Beyond Formal Adoption: Practitioner Evaluations of Anticorruption Measures in Public Construction Governance in the Global South: Evidence from Southern Iraq

Abstract

This study analyzes construction professionals’ assessment of 18 anticorruption measures categorized into regulatory, administrative, compliance, promotional, investigative, and disciplinary policy families in the context of southern Iraq. The analysis consists of 2936 valid ratings from 183 professionals, predominantly based in southern Iraq. It includes descriptive comparisons, respondent-cluster bootstrap inference, adjusted probability estimates, and thematic analysis of the open responses. Disciplinary and investigative measures were evaluated best and promotional measures were evaluated worst. Reported prior exposure was associated with more favorable evaluations of administrative, investigative, and disciplinary controls relative to promotional measures. More experienced respondents and those in governance and oversight positions gave less favorable ratings. Written responses highlighted the need for enforcement, independent oversight, administrative expertise and capability, transparent procurement, and protection from political interference. The results indicate that practitioners evaluate anticorruption measures partly in relation to the broader administrative process in which they operate. Institutional credibility is used as an interpretive framework, rather than a directly measured construct, to understand why measures connected to documentation, reporting, investigation, and consequences received different evaluations. The findings highlight the gap between adopting integrity controls and developing the administrative capacity and commitment needed to implement them.