used. Countries are not just scored but receive practical recommendations that can be implemented to improve systems, processes and outcomes.
Built on a methodology that is objective, replicable for free, and internationally comparable, we have already seen the ITI drive improvement in every country where it has been applied to date. Costa Rica, for example, increased its relative score by 41% over four years, while Panama saw a 40.9% increase and Uganda a 55% increase within three years.
Countries applying the ITI are using it to move beyond fragmented systems towards integrated, usable infrastructure data that drives better infrastructure delivery.
In Ecuador, over 32,000 projects are now visible through a national platform aligned with international standards, making it possible to see where public money is going and identifying new risks and improving accountability. In Panama, infrastructure and procurement systems have been integrated, alongside automated monitoring tools to strengthen oversight. In Costa Rica, repeated ITI assessments have driven legal reforms and measurable improvements in project performance. In West Lombok, Indonesia, the approach has been embedded locally, creating a system for managing and using project data to inform planning and delivery. In Uganda, ITI findings led to safety interventions in poorly managed projects.
For investors and private sector delivery partners, this matters. Better transparency systems reduce uncertainty, strengthen oversight, reduce risk and improve confidence in how infrastructure is planned and delivered.
ITI – case for change
If transparency cannot be measured, it cannot be improved. And if information is not used, it does not reduce risk. For the private sector, the ITI offers greater clarity and reduced uncertainty. For governments, the ITI offers a pathway to better use of funding. And for infrastructure as a whole, it supports better outcomes.
If you’re interested in finding out more, take a look at this story on the COST website or visit the Infrastructure Transparency Index
David Zamora is the Infrastructure Transparency Index international coordinator for CoST – the Infrastructure Transparency Initiative.
