On the surface, and in its conception, it is fantastic that PwC is providing a framework for Kurdistan to hold its government accountable. PwC has actually developed a business strategy around countering corruption, arguing that it is in the best interest of private business to have a fair and transparent government.
This concept goes hand-in-hand with recent theories and rhetoric in academic literature on post-conflict development. However, there are two major questions that have not been answered in this relationship. The KRG is paying PwC for its services in developing this anti-corruption system. Is PwC independent of restrictions from the KRG or is it developing a facade of transparency so that the population will perceive the government as fair? In other words, is PwC developing independent software so that the KRG can be effectively monitored?
The second question may be posed a bit to early for us to answer – is the program working? Obviously, the agreement was made in July, so results from the program are far away. However, taking a look at the status of PwC's activity could shed some light on the future effectiveness on this system and what steps can be taken to further this goal.
1 comment:
Yes, there are a lot of questions being raised privately in the KRG about the transparency of the Price Waterhouse deal. Does the man who pays the piper call the tune?
Post a Comment